Investigating Employee Job Satisfaction: A Dissertation Analysis

This dissertation investigates the relationship between pay, benefits, and employee job satisfaction, focusing on Guinness Nigeria PLC. The study explores whether wages and salaries, regular benefits and rewards, and perceived organizational support contribute to job satisfaction. The research employs both qualitative and quantitative methods, including primary and secondary data collection, to analyze the factors influencing employee satisfaction. Key findings reveal insights into employee perceptions of wages, benefits, and organizational support, and the study offers recommendations for organizations to enhance employee satisfaction. The dissertation examines job satisfaction along dispositional and behavioral dimensions, providing a comprehensive analysis of the factors that contribute to employee well-being and organizational effectiveness. The study aims to provide practical insights for managers and researchers, contributing to a better understanding of employee motivation and satisfaction in the workplace.

DISSERTATION
EDITING
1

2

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
Employee satisfaction is of enormous importance for an organization that wishes to enjoy
long-term success. It is perhaps in recognition of the importance of employee motivation and
satisfaction that management scholars have put forward several theories. Job satisfaction is
considered along dispositional and behavioural dimensions alone. The happy employees are
satisfied employees and therefore they accept and believe in the organization’s goals, and give
their best towards the attainment of such goals. In this regard, the following research questions will
be investigated:
 Does wages and salaries satisfaction lead to job satisfaction?
 Is regular benefit and reward associated with job satisfaction?
 Is perceived organizational support associated with job satisfaction?
Background
The present study attempts to investigate the relationship between pay and employees job
satisfaction. It is proved that satisfied employees perform more effectively and satisfied from
their jobs. Employees have different needs; salary and benefits are not the only important factors
for their satisfaction. The issue of employee motivation and satisfaction is one of the oldest
problems in management theory and practice which is need to be resolved so that satisfaction
level among employees can be increased.
Methods
The research has been conducted with the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods.
Explanatory design has been used in the study which investigate the relationship between pay
and employees job satisfaction. The research is of qualitative type as it utilizes qualitative
methods of data analysis. Data has been collected by using primary and secondary methods. Data
has been collected by using primary and secondary methods. In order to attain this and also
prepare for contingency, a sample size of 150 was chosen by selecting 44% of the total number
of staff in each department. Secondary data was collected from, journals, books, government reports
etc.
Findings and Recommendations
4

From the finding it is identified that there are many employees who are disagreed that
local communities not satisying with those tasks which are done by them. Further, within the
organization employees are only provided less salary and there is no less benefits is provided to
them. The most obvious recommendation proceeding from this research is that organizations
and the managers who run them should pay employees good wages and salaries, good enough to
ensure that employees can meet their basic needs and even have money left over for
discretionary spending.
5

CHAPTER ONE
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
According to Pfeffer (1998), the key to an organization’s long-term success depends
upon by giving meaningful work to the employees, & keeping the employees happy, thus by
helping in boosting up the organisational effectiveness” (Moynihan & Pandy, 2007).
Consequently, employee satisfaction is of enormous importance for an organization that wishes
to enjoy long-term success. It is perhaps in recognition of the importance of employee
motivation and satisfaction that management scholars have put forward several theories. To
explain employee satisfaction and attempt to provide templates that practitioners can use to
foster employee satisfaction in the workplace (Hausknecht, Miller, & Vance, 2008). Hence, the
issue of employee motivation and satisfaction is one of the oldest problems in management
theory and practice, (Robbins & Judge, 2013). Along with this it is one of the mostly used
variables in management (Visser & Coetzee, 2005).
It has been argued that motivated employees give their best on the job if they have a
high need for achievement (McClelland, 1961), if they derive fulfillment from the job (Herzberg,
1968), if their needs are met (Maslow, 1954), and if they are given stretch goals (Locke, 1968).
And of course, researchers have suggested that the wages and other benefits employees derive
from their jobs play a significant part in their satisfaction as well. Why is employee job
satisfaction important? Firstly the happy employees are satisfied employees (Gregory, 2008),
and therefore they accept and believe in the organization’s goals, and give their best towards the
attainment of such goals (Simon 1997). Secondly, between job satisfaction and workplace a
strong correlations have been found (Buitendach & De Witte, 2005). Third, the significant
predictor of employee well being of job satisfaction. (Sousa-Poza, 2000). At last employee job
satisfaction is thought to affect the organization’s performance in the long-term, whether in terms
of customer satisfaction, revenues, or profits (Manalel & Joy, 2016). Of course, employees have
different needs; salary and benefits are not the only important factors for their satisfaction
(Zohouri, Rezaei, & Jorfi, 2007). However, increases wage levels have direct implications on
6

employees well-being (Diener et al, 1992), and it can, be legitimately expected to affect
employee satisfaction.
The question then arises: how can organizations (and the managers who lead them) know
if they are satisfying their employees? There are no simple answers to this question because
employee satisfaction is a multidimensional construct that has many causes- both intrinsic and
extrinsic (Moynihan & Pandy, 2007).
Nevertheless, it may be possible to identify in what ways extrinsic factors such as pay and
benefits affect employee satisfaction (Moynihan & Pandy, 2007). It would also be valuable to
know that the effects are (both positive and negative) of employee satisfaction with pay, and
role which they plays in their overall job satisfaction. More importantly, it would be valuable to
know if, and to what extent, regular wage increase fosters employee satisfaction. Finally, it is
easy to understand the extent to which employee job satisfaction correlates to other
organizational variables such as both organizational support and commitment. All of these are
what this study will investigate and attempt to understand. It is expected that the results of the
study will be beneficial to the empirical understanding of the dynamics affecting and producing
employee satisfaction in the workplace. As such, it is expected that this study will help both the
researchers and practitioners alike.
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Management theorists and practitioners alike agree that one of the most useful factor is
job satisfaction which helps in determining the extent to which people give their best to the
organizations they work for (Ostroff, 1992). One of the central concerns of management theory, ,
is the ways managers can increase employee job satisfaction in their organizations. Along with
this the way- managers can help their people to attain a psychological state in which they are
committed to the organization , and voluntarily want to give their best for it (Tella, 2007). Like
every other thing that involves human beings, however, there are bound to be several factors that
could account for the state of job satisfaction of a group of employees (Arvey & Carter, 1991),
so it would be naïve to attribute it to one factor alone. Nevertheless, pay (including wages and
benefits) seems to play a very significant role (Judge et al, 2001). To that extent, satisfaction
with wages and benefits (called pay satisfaction) is a key component of overall job satisfaction
(Edwards, Bell & Decuir, 2008).
7

However, to what extent does pay to affect employee job satisfaction? In the past, researchers
assumed that there is direct, linear and positive relationship between pay and employee
satisfaction. For example t, the higher an employee’s pay, the more satisfaction they have in their
job (Robbins & Judge, 2013). Over time, however, this point of view began to give way to a
more formal view between employee and their pay. Namely, that while employees are unlikely
to be satisfied with a job that pays them poorly, remuneration ceases to be an important predictor
of employee job satisfaction once pay gets past a certain threshold (Spector, 1997). This suggests
that the other employees who are highly paid may be dissatisfied with their jobs if there are
other things about the job (such as job profile, promotion, opportunities for advancement, time
off, etc.) that adversely impact the satisfaction they derive from it (Luthans, 2007). In light of
these, how does one untangle the effects of pay on employee satisfaction? At what point
specifically does pay cease to correlate positively with satisfaction of employees and of all the
factors that influence it, how important is pay relative to other factors?
Either for a lack of understanding of the consequences of their actions or just for the sake
of maximizing shareholder value, many managers create systems that seem designed to tear
down their employees’ self-esteem. Consequently, employee satisfaction plummets. Managers
then wonder why employees won’t give their best, why they aren’t ‘loyal’ to the organization,
and why they would jump ship (i.e. leave the organization) at even the slightest opportunity. But
it is highly unlikely that employees would give their best to their organizations if they don’t feel
valued by the organization, if they feel unappreciated, or even abused outright. To that extent,
perceived organizational support plays an important (howbeit intangible) role in employee
satisfaction.
But what specific aspects of POS are positively correlated to employee satisfaction? Do
managers have any control over employees’ POS? And if they do have control over POS, what
specific things should managers do (or restrain from doing) if they want to foster it? And to what
extent will these actions foster or improve employee satisfaction? It is against this backdrop that
this research will attempt to deconstruct the relation between wages and benefits and employee
satisfaction. The underlying idea being that job satisfaction, though intangible, is very real, and
can be felt and described by the members of an organization.
8

1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The general goal of this study is to investigate the relationship between pay and employees job
satisfaction. Specifically, the study will:
1.To Investigate the relationship between pay satisfaction and job satisfaction.
2. To Examine if benefit and reward are associated with job satisfaction.
3. To Determine if the support of the organization has a positive relationship with job
satisfaction.
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
It will be conducted to answer the following questions:
1. Does wages and salaries satisfaction lead to job satisfaction?
2. Is regular benefit and reward associated with job satisfaction?
3. Is perceived organizational support associated with job satisfaction?
1.5 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
This research influence of wages and benefits on employee job satisfaction. However, it
is an extremely broad concept. To that end, this section delineates the areas of job satisfaction
that are covered in this.
Employee job satisfaction can manifest in the form of a cognitive judgment (Weiss &
Cropanzano, 1996), as a disposition or an affective experience (Judge & Larson, 2001), as a
product of social influence (Zalesny and Ford, 1990), and employee satisfaction can also act as a
function of the job as well (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). In addition, employees manifest job
satisfaction or dissatisfaction in their behaviour (Harrison, Newman & Roth, 2006) i.e. in terms
the Exit, Voice, Loyalty and Neglect model (Robbins & Judge, 2013). Clearly, it is hardly
feasible for a study of this nature to cover every facet of job satisfaction exhaustively.
Consequently, job satisfaction will be considered along dispositional and behavioural
dimensions alone. The dispositional dimension will deal with employees’ affective states with
regards to their evaluation of the job, while the behavioural dimension will deal with actions
9

employees take (such as citizenship behaviour, absenteeism, tardiness, or turnover) that suggest
either satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the job.
Finally, this study is limited to Guinness Nigeria PLC, a publicly listed alcoholic
beverage company with its Nigerian headquarters in Lagos. However, the study will focus on the
professional cadre of employees at the company, such as human resource professionals,
accountants, sales, marketing and branding professionals, legal practitioners, and other categories
of knowledge workers.
1.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
It also has several potential practical applications:
Firstly, the study suggests steps top management can take to foster employee satisfaction
in the workplace in the sense that it could help managers see more clearly the differences
between intrinsic and extrinsic sources of employee satisfaction. Wages and benefits, for
instance, have been identified as extrinsic sources of employee satisfaction. Nevertheless, wages
and benefits alone are unlikely to be all-effective in producing employee satisfaction. To that
extent, managers must be aware of other intrinsic sources of employee satisfaction so as to help
them understand the dynamics governing each source of employee satisfaction, and therefore
how to manage employees in ways that maximize the benefits offered by both sources. This
enables managers to align compensation systems with the behaviours and results they desire to
see in their employees.
Secondly, the study could serve as a useful template for designing organization
compensation system. Based on the discussion of findings in this study, practising managers can
understand the role that expectancies and perceived equities play in employee satisfaction and
dissatisfaction with the organization’s pay and compensation systems generally. This can help
managers ensure that expectations are clear, and can help them detect and eliminate whatever
inequities may exist in the organization’s compensation systems.
Third, this study suggests that managers should take employees’ needs into account when
they design compensation systems. All employees aren’t at the same need level. Therefore, it is
imperative that managers tailor compensation to meet employees’ individual needs, not just
apply broad strokes that assume everybody wants, and are motivated by the same things. The
10

study could, therefore, help managers create buy-in to the organization’s espoused values by
helping them align their behaviours to be more in line with the results that they want to get.
1.7 DEFINITION OF CONCEPTS
The following concepts are central to this research: job satisfaction, pay satisfaction and
perceived organizational support.
Job satisfaction is “a feeling of enjoyment that a person derives from their job” (Locke,
1976).
Pay satisfaction is defined as the “ positive or negative feelings that a person have
towards its pay”. (Miceli & Lane, 1991).
Perceived organizational support (POS) refers “ to employees believes concerning the
extent to which employees believe the organization values their contribution and cares about
their well-being” (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).
11

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERATURE REVIEW
It is divided into six sections. The first section discusses work in pre-industrial society,
tracing the evolution and organization of work in pre-industrial society, and linking that to the
changing conditions of work at the dawn of industrialization. The implications of these for
worker satisfaction in the industrial age are discussed. The second section introduces the concept
of job satisfaction, including its nature, correlates, antecedents, consequences, and measurement.
The third section introduces the concept of pay satisfaction and deals with the influence of wages
and benefits on employee job satisfaction. The fourth section deals with the relevance of pay and
other benefits in contemporary organizations, including for such issues as job satisfaction, job
performance and organizational growth. The fifth section deals with issues relating to perceived
organizational support and its relationship to job satisfaction. And the sixth and final section sets
forth the theoretical framework on which this study is based, viz: John Adams’ Equity Theory,
and Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. The gaps in knowledge in the literature reviewed
are identified and discussed, leading to the conclusion.
2.2 WORK IN PRE-INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY
‘Work’ is defined as “ to be engaged in mental and physical activity, in order to achieve a
result like the production of goods and services that satisfy to human needs” (Giddens, 2009). In
this sense, ‘work’ is somewhat different from ‘occupation’- which is “work that is done in
exchange for a fixed wage or salary” (Giddens, 2009). The purpose of this section is to trace the
evolution of work from pre-industrial times to the emergence of the Industrial Revolution, and
thereby to show how work organization has evolved up to the present time since the legacy of
the Industrial Revolution is still very much alive and thriving.
2.2.1 Evolution and Organization of Work in Pre-Industrial Society
Historians and anthropologists alike have identified at least four kinds of societies that
existed before the advent of industrialization, in terms of the organization of work and the
12

functioning of the economy- hunting and gathering societies, pastoral societies, agrarian
societies, and traditional societies or civilizations (Giddens, 2009).
Hunting and gathering societies are made up of very small numbers of people who survive by
hunting game and gathering edible plants. They lacked the capacity to domesticate crops and
animals, and therefore typically roamed vast distances in search of food (Giddens, 2009).
Agrarian societies were those who gained their livelihood primarily through agriculture,
supplemented by hunting and gathering (Giddens, 2009). Pastoral societies depended on
domesticated animals for their subsistence, although in many of the societies, they had mixed
pastoral and agrarian societies (Giddens, 2009). This evolution is important because the
predominant economic system in a society largely determines the way work is organized in that
society, and this has implications for property rights, ownership of the means of production,
surplus versus subsistence, and the social relations of production (Otobo, 2013).
In hunter-gatherer societies for instance; few inequalities existed among the members of society,
simply because the economy did not permit the production of surplus (Giddens, 2009). Whereas,
as soon as even a modicum of surplus emerged in agrarian societies, some form of inequality
began to develop, leading to the emergence in pastoral societies of distinct inequalities that
solidified in traditional societies marked by the existence of major inequalities among the social
classes (Giddens, 2009). These pre-industrial societies also had other marked characteristics
different from what emerged in the industrial age, of which two stand out: the allocation of roles
in society by ascription (based on sex and age, and in the case of traditional societies, based on
birth), and the communal ownership of the means of production (Otobo, 2013).
The consequence was that work was organized along gender and class lines. In hunter-gatherer
societies, for instance, the men did the hunting while the women gathered fruits, tended the
children, and fetched water (Otobo, 2013). And in traditional civilizations, slavery and servitude
were widespread. Slaves were owned outright and were made to do any work their owner wanted
them to do, while serfs were bound to the land and whoever owned it since the feudal economy
was based on the ownership and control of land (Otobo, 2013). Ascription was also a major
feature of these societies (Otobo, 2013). The son of a blacksmith became a blacksmith, and the
son of a farmer became a farmer. People had little choice in the matter (Drucker, 1986). One
feature of work in all of these societies was that work was largely a communal affair, done in
13

conjunction with the family or the small tribal band (Otobo, 2013). It was personal; it was
private, and there was very little differentiation between the worker and the work he did (Otobo,
2013).
2.2.2 The Changing Conditions of Work at the Dawn of Industrialization
Thomas Newcomen invented the steam engine in 1712 (BBC, 2014), and with it ushered
in the 18th and 19th century in England in Industrial Revolution. (Giddens, 2009). This led to the
emergence of an industrial society as we know it today, “the word ‘industrial’ here, qualifying
‘society’, and describing a type of society where sophisticated machines have replaced (or at
least supplemented) human labour” (Otobo, 2013). This gave rise to the factory and the factory
system of organizing production. The factory owner (capitalists or industrialists as they later
came to be called) determined what could be produced, where it could be produced, when it
could be produced, and how it could be produced (Otobo, 2013).
The dawn of industrialization, therefore, led to tremendous changes in the production
techniques and technology used, in the ownership of property and means of production, in the
organization of work and work roles, and of course in the exercise of power in the workplace and
in wider society (Otobo, 2013). “It was a completely new system, where control over workers
was exercised, not only by the fact of ownership but also built into the process of work itself”
(Otobo, 2013). Consequently, the organization of work was taken over by the company, which
put managers in charge, separate and distinct from owners, to allocate tasks and exercise control,
in line with the ever-changing tastes and preferences of the market, to achieve maximum
productivity and profit for the owners of capital (Otobo, 2013).
As Pollard (1963) observed, “the worker who left his workshop or work in the factory,
enters a new culture and a new sense of direction.” The capitalists needed to find a way to “make
men who were non-accumulative, non-acquisitive, and accustomed to working for not for
increasing income ”, “obedient to both cash stimulus, and react precisely to the stimuli
provided.” In this light, it became necessary to introduce the notion of ‘time-thrift’ (in the form
of punctuality, fixed hours and constant attendance), ‘scrupulous standards of care and neatness,’
and the avoiding waste (Thompson, 1967). The Webbs’ called this “enforced asceticism”
(Pollard, 1963). Needless to say that the worker in the factory system was unaccustomed to
14

working in this way, but this was exactly what was needed to make factory production efficient
(Thompson, 1967).
But because the worker was unaccustomed to working in this way, capitalists developed
three tactics to overcome the problems of worker indiscipline in the factory system: ‘the
proverbial stick' and ‘the proverbial carrot,’ so as to create ‘a chance to create a new ideas of
work order and obedience,’ (Pollard, 1963). The ‘stick’ took the form of fines, dismissal, and
(sometimes) beatings, while the ‘carrot’ took the form of wage raises, bonuses, promotions and
other incentives (Pollard, 1963). Most significant, however, was the capitalists’ chance to create
a new ideas of the work order. Pollard (1963) writes:
…the employees saw its rise in their wealth and power due to merit, and the workman's position
as due to his failures He was forced to remain a workman because of the low wages because he
was less endowed with the important qualities of industry, ambition, sobriety and thrift. As long
as this, his hope to rise to the baits of moral appeals or cooperation. Therefore, one would have
to begin by giving him with the proper values which he was not having. This, was the third
method used by employers… (Pollard, 1963).
Employers were, therefore, attempting to reform the worker, and make him acquire and
imbibe the values which they saw as central to factory discipline and efficiency: to avoid
‘idleness,’ ‘extravagance,’ ‘waste,’ and ‘immorality,’ rather embrace ‘ambition,’ ‘thrift’ and
‘sobriety’, and of course, to accept the authority of the employer (Pollard, 1963). These values
had their origins in what Max Weber called “the Protestant Ethic” (Weber, 1958; cited in
Haralambos & Heald, 2001). As a result, traditional social habits and customs came under attack,
discredited as hindrances to progress (Pollard, 1963). The capitalists largely succeeded, as their
ideas shaped the course of industrial development throughout much of the world (Marx, 1867;
cited in Ritzer, 2011). Karl Marx called this “ruling class ideology.”
Of course, industrial capitalism as we know it today is markedly different from that
which obtained at the dawn of industrialization (Giddens, 2009). These days, sociologists speak
of “the post-industrial society” in which workers are assets, more specifically the assets that
determine a firm’s competitive advantage (Ritzer, 2011). Hence, so much has changed with the
emergence of industrialization until now. Nevertheless, the legacy of the Industrial Revolution
15

remains with us to this day. The difference is that we have come to take it for granted, and have
therefore accepted it as the legitimate state of affairs (Otobo, 2013).
2.3 JOB SATISFACTION
2.3.1 Definitions and Nature of Job Satisfaction
The concept of job satisfaction has attracted wide interest across different fields in
organization studies and remains the top studied subjects in the research theory (Zhu, 2013). Yet,
there are many meanings of job satisfaction as there are researchers studying the concept (Weiss
& Cropanzano, 1996). This has led to the rising of different meanings of job satisfaction in the
research theory, and to sometimes significant disagreements as to what constitutes job
satisfaction (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996).
Many meanings of job satisfaction are found in the literature emphasize the effective
nature of job satisfaction- that is, seeing it is an emotional state. Cranny, Smith, & Stone (1992)
for instance define job satisfaction as "an effective emotional reaction to a job that results from
the incumbent's comparison of actual outcomes with those that are expected.” Similarly, Robbins
& Judge (2013) defined job satisfaction as “a positive or negative feeling about one’s job
resulting from its characteristics” (Robbins & Judge, 2013). In this sense, job satisfaction is seen
as existing when an employee have positive feelings about his or her job, while dissatisfaction is
seen as existing when an employee have negative feelings about his/her job (Robbins & Judge,
2013). A similar definition still was provided by Locke (1976), who defined job satisfaction as
“a kind of state which can be pleasant or positive, and which grows in the process of evaluating
an individual’s work experience.”
Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) identify three approaches that explain the nature of job
satisfaction: the cognitive judgment approach, the social influence approach, and the
dispositional approach. Job satisfaction as a cognitive judgment sees the work environment as “a
set of concrete or abstract features” (such as pay levels, promotion opportunities, and job
features) that employees perceive and evaluate relative to the desired standard (Weiss and
Cropanzano, 1996). The result of such evaluations is what produces job satisfaction. According
to Weiss & Cropanzano, this view of job satisfaction as a cognitive judgment is by far the most
popular in the job satisfaction literature and is presented in the works of such researchers as
Katzell (1964), Lawler (1973), and Locke (1976).
16

Job satisfaction as a product of social influence says that “the social environment has
both direct as well as indirect influences on judgments about work” (Weiss and Cropanzano,
1996). The direct influences take the form of overall attitudes while the indirect influences take
the form of perception. Together, these culminate in standards that then create attitude judgments
about job satisfaction (Weiss and Cropanzano, 1996). In a sense, this view of job satisfaction is
complementary to the cognitive judgment view, because it “fills in some loose ends about factors
which influence the basic variables in the judgment process” (Weiss and Cropanzano, 1996).
This view of job satisfaction is seen in the works of such researchers as Salancik and Pfeffer
(1977, 1978), Weiss and Shaw (1979) Adler, Skov, and Salvemeni (1985), and Zalesny and Ford
(1990).
Job satisfaction as a disposition sees job satisfaction is slightly linked to the job (i.e. its
specific nature and characteristics). Rather, a person’s job satisfaction is a reflection of their
general tendency to feel good or bad in all aspects of their lives (Weiss and Cropanzano, 1996).
The dispositional view, therefore, downplays the influence of situational factors and suggests
instead that job satisfaction is a function of who the person is (i.e. their personality), rather than
what goes on around them in the work environment (Judge & Larson, 2001). This view of job
satisfaction is found in the works of Weitz (1952), and Staw & Ross (1985).
Other researchers have argued that there are three paths to job satisfaction: job
involvement, organizational commitment, and psychological empowerment (Moynihan &
Pandey, 2007). Job involvement is “the degree to which employee identify his job, actively
participates in it consider its performance to be important his self-worth” (Diefendorff, Brown,
Kamin & Lord, 2002). Hence, “employees who are highly involved with their job identify it and
really care about the kind of work they do” (Diefendorff et al, 2002). Psychological
empowerment means “employees’ belief in the degree to which it affect their workplace,
competence, their job, and their perceived autonomy in their work” (Moynihan & Pandey, 2007).
And organizational commitment means to which an employee identifies with a particular
organizational goals and wishes to be a part of it” (Solinger, Olffen, & Roe, 2008).
Regardless of this divergence in researchers’ definitions and conceptions of job
satisfaction, the one thing researchers do agree on is that job satisfaction is a kind of attitude,
specifically a job attitude (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996; Spector, 1997, Robbins & Judge, 2013).
17

“Attitudes are evaluative statements about objects, people, or events,” and they have a cognitive
component, an effective component and a behavioural component (Robbins & Judge, 2013). The
cognitive component of attitude describes the belief(s) that a person has held a certain thing or
event. The affective component of attitude reflects the feeling part- that is, how a person feels
about something. And the behavioural component of attitude briefs an intention to behave in a
particular way toward a thing or an event (Robbins & Judge, 2013). Job attitudes, therefore,
describe the attitudes that a person has about their job, of which job satisfaction is one type
(Robbins & Judge, 2013).
Seen as an attitude, it becomes obvious that virtually all of the conceptions of job
satisfaction discussed earlier describe different aspects of job satisfaction- namely its cognitive
component, its effective component, and its behavioural component (Harrison, Newman & Roth,
2006). In that sense, the different approaches that have been used to study and understand job
satisfaction complement, rather than oppose one another (Harrison et al, 2006). Employees
process information about their work environment and other job characteristics, which shapes
their perception of their job and triggers an emotional reaction in them, which causes them to
respond (i.e. behave) in certain ways toward their work and organization (Harrison et al, 2006).
Seeing job satisfaction this way allows for an understanding of its complexity, and at least an
acknowledgement that several factors, not just one or two, affect it in one way or another
(Harrison et al, 2006). It was perhaps in that spirit that Hoppock (1935) defined job satisfaction
as “when an employee say he or she is satisfied with the job by evaluating the combination of
psychological, physiological and environmental circumstances.
2.3.2 Antecedents and Correlates of Job Satisfaction
There are many factors that affect employees’ job satisfaction in the workplace (Robbins
& Judge, 2013), and several researchers have attempted to identify these factors and the specific
ways in which they influence job satisfaction. Wexley and Yukl (1977, cited in Zhu, 2013) for
instance proposed a job satisfaction-determinant model, with two categories of factors
determining employee satisfaction: expected working environment and actual working
environment. The expected working environment is made up of such factors as personal features,
needs and values, and previous working experience (Wexley & Yukl, 1977; cited in Zhu, 2013).
The actual working environment is made up of such factors as compensation, management style,
18

the job itself, colleagues and promotion (Wexley & Yukl, 1977; cited in Zhu, 2013). These
factors work together to create an employee’s job satisfaction.
Seashore and Taber (1975) used a similar two-pronged explanation, arguing that
environmental and individual factors account for the antecedents of employee job satisfaction.
Environmental factors include the internal and external environment of the organization.
(Seashore & Taber, 1975). Individual factors, on the other hand, include such factors as
employees’ demographic characteristics, their capabilities, their character, and their perceptions
(Seashore & Taber, 1975).
According to Robbins & Judge (2013), the work itself is a critical component of job
satisfaction, and the characteristics of the work itself that make it correlated with job satisfaction
have to do with “the extent in which the individual have to do various tasks, opportunities for
learning and personal growth, and he is responsible and accountable for his own results”
(Robbins & Judge, 2013). Similarly, Luthans (2007) observes that “most employees would rather
do a job that allows them to use their skills and competencies in a variety of tasks that are
mentally challenging.” There is wide agreement on this in the literature, and several researchers
have offered explanations of why the work itself correlates with employee job satisfaction.
Hackman & Oldham (1976) for instance hold that there are five major characteristics of a job
that determines its level of satisfaction for employees. These are:
1. Skill variety: The extent to which a job calls upon a variety of skills.
2. Task identity: The extent to which one can complete a whole work, and not just part of it.
3. Task significance: The extent to which an employee has his image on people who are
working inside or outside the organization.
4. Autonomy: The extent to which the worker can handle responsibility and discretion.
5. Feedback: The extent to which the worker known the effectiveness of his or her job.
(Hackman & Oldham, 1976).
Remuneration has also been linked with job satisfaction, although the relationship between the
two is not as linear as was once thought (Robbins & Judge, 2013). Obviously, employees are
unlikely to be satisfied with a job that pays them poorly, but once pay gets past a certain
19

threshold, however, remuneration ceases to be an important predictor of employee job
satisfaction (Spector, 1997). Top level employees may, therefore, may not like the nature of the
job and are dissatisfied with it and feel that there are little opportunities for advancement
(Luthans, 2007).
Promotion opportunities have also been linked to job satisfaction (Gilstrap & Collins, 2012).
Studies have shown that jobs that offer plentiful and accessible opportunities for promotion tend
to engender more satisfaction than jobs where promotion opportunities are more limited
(Getahun, Sims, & Hummer, 2007). This can be a problem in today’s flat organizations where
hierarchical levels in the organization are kept to a minimum to foster speed and agility in the
marketplace (Robbins & Judge, 2013).
Irving and Montes (2009) investigated how employee satisfaction is affected by unmet, met, and
exceeded demands, particularly with regards to skill development and support and compensation.
They found that “demands that are not met results in decreased satisfaction .” However, they also
found that “ demands are met results in increased satisfaction,” and even that the demands that
exceeded with regards to skill development results in negative satisfaction.
2.3.4 Consequences of Job Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction
Several studies have investigated the consequences of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction
(Rusbult, Farrell, Rogers, & Mainous, 1988), and the popular view is that job satisfaction is
linked with positive organizational outcomes while job dissatisfaction is linked to negative
organizational outcomes (Sageer, Rafat, & Argawal, 2012). Hunter & Tietyen (1997, cited in
Sageer et al, 2012) for instance have argued that “ loyal employees are more productive when
they are satisfied.” Allen & Wilburn (2002, cited in Sageer et al, 2012) have also argued that “
satisfaction of employees may impact their productivity, absenteeism and retention.” This view
is perhaps best articulated by Judge and Larson (2001) when they observed that “ the factors that
affect the employee satisfaction are positively correlated with motivation, job involvement, life
satisfaction, mental health, and job performance, and negatively related to absenteeism, turnover,
and perceived stress.” Similarly, Bhatti and Qureshi (2007) contend that “satisfied employees are
more likely to develop a psychological attachment or commitment to the organization.”
However, Curry, Wakefield, Price, & Mueller (1986) found no evidence supporting the assertion
20

that job satisfaction leads to (or increases) organizational commitment, arguing instead that
contrary to popular opinion, satisfaction is not a determinant of commitment.
Perhaps the most popular model of employee response to job dissatisfaction is Dan Farrell’s
EVLN Model- Exit, Voice, Loyalty and Neglect (Robbins & Judge, 2013). The EVLN Model
says that when they are dissatisfied with their jobs, they take one of four courses of action. First,
they may exit- that is, leave the organization. Secondly, they may express a voice to the superiors
by discussing their problems and suggesting improvements.” Third, they may express loyalty-
that is, “passively but optimistically hope that conditions improve and trusting management to do
the right thing.” Finally, they may express neglect- that is, “passively allow condition to get
worse which can include chronic absenteeism, lateness, reduced effort, etc.” (Farrell, 1983).
Rusbult et al (1988) found support for the EVLN model. According to them, high job satisfaction
increases voice and loyalty, and discouraged exit and neglect, whereas having a better alternative
elsewhere (in the form of a better job offer) encouraged exit and voice and discouraged loyalty.
Other researchers have pointed out as well that job dissatisfaction often leads to deviant
workplace behaviours, such as ‘absenteeism,’ ‘turnover,’ and ‘employee dissent’ (Rusbult et al,
1988).
2.3.5 Perceived Organizational Support (POS) and Job Satisfaction
It refers to employee's perception that to how much extent organization values its well being.
(Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002) It s an important element in employee's performance towards
the organization goals and objectives. POS reduces employee's turn over and absenteeism and
encourages them to work with more efforts to accomplish goals and objectives. ((Mathieu &
Zajac, 1990). therefore, POS gains employee's satisfaction in terms of pay, respect, etc and
encourages them towards their goals. It is related to job and have a positive effect on employee's
behavior.
2.3.7 Measuring Job Satisfaction
According to Robbins & Judge (2013), there are two main approaches to measure job
satisfaction: I.e the single global rating, and summation of job facets. The single global rating
means that how satisfied are you with your job?” (Robbins & Judge, 2013). Respondents choose
their answer on a Likert-type scale, with the least being ‘highly dissatisfied’ and the highest
21

being ‘highly satisfied’ (Robbins & Judge, 2013). The summation of job facets, on the other
hand, identifies key elements in a job such as those used by Hackman and Oldham (1975),
assigning weights to them, and then asking respondents to rate these on a standard scale. The
researcher adds the ratings create a score which is satisfies (Robbins & Judge, 2013).
On the surface, it appears that measurement of job satisfaction based on the summation of job
facets would be more valid and reliable than measurements based on the single global rating
(Spector, 1997). However, the evidence does not support that conclusion, because the single
global rating appears to work just as well as the summation of job facets (Robbins & Judge,
2013). Wanous, Reichers & Hudy (1997) agree somewhat with this conclusion. In their meta-
analysis of studies that use the single-item measure of job satisfaction, they found that single-
item measures came very close to the confidence levels produced when the summation of job
facets is used. Wanous et al (1997) argue however that the research question must permit the use
of such single-item measure. When this is not the case, it makes sense to use a well-constructed
scale (Wanous et al, 1997). Consequently, researchers should determine which measure of job
satisfaction is appropriate for use, given the nature of their research questions and hypotheses.
2.4 RELEVANCE OF WAGES AND BENEFITS IN CONTEMPORARY ORGANIZATIONS
Employees’ wages and benefits have been shown to play significant roles in several
organizational issues, particularly to issues like turnover, job satisfaction, job performance,
profitability, organizational growth, etc. (Tekleab et al, 2005). This section considers some of the
ways by which wages and benefits are relevant for contemporary organizations.
2.4.1 Wages & Benefits and Job Satisfaction
Pay refers to “ a process by which the compensation system is determined which includes the
direct cash payments (e.g. salaries and wages), indirect non cash payments (e.g. benefits)
(Williams, McDaniel, & Nguyen 2006). Therefore, pay satisfaction can be defined as the “
positive or negative effect (or feelings) that individuals have toward their pay” (Miceli & Lane,
1991). As Schwab and Wallace (1974) have observed, “among all the issues relating to job
satisfaction, employee satisfaction with pay deserves the most study, because wages constitute a
substantial, and often- the major cost of doing business.” This is perhaps why there has been
enormous research interest on pay satisfaction and its (possible) effects on employee satisfaction
generally.
22

Heneman and Schwab (1985) developed a Pay Satisfaction Questionnaire that assessed five
dimensions which are: level, benefits, raises, structure, and administration. Pay level refers to the
absolute amount that an employee earns- that is, the real Dollar value of their wages. Pay raises
include increases in the pay levels, and benefit level describes other non-monetary forms of
compensation (Heneman & Schwab, 1985). According to Judge (1993), these dimensions of pay
satisfaction have been instrumental in the direction and formation of pay satisfaction research
over the years and has been used and extended by several researchers.
Williams, McDaniel, & Ford, (2007) for instance based their measurement of pay satisfaction on
these same dimensions and used it as a basis for investigating the consequences of direct pay
factors (i.e. pay level, pay raises, and pay structure) on pay satisfaction. They found that these
factors plays important role in determining employee pay satisfaction (Williams et al, 2007).
However, they observe that these direct pay factors may be affected by perceptual evaluations of
pay on the part of the employee as well. In other words, an employee’s actual pays or even a pay
increase may not necessarily induce pay satisfaction if the employee does not perceive it as fair
(Williams et al, 2007).
Williams et al (2006) conducted a huge-analysis of studies on pay satisfaction and used that to
identify four groups of factors: primary determinants, antecedents, correlates, and outcomes of
pay satisfaction. First factor is examined in terms of the difference between deserved and actual
pay, second factor is examined in terms of perceived inputs and outcomes of others, third factor,
in terms of justice constructs, and forth factor in terms of absenteeism and turnover (Williams et
al, 2006). They found strong support that discrepancies in expected pay and actual pay reduced
pay satisfaction and that the perceived inputs had a significant effect on pay satisfaction,
especially when injustice or inequity was perceived (Williams et al, 2006). Regarding the
consequences of pay satisfaction (or dissatisfaction), Williams et al (2006) found that “ attitude
outcomes determines pay satisfaction rather than behavior.” In other words, employees may feel
bad about their pay but this may not necessarily lead to turnover (Williams et al, 2006).
Other researchers have found some support for the results of the previous study. Brown,
Gardner, Oswald, & Qian (2005) for instance found evidence that showed that an employee’s
pay rank (that is, how much they earn in absolute terms, compared to how much their colleagues
earn doing a similar job) does matter when it comes to satisfaction with pay. According to them,
23

employees tend to compare themselves to colleagues, whether in the their or in any other
organization in the same industry. Consequently, it makes a difference to employees whether
their pay is ranked 4th or 14th among a group of similar employees (Brown et al, 2005).
Importantly, the authors associate workplace turnover with ‘pay distribution skewness.’ Rizqi
and Ridwan (2015) made a similar finding from their study, which showed that pay satisfaction
was predicted by turnover, although the effect can be both direct and indirect. In addition, it was
found that the relationship between them was mediated by affective commitment to the
organization.
Salazar and Venneman (2004) investigated the demographic and attitudinal factors that led to
employee satisfaction with Employee Stock Ownership Programmes (ESOP). Demographic
factors included age, education level, job tenure, job salary, job classification, while attitudinal
factors included employees’ perceived pay equity and employees’ perceived influence on
decision-making (Salazar & Venneman, 2004). They found that certain employee demographic
factors “were positively related with employee satisfaction and ESOP”- the most important of
which was age, job tenure, education and job classification (Salazar & Venneman, 2004). It was
also found that employees’ decision making were significantly correlated with ESOP satisfaction
(Salazar & Venneman, 2004). The results of the study suggest that Employee Stock Ownership
Programmes (ESOP) is significantly correlated with employee satisfaction with pay, perhaps
because it fosters a sense of ownership (Salazar & Venneman, 2004).
Singh and Loncar (2010) investigated the relation between pay satisfaction, job satisfaction and
turnover intent. They found that turnover is affected by pay satisfaction, and job satisfaction was
“the more crucial variable in terms of turnover.” The authors argue, however, that “increases in
compensation alone may not be sufficient to deal with turnover,” because job satisfaction plays
the more dominant role in employee turnover (Singh & Loncar, 2010). The authors suggest that a
certain group of professionals (such as nurses, social workers, and teachers) derive an immense
amount of intrinsic reward from their jobs. Consequently, they may not quit the job even if they
are dissatisfied with their pay Singh and Loncar (2010). To that end, it is important that
employers develop long-term retention strategies that are geared towards maximizing the value
employees get from their job (i.e. intrinsic factors related to job satisfaction), rather than just
focusing on pay alone (Singh & Loncar, 2010).
24

Researchers have also studied in what ways other workplace benefits (such as promotions)
influence employee job satisfaction. McCausland, Pouliakas, & Theodossiou (2005) for instance
studied how pay and promotion influence employee job satisfaction. Having defined promotion
as “the employee which moves upward in the hierarchy of the organization, leads to more
responsibility and rank, and increase in compensation package” (McCausland et al, 2005) found
that “job satisfaction is strongly correlated with promotion, and a direct and positive relationship
between promotional opportunities and job satisfaction.” However, Malik, Danish and Munir
(2012) did not find much evidence that this is the case. According to them, while pay is strongly
correlated with job satisfaction, the influence of promotion on employee satisfaction is not
significant (Malik et al, 2012). Similarly, Judge, Piccolo, Podsakoff, Shaw, and Rich (2010) used
a meta-analysis of the literature to demonstrate that “pay level is marginally related to job
satisfaction.” Judge et al (2010) observed that “in an organization, those who earn more are little
more satisfied than those who earn considerably less,” and that “relatively well-paid samples of
individuals are only trivially more satisfied than relatively poorly paid samples.” The authors
attribute the surprising result to the contention that, according to job satisfaction, pay is not as
important as work satisfaction” (Judge et al, 2010).
Morgeson, Campion, and Maertz (2001) also found no evidence to substantiate the claim that
pay satisfaction leads to job satisfaction. According to the authors, “the pay plan and degree of
implementation does not have an effect on (job) satisfaction.” Young, Milner, Edmunds, Pentsil
and Broman (2014) took the argument even further. The authors concede that job characteristics
(such as the nature of the work itself, feedback, autonomy, etc. a la Hackman & Oldham, 1974)
correlate with job satisfaction, they argue that there is no meaningful relationship between pay
raises and job satisfaction (Young et al, 2014). Furthermore, the authors contend that “increases
in salary are directly associated with decreases in satisfaction” (Young et al, 2014).
2.6 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.6.1 Background
A theory is “a set of generalized ideas that are meant to explain the occurrence or recurrence of
social phenomena” (Ritzer, 2011). A theory can also be defined as “ general properties that
explain regularly observed events” (Giddens, 2009). Theories complement empirical research in
the sense that while empirical research often shows how things occur, theories explain why they
25

occur (Giddens, 2009). Four theories constitute the theoretical framework within which this work
is anchored. They are:
1. John Adams’ Equity Theory,
2. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.
2.6.2 Equity Theory
it founded by john Stacy Adams that states that employee's compare their experience, education,
etc. with salary, promotion, etc,. With others to find out the variances. It helps in eliminating
inequities among them. It indicates that individual compares themselves with others to find out
the equity ratios. These ratios decide their satisfaction level with job. Whenever they are not
rewarded, they compare performance with others to find out inequities. This creates a negative
felling among them to take this action.
Four categories of reference groups are:
Self–inside: employee's experience within the current organization.
Self-outside: employee's experience with others organization
Other–inside: individual groups within the organization.
Other-outside: individual groups belonging to outside the organization.
It shows that employee's compares themselves with various group that belongs to inside and
outside the organization. Also, they compares their past and present jobs to find out flexibility in
degree of job.
Other researchers have suggested that four moderating variables influence the choice of referent
are: gender, tenure length, level, and amount of qualifications (Kulik & Ambrose, 1992). Gender
means to compare themselves to members of the same sex- male compares to male, and women
compares to women (Kulik & Ambrose, 1992). Length of tenure is also relevant in the choice of
referent because employees who have only been in an organization for a short tenure are not
likely to have much information about other employees in the organization. They, therefore, tend
to rely more on their past experiences, while employees with long tenure tend to rely more on
other co-workers as referents (Ostroff & Atwater, 2003). The job profile, qualifications also play
26

a role in the selection of referents as well. Upper-level employees with a high level of education
tend to have more information about industry-wide practices, so they are more likely compare
themselves to referents outside their own organizations (Ostroff & Atwater, 2003).
Based on equity theory, various actions can be followed by employee's.
1. Change in inputs: if they find they are paid less they will start working according to pay
given.
2. Change outcomes: they will improve their performance in order to increase their pay.
3. self perception: it means they can change their perception and motivate themselves for
making more efforts.
4. others perception; by comparing the condition of others it will help in motivating
themselves.
5. Choose a different group-
6. They can compare themselves to a different referent to make themselves feel better about
their condition.
6. Leave the field: They can quit the job (Greenberg, 1989).
Equity Theory is useful in explaining that wages and other benefits play an important role in the
motivation the employees. Although there are many theories of motivation that acknowledge the
role of pay and rewards as it affects job motivation, none considers it as explicitly as does Equity
Theory. This theory, therefore, makes it clear how pay and rewards influence employee work
behaviour and motivation.
Secondly, Equity Theory shows, and other research has supported, that it is not the exact data
(with regards to pay for instance) that matter per se. Rather, what matters is how these data helps
in comparing to what other people earn in similar roles in the organisation. Equity Theory
suggests that employees are not motivated by what they earn but by comparing themselves to
others that how much they are earning at the same level. This idea is also supported by Prospect
Theory, which says that people think in terms of expected utility relative to a reference point
rather than absolute outcomes (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979).
27

Perhaps most importantly, Equity Theory encourages transparency in pay distribution and equity
in the workplace. This idea is often misunderstood, so it is necessary to explicate. Pay equity si
different than pay equality. Equity means fairness- everyone in the organization should get what
they deserve according to their work, qualifications, experience etc. Equality, on the other hand,
suggests that everybody in the should get the same thing, regardless of their contribution to the
organization’s results. To use a simple analogy, for example both men and women,should be
paid the same wages if they are doing the same job. There shouldn’t be a gender discrimination
in the organisation . Equity Theory shows its damaging effects on employees who find out that
they are being discrinimated.
2.6.3 Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
it is the best-known theory of motivation and has proven valuable to practising managers all over
the world, even though it’s not primarily a theory of work motivation (Robbins & Judge, 2013).
Maslow hypothesized that in every human being, there exists a hierarchy of five needs:
physiological needs, safety needs, social needs, esteem needs, and self-actualization (Maslow,
1975, cited in Robbins & Judge, 2013).
Maslow contends that although no need is ever fully fullfiled, a substantially satisfied need no
longer motivates (Maslow, 1975; cited in Robbins & Judge, 2013). Thus, as each need becomes
substantially satisfied, the next one becomes dominant (Maslow, 1975; cited in Robbins &
Judge, 2013). So, if you want to motivate someone, you need to understand that what are his
needs he want to satisfied and what will be his needs in future.(Maslow, 1975; cited in Robbins
& Judge, 2013).
Physiological needs include food, water and shelter. Safety needs include the need for security
and protection from theft. Social needs include the need for affection, belongingness, acceptance,
and friendship. Esteem needs describe internal factors such as self-respect, image and status in
the society and external factors such as recognition, and attention. Self-actualization, the highest
need level, describes our need to become what we are capable of becoming and to reach our full
potential. It includes growth and self-fulfillment. In Maslow’s words, “what a man can become;
he must become” (Maslow, 1975; cited in Robbins & Judge, 2013).
28

Applied to this research, Maslow’s theory shows that wages and other workplace benefits satisfy
primarily an employee’s physiological needs. With good wages, employees can afford the basic
necessities of life, such as a food, clothing, a decent home, and maybe even some discretionary
spending on education, vacation, and other such desirable indicators of well-being. Presumably,
this outcome is great for employee job satisfaction. However, Maslow’s theory also suggests that
once employees’ needs have been largely met in this area, wage increases may do very little to
increase their job satisfaction.
2.7 CONCLUSION: THE GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THIS
RESEARCH
This review of the literature has demonstrated the state of scholarship in studies of the influence
wages (pay) and benefits on employee job satisfaction. The review has shown that there is large
evidence that wages and benefits influence employee job satisfaction, although like most areas of
research, this relationship has been called to question in other good studies. Based on these, the
gaps in the literature are evident.
First, the research literature on the influence of pay on employee satisfaction is well worn.
However, the influence of regular wage increases on employee satisfaction has not been as
widely studied. Although some researchers have argued that regular wage increases correlate
positively with employee satisfaction only up to a point; this phenomenon has not been
investigated well enough. Similarly, it is not known what factors are responsible for this
apparently inverse relationship between regular wage increases and employee job satisfaction.
This study will have a impact to fill that gap in the literature.
Secondly, there is a paucity of studies is investigated the role of perceived organizational support
on employee job satisfaction. A thorough search of the literature in this regard revealed only one
or two studies that have been done in this regard, even though the literature on perceived
organizational support itself is quite abundant. This study will, therefore, investigate if, and to
what extent perceived organizational support influences employee satisfaction.
2.8 HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY
The study will be conducted to test the following hypotheses:
1. pay satisfaction and job satisfaction have a positive relation
29

2. Regular benefit and reward are strongly associated with job satisfaction.
3. there is a positive relationship between perceived organisation support with job satisfaction
By testing the above hypotheses, it is hoped that this research will fill these gaps in the literature.
30

CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODS
3.0 INTRODUCTION
Doing research requires correctness and exactness. It is important that one uses the right and
appropriate ingredient to gather data and also to analyse them, otherwise, one’s findings are far
from what obtains in reality.
Here, research methodology may be said to be a land that is used for farming. It not incorrect to
say that there is a relationship between the fertility of a farmland and the quality of farm produce.
In the same vein, there exists an association between the robustness of one’s research
methodology and the validity of one’s findings. In Sociology, research is not done in a random
fashion, there is a need for one to be systematic and provide a justification for preferring to use
one approach over the other.
3.1 RESEARCH APPROACH/DESIGN
An important part of a research methodology is the research design. While methodology may be
referred to as a land, research design is like the foundation upon which a building is erected. The
awareness that a comprehensive research design is one of the most important components of
research may be seen in the statement of Babbie (2008) that: sometimes a research design will
have a number and kind of observations to be made, for a conclusion. The point to note here is
that a good research design should inform one about the type of data to be gathered even when
the research has not been conducted. In the opinion of Kothari (2004), research design includes
what, where, when, how much, by what means concerning an inquiry or a research study.
According to him, the arrangement of conditions for collection and analysis of data in a manner
that aims to combine research purpose with economy in procedure.
This study will adopt a nonexperimental research design. With respect to the approach, the study
will adopt the quantitative/positivist paradigm. This research will adopt a survey method of data
collection which entails a direct contact between the researcher and the participants, that is, the
researcher asks questions- whether orally or written- which is answered by the participants.
Under the survey method, this research will specifically adopt the cross-sectional survey as data
31

will be collected at a particular point in time from a selected sample of respondents. The cross-
sectional survey method will be chosen for three basic reasons: first, there is limited time to
execute this research work. Second, the cross-sectional survey is less costly and quicker than
other designs-such as the longitudinal surveys. Third, the cross-sectional survey is often
representative of a larger population (Babbie, 2010).
3.2 STUDY LOCATION
The study will be carried out at Guinness Nigeria PLC, specifically Ogba Brewery. Guinness
Nigeria became a corporation in 1950. Then, the company was focused on the importation of
Guinness Stout into Nigeria from Dublin. The success of the product in Nigeria brought about
the desire build a small brewery. In 1962, the Stout Brewery in Ikeja was commissioned. In 1970
due to the increased demand, the Brewery was expanded and its production capacity doubled.
The growth heralded by the building of the first Brewery reached its peak in 1974 and 1982. In
1974, a new brewery for Harp Larger Beer was commissioned in Benin at a cost of Twelve
Million Naira ultra-modern Ogba Brewery for Harp Larger commenced operation. The Ogba
Brewery is reputed to be the most sophisticated Brewery in the whole Nation.
3.3 STUDY POPULATION AND STUDY UNIVERSE
A study population is the collection of different elements from which the sample is selected
(Babbie, 2008). In this study, the study population will comprise workers of the Guinness
Nigeria PLC; workers at different units of the organization will be sampled. The study
population will definitely comprise people of differential backgrounds, age groups and social
statuses. A study universe includes those persons upon which the findings would be generalized.
In this study, the study universe comprises of all workers in public and private service
bureaucracies in Lagos, Nigeria.
3.4 UNIT OF ANALYSIS
The unit of analysis refers for which the investigation is to be made I.e person, collective, or
object. It can include individuals, groups, organizations, countries, technologies, objects, and
such. For example, if we are interested in the level of efficiency in the present administration of
the University of Kent, then our unit of analysis is organization. If we intend to know whether
there is a significant difference between the attitudes of workers during the economic recession,
then our unit of analysis is the group. But in this study, our unit of analysis is the individual
32

because we are not interested in a group of workers, but rather, how the job satisfaction
experienced by each individual worker is dependent upon the pay and benefits he/she receives.
3.5 SAMPLING FRAME
A sampling frame is a list of elements from which a probability sample is selected (Babbie,
2008). The sampling frame for this study was gotten from the Nigerian Breweries, the sampling
frame is presented below:
S/
N
Department Number of staff
1 Finance 84
2 Human Resources 65
3 Sales and Marketing 155
4 Logistics 126
5 Legal 10
6 ICT 22
7 General Services 16
8 Technology 52
TOTAL 530
3.5 SAMPLING UNIT AND SAMPLE SIZE
According to Kothari (2004), a good sample size must have five characteristics: first, sample size
must be true sample; second, it should result in a small error; third, it must be in the budget of
the research; fourth, it must be such so that systematic bias can be controlled; last it should be
such that the results can be applied to the universe.
In order to arrive at a logical sample size and to ensure that the above characteristics are met, the
Raosoft online sample size calculator was used, the actual population (530 i.e., total number of
staff) was indicated, I chose a margin error of 5%, a confidence level of 95%, and a response
distribution of 50%. The software suggested a minimum sample size of 223. In order to attain
this and also prepare for contingency, a sample size of 150 was chosen by selecting 44% of the
total number of staff in each department. The sample size is shown below:
S/N Department Sample Size
1 Finance 37
2 Human Resources 29
3 Sales and Marketing 68
4 Logistics 55
33

5 Legal 4
6 ICT 10
7 General Services 7
8 Technology 23
TOTAL 150
3.6 SAMPLING METHODS AND TECHNIQUES
Sampling methods and techniques are the approaches by which the researcher chooses his
respondents. This study made use of both probability and non-probability sampling methods so
that one method will be able to fill the gaps in the other. The study adopted the stratified
sampling technique by dividing the study location into departments. This was followed by the
adoption of purposive sampling technique that sampled all the departments in the organization
for the purpose of representativeness. The quota sampling technique was adopted to select 44%
of the total number of staff in each department, the simple random technique will be used to
select respondents from each department accordingly.
3.7 RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS
This refers to the mechanism that will be used in collecting our primary data or information from
the field. This study will make use of a quantitative research instrument, specifically structured
questionnaire. The questionnaire will be self-administered, and the questions will consist of both
open and closed ended questions. The options to each question will be numbered in order to
ensure the ease of coding.
3.8 DATA ANALYSIS
The purpose of data analysis is to organize the data in a structural manner. The Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (Version 20) will be used for the data analysis. The data will be
analysed at two levels: descriptive level and inferential level. The statistical tests that will be
used to analyse data at the descriptive level will range from frequency to percentage to mean to
standard deviation. The level of measurement-whether nominal, ordinal, interval or ratio- of the
variables in the specific objectives will determine the statistical tests that will be used for
bivariate analysis and testing of the hypotheses (inferential level). In this study, chi-square tests,
Pearson’s correlation and regression analysis would be used where necessary.
34

CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
4.1
Theme 1. I feel that amount or salary paid to me behind work done is fair.
Statistics
Fair
amount
N Valid 150
Missing 0
Mean 2.6333
Median 2.5000
Mode 3.00
Std. Deviation 1.30778
Interpretation: From the above result it is analyzed that mean is 2.63 which indicate that there are
most of the respondent who state that they are moderately disagreed that they paid fair amount
for the work they do and the some of them are slightly agreed with the statement, mode is 3.00
which indicate that most repetitive answer got from respondents that is they are slightly agreed.
Theme 2. I am highly satisfied with the salary offerred to me with the opportunity of increment.
Statistics
Increase in
salary
N Valid 150
Missing 0
Mean 3.5867
Median 4.0000
Mode 4.00
Std. Deviation 1.38150
35

Interpretation: The above result show that mean is 3.58 which indicate that most of the
respondents are satisfied with the chances for salary increase while some of them slightly
disagreed with the statement. Further mode which is 4.00 indicate that there are most of the
respondent who slightly agreed.
Theme 3. Wage increase are too small and not often
Statistics
Less
wages
N Valid 150
Missing 0
Mean 3.4400
Median 4.0000
Mode 4.00
Std. Deviation 1.46768
Interpretation: The above result show that mean is 3.44 which indicate that respondents are slight
disagree and moderately that wage increase are too small and not often. Further mode is 4.00
which indicate that respondent are moderately disagreed with the statement.
Theme 4 . Those advantages which are received by me are highly good as compared to staff of
the organization.
Statistics
Good
benefits
N Valid 150
Missing 0
Mean 3.8333
Median 3.0000
Mode 3.00
Std. Deviation 1.57760
Interpretation: The above result show that mean is 3.83 and mode is 3.00 which show that there
are most of the respondent are slight disagree with the statements.
36

Theme 5.) Benefit package we have is fair
Statistics
Fair
benefits
package
N Valid 150
Missing 0
Mean 3.2333
Median 3.0000
Mode 3.00
Std. Deviation 1.17819
Interpretation: The above result show that mean is 3.23 and mode is 3.00 which indicate that
benefit package which they receive is fair.
Theme 6.) My supervisor/manager shows too little interest in the feelings of subordinates
Statistics
Less
interest of
subordinat
es
N Valid 150
Missing 0
Mean 3.3000
Median 3.0000
Mode 2.00
Std. Deviation 1.55762
Interpretation: The above result show that mean is 3.30 and mode is 2.00 which show that there
are manger show little interest in the feelings of subordinates.
Theme 7.) My mentor/manager is not behaving me in proper way.
37

Statistics
Unfair
supervisor
N Valid 150
Missing 0
Mean 3.6333
Median 4.0000
Mode 5.00
Std. Deviation 1.49458
Interpretation: The above result show that mean is 3.63 which indicate that supervisor are unfair
with workers while mode is 5.00 which show that respondent are slightly agreed with the
statement.
Theme 8.) My job is enjoyable
Statistics
Enjoyable
job
N Valid 150
Missing 0
Mean 3.7333
Median 4.0000
Mode 5.00
Std. Deviation 1.61647
Interpretation: The above result show that mean and mode is 3.73 and5.00 which show that
Disagree slightly with the statement.
Theme 9.) I sometimes feel my job is meaningless
Statistics
Meaningle
ss job
N Valid 150
Missing 0
38

Mean 4.4333
Median 5.0000
Mode 5.00
Std. Deviation 1.33822
Interpretation: The above result show that mean is 4.43 and mode is 5.00 which indicate that
respondents are slightly agreed with the statement as they sometime feel that there job is
meaningless.
Theme 10.) At majority of the times I have to pressurise me in order to complete works.
Statistics
Force to
work
N Valid 150
Missing 0
Mean 4.2667
Median 4.5000
Mode 5.00
Std. Deviation 1.24062
Interpretation: The above result show that mean is 4.2 and mode is 5.00 which indicate that
respondents slightly disagreed with the statement.
Correlation
39

Correlations
Fair amount Enjoyable job
I feel I am being
paid a fair
amount for the
work I do
Pearson Correlation 1 .033
Sig. (2-tailed) .690
N 150 150
My job is
enjoyable
Pearson Correlation .033 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .690
N 150 150
Correlation: Here correlation is of My job is enjoyable is 0.33 and I feel that I am not getting
fair and proper wages from the task I do is 1 which show that they are not strongly related with
each other.
Correlations
Unfair supervisor Meaning less job
My
supervisor/manage
r is unfair to me
Pearson Correlation 1 .083
Sig. (2-tailed) .311
N 150 150
I sometimes feel my
job is meaningless
Pearson Correlation .083 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .311
N 150 150
Correlation :Here correlation is shows that work I am doing is meanigless where correlation
value is 0.83 and My supervisor/manager is unfair to me is 1 which show that they are not
strongly related with each other. This show that there is relationship between both the variables
Regression
Variables
Entered/Rem
oveda
Model Variables Entered Variables
Removed
Method
1 Fair benefits
packageb . Enter
40

a. Dependent
Variable:
enjoyable job
b. All
requested
variables
entered.
Model
Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate
1 .076a .006 -.001 1.61719
a. Predictors:
(Constant),
fair benefits
package
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1
Regression 2.270 1 2.270 .868 .353b
Residual 387.064 148 2.615
Total 389.333 149
a. Dependent
Variable:
enjoyable job
b. Predictors:
(Constant),
fair benefits
package
Coefficients
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
41

B Std. Error Beta
1
(Constant) 4.072 .387 10.527 .000
Fair benefits package -.105 .112 -.076 -.932 .353
a. Dependent
Variable:
enjoyable job
Interpretation: From the result it shows that there dependable variable has less impact on the
independent variable.
42

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION
5.0 SUMMARY OF WORK DONE
The objective of this research is to find out the influence of pay and rewards on employee
satisfaction. To do that, an extensive review of the literature was carried out, presented in the
second chapter of the work. This was followed by a theoretical framework, which provides a
variety of theoretical models that explain the influence of pay and rewards on employee
satisfaction, an important step that furthers the understand the results of the research. Using
empirical research methods, data were collected from 218 respondents, and both univariate and
bivariate analyses were performed on the data, making it to test the study’s hypotheses against
actual empirical evidence. The results obtained from the data analysis lends confirm the study’s
hypotheses.
5.1 SUMMARY OF SPPS FINDINGS
From the above finding it is identified that there are many employees who are disagreed
that local communities not satisying with those tasks which are done by them. Further, within the
organization employees are only provided less salary and there is no less benefits is provided to
them. Further supervisor is unfair with the worker. Supervisor does not show any support in their
work due to this reason employees get demotivate and show less interest in the work. There is
relationship between fair amount and enjoy in job. If employees were paid fair wages then work
hard for the firm with enjoy. Along with this their satisfaction level also enhanced.
5.2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS RELATIVE TO THE RESEARCH LITERATURE
The results of this research are consistent with work done by other researchers who have
investigated the influence of pay and rewards on employee satisfaction. Malik, Danish & Munir
(2012) for instance found that pay and job satisfaction are strongly correlated, although Young et
43

al (2014) found no evidence of such, and even argued that increases in salary are directly
associated with decreases in employee satisfaction, which agrees with the outcomes of this
study. On the correlation between benefit and employee satisfaction, the results are consistent
with the results of the study by McCausland, Pouliakas, & Theodossiou (2005) who found that
job satisfaction has a relationship with rewards and benefits (such as promotion opportunities).
This study’s findings on the correlation between perceived organizational support (POS) and
employee satisfaction are also in agreement with that of Colakoglu, Culha & Atay (2010), who
found that perceived organizational support play a major role in employee job satisfaction.
5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
With the results of this research, the following recommendations are made to managers
and organizations on how they can work on pay satisfaction, rewards and benefits, and perceived
organizational support in order to foster employee satisfaction among their workforce.
The most obvious recommendation proceeding from this research is that organizations
and the managers who run them should pay employees good wages and salaries, good enough to
ensure that employees can meet their basic needs and even have money left over for
discretionary spending. However, it is important that managers realize that the absolute value of
wages is not always the silver bullet to creating employee satisfaction- there are other important
factors relating to wages that are important to employee satisfaction as well.
Although this research was not aimed specifically at revealing those factors, the core
propositions of the theories used shed some light on this. For instance, Equity Theory suggests
that the absolute amounts that they earn per se that creates pay satisfaction (and subsequently job
satisfaction). Rather, more important to employees what they earn compares to others which are
on the same level as they are. Equity means fairness- everyone in the organization should get
44

what they deserve, according to their skills, experience and qualifications. This suggests that
managers must work hard to identify and eliminate inequities in pay that may exist among
different groups of employees, when such inequities are products of personal/demographic
characteristics such as race/ethnicity and gender. Therefore, both men and women should be paid
the same wages if they are doing the same job. There should not be a gender discrimination.
Another very important pay component is transparency. It is common practice in many
organizations for employers to conceal pay information from employees- that is, employees are
not allowed to know what their colleagues are earning, and they are also sometimes explicitly
prohibited from discussing their pay with one another. Yet, pay transparency sends a message to
employees about the perceived openness and honesty of the organization’s leadership. It is
therefore important that employees know they are not being cheated by the organization, and that
at the very least there is fairness in pay and other organizational rewards.
Managers also need to understand the relativity of the value of rewards to employees. For
example a female who is nursing a child, may don't want any bonus or pay raise but more
flexibility and she may be more happy if she gets a pay raise for more flexibility in her work
hours. But not all employees thinks like that because they know what those rewards meant to
them. Managers may therefore need to make rewards appealing to the individual employee,
rather than just applying the same rewards to everyone under the assumption that all employees
want the same rewards.
5.4 CONTRIBUTIONS TO KNOWLEDGE
First, this research deviates from the orthodoxy in employee satisfaction research where
employee satisfaction is defined either exclusively in objective terms or exclusively in subjective
terms. Rather than take either of the two approaches in studying employee satisfaction, the
45

research takes an approach that merges both traditions of definition. This has yielded a more
robust measurement of employee satisfaction that takes account of both the subjective
interpretation of organizational members and the objective reality of the organization itself.
Secondly, this research has filled a void in the literature on the role of perceived
organizational support on employee satisfaction. Review of the literature also shows that there is
a paucity of gaining knowledge in this area. This research provides the much needed empirical
support demonstrating the influence of perceived organizational support on employee
satisfaction.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, this study offers insights into the dynamics of pay,
rewards, and perceived organizational support and employee satisfaction that have immediate
practical value. The results and recommendations derived from the study are useful for managers
in organizations of all types, from the very small domestic enterprise to the large multinational.
Hence, this study adds to the literature on best management practices that enhance employee
satisfaction in the workplace, and as a result organizational effectiveness.
5.5 CONCLUSION
This study shows that employees who are fully satisfied with their pay are also satisfied
with their jobs, on the other hand those who receive good rewards and benefits and good
organisational support are also satisfied with their jobs. The overall objective of the study has
therefore been validated- there is a strong and positive relationship between pay and employee
satisfaction.
46

REFERENCES
Adams, J.S. (1965): Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Psychology, (2):
267-299.
Adler, S., Skov, R.B., & Salvemini, N.J. (1985): Job characteristics and job satisfaction: When
cause becomes consequence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 35: 266-278.
Allen, D.R. & Wilburn, M. (2002): Linking customer and employee satisfaction to the bottom
line. Quality Press, Milwaukee.
Arvey, R.D. & Carter, G. (1991): Job satisfaction: Dispositional and situational influences.
International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 360-383.
Arvey, R.D. & Carter, G. (1991): Job satisfaction: Dispositional and situational influences.
International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 360-383.
Babbie, E. (2008). The Basics of Social Research, 4th Edition. United States. Wadsworth.
Babbie, E. (2010). The Practice of Social Research, 12th Edition. United States. Wadsworth.
Beilharz, P. (2005): Alienation. In Ritzer, G. (ed.) (2005): Encyclopaedia of social theory (pp: 9-
10). Thousand Oaks, California.
Bhatti, K., & Qureshi, T. (2007). Impact of employee participation on job satisfaction, employee
commitment and employee productivity. International Review of Business Research
Papers, 3 (2): 54-68.
Branham, L. (2005): The 7 hidden reasons employees leave: How to recognize the subtle signs
and act before it’s too late. Amacom, New York.
47

Branham, L. (2005): The 7 hidden reasons employees leave: How to recognize the subtle signs
and act before it’s too late. Amacom, New York.
British Broadcasting Corporation BBC (2014): Famous Devonians: Newcomen’s steam engine.
Accessed online
http://www.bbc.co.uk/devon/discovering/famous/thomas_newcomen.shtml on May
26, 2017.
Brown, G.A., Gardner, J., Oswald, A., & Qian, J. (2005): Does wage rank affect employees’
wellbeing? Institute for the Study of Labour, Discussion Paper Series (1505): 1-54.
Buitendach, J., & De Witte, H. (2005): Job insecurity, extrinsic and intrinsic job satisfaction and
affective organizational commitment of maintenance workers in a parastatal. South
African Journal of Business Management, 36 (2): 27-37.
Buitendach, J., & De Witte, H. (2005): Job insecurity, extrinsic and intrinsic job satisfaction and
affective organizational commitment of maintenance workers in a parastatal. South
African Journal of Business Management, 36 (2): 27-37.
Bulgarella, C.C. (2005): Employee Satisfaction & Customer Satisfaction: Is There a
Relationship? Guidestar Research White Papers, February 2005.
Clark, A.E. (1997): Job satisfaction and gender: Why are women so happy at work? Labour
Economics, 4 (4): 341-372.
Colakoglu, U., Culha , O. & Atay, H. (2010): The effects of perceived organizational support on
employees’ affective outcomes: Evidence from the hotel industry. Tourism and
Hospitality Management, 16 (2): 125-150.
48

Cole, L.E., & Cole, M.S. (2007): Employee satisfaction and organizational performance: A
summary of key findings from applied psychology. Self-published article.
Cranny, C.J., Smith, P.C., & Stone, E.F. (1992). Job satisfaction: How people feel about their
jobs and how it affects their performance. Lexington Press, New York.
Currall, S.C., Towler, A.J., Judge, T.A., & Kohn, L. (2005): Pay satisfaction and organizational
outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 58 (3): 613-640.
Curry, J.P., Wakefield, D.S., Price, J.L., & Mueller, C.W. (1986): On the causal ordering of job
satisfaction and organizational commitment. The Academy of Management Journal,
29, (4): 847-858.
Diefendorff, J.M., Brown, D.J., & Kamin, A.M., & Lord, R.G. (2002): Examining the roles of
job involvement and work centrality in predicting organizational citizenship
behaviours and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behaviour: 93–108.
Diener, E., Sandvik, E., Seidlitz, L., & Diener, M. (1992): The relationship between income and
subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 28: 195-223.
Diener, E., Sandvik, E., Seidlitz, L., & Diener, M. (1992): The relationship between income and
subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 28: 195-223.
Donovan, J.J. (2001): Work Motivation. In Anderson, N. et al. (eds.), Handbook of Industrial,
Work & Organizational Psychology, vol. 2, pp. 56–59. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Drucker, P.F. (1986): Management: Tasks, responsibilities, practices. Truman Talley, New York.
Edmans, A. (2009): Does the stock market fully value intangibles? Employee satisfaction and
equity prices. Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.
49

Edwards, B.D., Bell, S.T. & Decuir, A.D. (2008): Relationships between facets of job
satisfaction and task and contextual performance. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 57 (3): 441-465.
Edwards, B.D., Bell, S.T. & Decuir, A.D. (2008): Relationships between facets of job
satisfaction and task and contextual performance. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 57 (3): 441-465.
Farrell, D. (1983): Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect as responses to job dissatisfaction: A
multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 26 (4): 596–606.
Folger, R. & Konovsky, M.A. (1989): Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions
to pay raise decisions. The Academy of Management Journal, 32 (1): 115-130.
Getahun, S, Sims, B, & Hummer, D. (2007): Job satisfaction and organizational commitment
among probation and parole officers: A Case Study. Organizational Behavior and
Decision Processes, 5 (13), 12-15.
Giddens, A. (2009): Sociology (6th ed.). Polity, UK.
Gilstrap, J. B., & Collins, B. J. (2012): The importance of being trustworthy: Trust as a mediator
of the relationship between leader behaviors and employee job satisfaction. Journal
of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19 (2): 152-163.
Greenberg, J. (1989): Cognitive reevaluation of outcomes in response to underpayment inequity.
Academy of Management Journal: 174-184.
Gregory, K. (2008): The importance of employee satisfaction. Self-published manuscript.
Gregory, K. (2008): The importance of employee satisfaction. Self-published manuscript.
50

Griffin, M.A., Mathieu, J.E., & Jacobs, R.R. (2001): Perceptions of work contexts: Disentangling
influences at multiple levels of analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 74: 563-579.
Hackman, J.R. & Oldham, G.R. (1976): Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16: 250-279.
Hackman, J.R. & Oldham, G.R. (1976): Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16: 250-279.
Hackman, J.R. & Oldham, G.R. (1976): Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16: 250-279.
Haralambos, M. & Heald, R.M. (2001): Sociology: Themes and perspectives (revised edition).
Unwin-Hyman, London.
Harrison, D.A., Newman, D.A., & Roth, P.L. (2006): How important are job attitudes? Meta-
analytic comparisons for integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences.
Academy of Management Journal, 49 (2006): 320–321.
Harrison, D.A., Newman, D.A., & Roth, P.L. (2006): How important are job attitudes? Meta-
analytic comparisons for integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences.
Academy of Management Journal, 49 (2006): 320–321.
Harrison, D.A., Newman, D.A., & Roth, P.L. (2006): How important are job attitudes? Meta-
analytic comparisons for integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences.
Academy of Management Journal, 49 (2006): 320–321.
51

Hausknecht, J.P., Miller, N.J., & Vance, R.B. (2008): Work-unit absenteeism: Effects of
satisfaction, commitment, labor market conditions, and time. Academy of
Management Journal, 51 (6): 1223-1245.
Hausknecht, J.P., Miller, N.J., & Vance, R.B. (2008): Work-unit absenteeism: Effects of
satisfaction, commitment, labor market conditions, and time. Academy of
Management Journal, 51 (6): 1223-1245.
Heneman, H.G. & Schwab, D.P. (1985): Pay satisfaction: Its multidimensional nature and
measurement. International Journal of Psychology, 20 (1): 129-141.
Herzberg, F. (1968): One more time: How do you motivate employees? In Leavitt, H.J. &
Pondy, L.R. (eds.). Readings in Managerial Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 89-92).
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Herzberg, F. (1968): One more time: How do you motivate employees? In Leavitt, H.J. &
Pondy, L.R. (eds.). Readings in Managerial Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 89-92).
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Herzberg, F. (1968): One more time: How do you motivate employees? In Leavitt, H.J. &
Pondy, L.R. (eds.). Readings in Managerial Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 89-92).
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Hoppock, R. (1935): Job Satisfaction. Harper & Brothers, New York.
Hunter, W. & Tietyen, D. (1997): Business to business marketing: Creating a community of
customers. McGraw-Hill, Lincolnwood-Illinois.
52

Irving, G.P., & Montes, S.D. (2009): Met expectations: The effects of expected and delivered
inducements on employee satisfaction. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 82: 431-451.
Judge, T.A. & Larson, R.J. (2001): Dispositional affect and job satisfaction: A review and
theoretical extension. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86
(1): 67-98.
Judge, T.A. & Larson, R.J. (2001): Dispositional affect and job satisfaction: A review and
theoretical extension. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86
(1): 67-98.
Judge, T.A. & Larson, R.J. (2001): Dispositional affect and job satisfaction: A review and
theoretical extension. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86
(1): 67-98.
Judge, T.A. (1993): Validity of the dimensions of the pay satisfaction questionnaire: Evidence of
differential prediction. Personnel Psychology, 46: 331-355.
Judge, T.A., Piccolo, R.F., Podsakoff, N.P., Shaw, J.C., & Rich, B.L. (2010): The relationship
between pay and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis of the literature. Journal of
Vocational Behaviour, 77: 157-167.
Judge, T.A., Thoreson, C.J., Bono, J.E. & Patton, G.K. (2001): The job satisfaction-job
performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological
Bulletin, 127 (3): 376-407.
53

Judge, T.A., Thoreson, C.J., Bono, J.E. & Patton, G.K. (2001): The job satisfaction-job
performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological
Bulletin, 127 (3): 376-407.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979): Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk.
Econometrica, 7 (2): 263-292.
Katzell, R.A. (1964): Personal values, job satisfaction, and job behavior. In H. Borow (Ed.), Man
in a world of work. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Kothari, C.R. (2004). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. New Delhi. New Age
International (P) Ltd., Publishers.
Kulik, C.T. & Ambrose, M.L. (1992): Personal and situational determinants of referent choice.
Academy of Management Review, 17 (2): 212–237.
Lawler, E.A. & Suttle, J.L. (1973): Expectancy theory and job behaviour. Organizational
Behaviour and Human Performance, 9: 486-503.
Lawler, E.E. (1973): Motivation in work organizations. Brooks Publishing, Monterey.
Lee, I.S. (2008): The effect of the working conditions on job satisfaction: Differences between
genders in Korea. Unpublished essay, Busan Presbyterian University, Korea.
Lee, I.S. (2008): The effect of the working conditions on job satisfaction: Differences between
genders in Korea. Unpublished essay, Busan Presbyterian University, Korea.
Locke, E.A. (1968): Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational
Behaviour and Human Performance 3 (2): 157-189.
54

Locke, E.A. (1968): Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational
Behaviour and Human Performance 3 (2): 157-189.
Locke, E.A. (1969): What is job satisfaction? Human Behavior and Human Performance, 4 (4):
309-336.
Locke, E.A. (1976): The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.) Handbook
of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Locke, E.A. (1976): The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.) Handbook
of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Locke, E.A. (1976): The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.) Handbook
of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Luthans, F. (2007): Organizational Behaviour. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Luthans, F. (2007): Organizational Behaviour. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Luthans, F. (2007): Organizational Behaviour. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Malik, M.E., Danish, R.Q., & Munir, Y. (2012): The impact of pay and promotion on job
satisfaction: Evidence from higher education institutes of Pakistan. American Journal
of Economics (Special Issue), June 2012: 6-9.
Manalel, J. & Joy, M.M. (2016): A study on the impact of job satisfaction on employee
withdrawal behaviours in information technology industry. The International Journal
of Business and Management, 4 (5): 340-343.
55

Manalel, J. & Joy, M.M. (2016): A study on the impact of job satisfaction on employee
withdrawal behaviours in information technology industry. The International Journal
of Business and Management, 4 (5): 340-343.
Marx, K. (1867): Capital: A critique of political economy (Vol. 1). International Publishers, New
York. Cited in Ritzer, G. (2011): Sociological theory (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Maslow, A. (1954): Motivation and Personality. Harper & Row, New York.
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. (1990): A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates,
and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108: 171-
194.
McCausland, W., Pouliakas, K. & Theodossiou, I. (2005): Some are punished and some are
rewarded: A study of the impact of performance pay on job satisfaction.
International Journal of Manpower, 26: 636-659.
McClelland, D.C. (1961): The Achieving Society. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Miceli, M.P. & Lane, M.C. (1991): Antecedents of pay satisfaction: A review and extension. In
Ferris GR, Rowland KM (Eds.). Research in personnel and human resources
management (Vol. 9, pp. 235-309). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Michaels, E., Hanfield-Jones, H. & Axelrod, B. (2001): The war for talent. Harvard Business
Review Press, Boston.
56

Morgeson, F.P., Campion, M.A. & Maertz, C.P. (2001): Understanding pay satisfaction: The
limits of a compensation system implementation. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 16 (1): 133-149.
Moynihan, D.P. & Pandy, S.K. (2007): Finding workable levers over work motivation:
Comparing job satisfaction, job involvement and organizational commitment.
Administration & Society, 1-45.
Ostroff, C. & Atwater, L.E. (2003): Does whom you work with matter? Effects of referent group
gender and age composition on managers’ compensation. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88 (4):725-740.
Ostroff, C. (1992): The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes and performance: An
organizational level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77 (6): 963-974.
Otobo, D. (2013): Industrial relations: Theory and controversies. Malthouse, Lagos.
Pfeffer, J. (1998): The human equation: Building profits by putting people first. Harvard
Business School Press, Boston.
Pollard, S. (1963): Factory discipline in the Industrial Revolution. The Economic History Review,
16 (2): 254-271.
Rhoades, L. & Eisenberger, R. (2002): Perceived organizational support: A review of the
literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (4): 698-714.
Rhoades, L. & Eisenberger, R. (2002): Perceived organizational support: A review of the
literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (4): 698-714.
Ritzer, G. (2011): Sociological theory (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill, New York.
57

Rizqi, N.A. & Ridwan, S. (2015): The effects of pay satisfaction and affective commitment on
turnover intention. International Journal of Research Studies in Psychology, 4 (2):
57-70.
Robbins, S.P. & Judge, T.A. (2013): Organizational behavior, 15th edition. Pearson Education,
Boston, MA.
Rusbult, C.E. & Farrell, D. (1983): A longitudinal test of the investment model: The impact on
job satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover of variations in rewards, costs,
alternatives, and investments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68 (3): 429-438.
Sageer, A., Rafat, S., & Argawal, P. (2012): Identification of variables affecting employee
satisfaction and their impact on the organization. Journal of Business and
Management, 5 (1): 32-39.
Salancik, G.R., & Pfeffer, J.R. (1977). An examination of need-satisfaction models of job
attitudes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22: 427-456.
Salancik, G.R., & Pfeffer, J.R. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes.
Administrative Science Quarterly, (23): 224-252.
Salazar, R.J. & Venneman, S. (2004): Demographic and attitudinal correlates of employee
satisfaction with an ESOP. British Journal of Management, 15: 321-333.
Schneider, B., Hanges, P.J., Smith, D.B., & Salvaggio, A.N. (2003): Which comes first:
Employee attitudes or organizational financial and market performance? Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88 (5): 836–851.
58

Schwab, D.P. & Wallace, M.J. (1974): Correlates of employee satisfaction with pay. Industrial
Relations, 13 (1): 78-89.
Seashore, S.E. & Taber, T.D. (1975): Job Satisfaction Indicators and Their Correlates. American
Behavioral Scientist, 18 (3): 333-368.
Simon, H.A. (1998): Administrative behaviour. A study of decision making processes in
administrative organizations, 5th edition. Macmillan, New York.
Singh, P. & Loncar, N. (2010): Pay Satisfaction, Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intent. Industrial
Relations, 63 (5): 470-488.
Solinger, O.N. Olffen, V.W., & Roe, R.A. (2008): Beyond the three-component model of
organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 70–83.
Sousa-Poza, A. A. (2000): Well-being at work: A cross-national analysis of the levels and
determinants of job satisfaction. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 29 (6), 517-538.
Soyombo, O. (2001). Doing Research in Social Science in Olurode and Soyombo’s (eds)
Sociology For Beginners. Lagos. John West Publications.
Spector, E. (1997): Job satisfaction: application, assessment, causes, and consequences.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Staw, B.M., & Ross, J. (1985): Stability in the midst of change: A dispositional approach to job
attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70: 469-480.
Tekleab, A.G., Bartol, K.M., & Liu, W. (2005): Is it pay levels or pay raises that matter to
fairness and turnover? Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 26: 899-921.
59

Tella, A. (2007): Work motivation, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment of library
personnel in academic and research libraries in Oyo state, Nigeria. Library
Philosophy and Practice, 2: 1-16.
Thompson, E.P. (1967): Time, work, discipline, and industrial capitalism. Past and Present, 38:
56-97.
Van Eerde, W. & Thierry, H. (1996): Vroom’s expectancy models and work-related criteria: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 81 (5): 575–586.
Visser, D., & Coetzee, S. (2005). Affective-cognitive consistency of attitude as a moderator of
the job satisfaction-performance relationship. South African Journal of Industrial
Psychology, 31 (3): 62-69.
Vroom, V. (1964): Work and motivation. Wiley, New York.
Wanous, J., Reichers, A.E. & Hudy, M.J. (1997): Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-
item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82 (2): 247–252.
Weber, M. (1958): The Protestant Ethic and the spirit of capitalism. Charles Scribner’s Sons,
New York.
Weiss, H.M. & Cropanzano, R. (1996): Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the
structure, cause and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in
Organizational Behaviour, 18: 1-74.
Weiss, H.M., & Shaw, J.B. (1979): Social influences on judgments about tasks. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 24, 126-140.
60

Weitz, J. (1952): A neglected concept in the study of job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 5
(20): 1-205.
Wexley, K. N., & Yukl, G. C. (1977): Organization Behavior and Personnel Psychology:
Richard Irwin, Homewood: IL.
Williams, M.L., McDaniel, M.A., & Ford, L.R. (2007): Understanding multiple dimensions of
compensation satisfaction. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21 (3): 429-459.
Williams, M.L., McDaniel, M.A., & Nguyen, N.T. (2006): A meta-analysis of the antecedents
and consequences of pay level satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 (2):
392-413.
Yee, W.Y, Yeung, C.L., & Cheng, T.C. (2006): The impact of employee satisfaction on quality
and profitability in high-contact service industries. Pre-published article.
Young, L., Milner, M., Edmunds, D., Pentsil G., & Broman, M. (2014): The tenuous relationship
between salary and satisfaction. Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business, 7: 1-9.
Zalesny, M.D., & Ford, J.K. (1990): Extending the social information processing perspective:
New links to attitudes, behaviours, and perceptions. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 47: 205-246.
Zhu, Y. (2013): A review of job satisfaction. Asian Social Science, 9 (1): 293-298.
Zohouri, G., Rezaei, S., & Jorfi, S., (2007): Effectiveness of cooperative management on job
satisfaction of agriculture bank staff. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21 (8): 61-
76.
61

APPENDIX
62

63

64

65

66