Research Project: Employee Satisfaction in Sheraton Hotel Workplace

This research project, conducted by Tran Khanh Linh, examines employee satisfaction at the Sheraton Hotel & Resort. The study investigates the influence of various factors, including the working environment, benefits, relationships, promotion opportunities, and job descriptions, on employee satisfact...Read More

Employee satisfaction in the
workplace at
Sheraton Hotel & Resort
Tran Khanh Linh
GBD18394

ASSIGNMENT 2
Qualification BTEC Level 5 HND Diploma in Business
Unit number and title Unit 11: Research Project
Submission date 22nd December 2019 Date Received 1st submission 22nd Decem
Re-submission Date Date Received 2nd submission
Student Name Tran Khanh Linh Student ID GBD18394
Class GBD0602 Assessor name Pham Qua
Student declaration
I certify that the assignment submission is entirely my own work and I fully understand the consequences of pla
that making a false declaration is a form of malpractice.
Student’s signature
Grading grid
P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 M2 M3 M4

 Summative Feedback:  Resubmission Feedback:
Grade: Assessor Signature: Date:
Internal Verifier’s Comments:
Signature & Date:

Employee satisfaction in the workplace at
Sheraton Hotel & Resort
Tran Khanh Linh – GBD18394
22nd December, 2019

Table of Figures
Figure 1: Employee Satisfaction Conception .................................................................................................. 6
Figure 2: Employee Satisfaction Changing Research Model ........................................................................ 20
Table of Tables
Table 1: Working Environment....................................................................................................................... 7
Table 2: Benefit .............................................................................................................................................. 7
Table 3: Relationship ...................................................................................................................................... 8
Table 4: Promotion ......................................................................................................................................... 8
Table 5: Job Description ................................................................................................................................. 9
Table 6: Employee Satisfaction ...................................................................................................................... 9
Table 7: Demographic profile of the respondents ....................................................................................... 10
Table 8: Working Environment factor .......................................................................................................... 11
Table 9: Benefit Factor ................................................................................................................................. 11
Table 10: Relationship Factor ....................................................................................................................... 12
Table 11: Promotion Factor .......................................................................................................................... 12
Table 12: Job Description Factor .................................................................................................................. 13
Table 13: Employee Satisfaction Factor ....................................................................................................... 13
Table 14: Working Environment towards employees .................................................................................. 14
Table 15: Benefit towards employees .......................................................................................................... 14
Table 16: Relationship towards employees ................................................................................................. 15
Table 17: Promotion towards employees .................................................................................................... 15
Table 18: Job Description towards employees ............................................................................................ 16
Table 19: Employee Satisfaction with the hotel........................................................................................... 16
Table 20: KMO and Barlett's Test of 5 factors.............................................................................................. 17
Table 21: Total Variance Explained of 5 factors ........................................................................................... 17
Table 22: Rotated Component Matrix of 5 factors ...................................................................................... 17
Table 23: KMO and Bartlett's Test of Employee Satisfaction factor ............................................................ 18
Table 24: Total Variance Explained of Employee Satisfaction factor ........................................................... 19
Table 25: Component Matrix of Employee Satisfaction factor .................................................................... 19
Table 26: ANOVA Testing ............................................................................................................................. 22
Table 27: One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test ....................................................................................... 23
Table 28: Runs Test....................................................................................................................................... 23
Table 29: Variance Inplation Factors (VIF) ................................................................................................... 24
Table 30: Spearman’s rho correlations ........................................................................................................ 25
Table 31: Linear Regression Model .............................................................................................................. 25

Table 32: The impact of the relationship, benefit, promotion, working environment, job description to
employee satisfaction .................................................................................................................................. 26
Table 33: Group Statistics of Employee Satisfaction with Gender............................................................... 27
Table 34: Independent Samples of Employee Satisfaction with Gender ..................................................... 27
Table 35: Group Statistics of Employee Satisfaction with Working Condition ............................................ 28
Table 36: Independent Samples Test of Employee Satisfaction with Working Condition........................... 28
Table 37: Group Statistics of Benefit with Gender ....................................................................................... 29
Table 38: Independent Sample Test of Benefit with Gender ....................................................................... 29
Table 39: Group Statistics of Education level with Gender .......................................................................... 30
Table 40: Independent Sample Test of Education Level with Gender ......................................................... 30

Table of Contents
I. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 1
II. Literature Review ................................................................................................................................................. 2
1. Theoretical Framework .................................................................................................................................... 2
Employee Satisfaction .......................................................................................................................................... 3
Working environment .......................................................................................................................................... 3
Benefit .................................................................................................................................................................. 3
Relationship .......................................................................................................................................................... 4
Promotion ............................................................................................................................................................. 4
Job Description ..................................................................................................................................................... 5
2. Research model ................................................................................................................................................ 6
3. Research Hypothesis ........................................................................................................................................ 6
III. Method and Database ..................................................................................................................................... 7
1. Source ............................................................................................................................................................... 7
2. Design Survey ................................................................................................................................................... 7
3. Methodology .................................................................................................................................................... 9
4. Data Analysis .................................................................................................................................................. 10
IV. Data Analysis Results ..................................................................................................................................... 14
1. Reliability Cronbach’s alpha scale ................................................................................................................. 14
2. EFA – Employee Satisfaction Factors ............................................................................................................. 17
2.1. KMO and Bartlett’s Test of five factors ................................................................................................. 17
2.2. KMO and Bartlett's Test of Employee Satisfaction factor .................................................................... 18
3. Changing Research Model.............................................................................................................................. 19
4. Econometric Research Model ........................................................................................................................ 20
5. Design Hypothesis Testing ............................................................................................................................. 21
6. Model Hypothesis Testing ............................................................................................................................. 22
7. Model Assumption Testing ............................................................................................................................ 22
8. Normally Distribution Testing ........................................................................................................................ 23
9. Autocorrelation Testing ................................................................................................................................. 23
10. Multi Regression Testing ............................................................................................................................ 24
11. Heteroscedasticity Testing ......................................................................................................................... 24

12. Factors Hypothesis Testing ........................................................................................................................ 25
13. Independent Sample Test for Demographic ............................................................................................. 27
13.1. Employee Satisfaction with Gender .................................................................................................. 27
13.2. Employee Satisfaction with Working Condition ............................................................................... 28
13.3. Benefit with Gender ........................................................................................................................... 29
13.4. Education Level with Gender ............................................................................................................. 30
V. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................................... 31
Reference .................................................................................................................................................................... 32
APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................................................... 34

1
Employee Satisfaction in the workplace at
Sheraton Hotel & Resort
I. Introduction
Nowadays, an organization could achieve success when the workforce and the personnel
have related will be able to job satisfaction from the job performance and other factors related.
Human resources are considered to be the most important and valuable asset among all the
organization's assets, which is necessary for the proper operation of all the organization's other
resources. If human resources are happy with their work, they should contribute to the
organization's functioning to the best of their ability and increase productivity.
In the present world, the level of employee engagement and the quality of work are directly
proportional to an organization's achievement and leads it is to success. It is the managers'
fundamental responsibility to always consider ways to increase morale, efficiency and achieve
competitive advantage. An employee will only be inclined towards the organization's
development and achievement if he/she is pleased with both his/her job and the organization. In
order to assess employee satisfaction amongst the workplace, it is vital to identify the aspects
that concern them; the attitude of the individuals towards their jobs and their feeling with the
workplace is termed as employee satisfaction (Grover & Wahee, 2013).
Employee satisfaction explains how happy an individual feels with his job; this definition is of
great benefit not only to the workers but also to the organizational structure. This research
paper's main purpose is to describe the factors influencing employee satisfaction. The main areas
discussed are job satisfaction theories, factors affecting employee satisfaction, and employee
satisfaction assessment. Eventually, this research about employee satisfaction at the Sheraton
Hotel & Resort, and no one has researched yet, so I did this research in the hospitality industry to
evaluate employee satisfaction.
This research has objectives is to know an employee in the workplace of the Sheraton Hotel
and Resort. Measuring and identifying the factors that affect employee satisfaction, finding the

2
level of satisfaction, and from that result can give suggestions and solutions for the issues found
to improve employee satisfaction of Sheraton.
There are three main research questions article following below:
 Does employee satisfaction in the workplace of the Sheraton Hotel and Resort?
 How is the satisfaction come from such as working environment, relationship, benefit,
promotion, job description?
 What is the recommendation for Sheraton in the workplace for an employee to gain
employee satisfaction?
This investigation would be about employee satisfaction at the workplace, in this case,
Sheraton Hotel and Resort. That is currently located in Da Nang. Moreover, the researcher was
carried out in a short span of time, which is from 12 th November 2019 to 31st December 2019. As
this is only a short period of time, the investigation is unable to cover and prove that the
hypothesis is true. As a result, the results might be false.
The meaning of this report, firstly, it will help the manager identify the factors that affect
employee satisfaction. Then, when they aware of those factors the report will review and
evaluate the working status of their employees based on the result of the survey and other
references. Last but not least, the manager will be supported by the methods for employee
satisfaction improvement recommended in this report.
In this research, use Data Analysis, Regression Analysis, and Descriptive Statistics to test
theories.
II. Literature Review
1. Theoretical Framework
There are factors impacts Employee Satisfaction in the workplace. This framework was based
on the employees working at the hotel and resort, can reliable about their satisfaction at the
workplace.

3
Employee Satisfaction
Employee Satisfaction is a behavior that represents the degree to which workers are
pleased or satisfied with the job they do in an organization and the atmosphere which
enables them to perform the work according to the required standard. Employee satisfaction
covers workers' primary concerns and needs. In promoting good health, promoting good
healthy eating and offering physical activity in the workplace, employers make an attempt to
achieve a good work-life balance and improve employee satisfaction. Previous research has
also shown that flexible work makes it possible to improve mental health and reduce stress
(Shapiro, et al., 2009). For this research study, employee satisfaction is mapped under five
factors are Working environment, Benefit, Relationship, Promotion, Job Description. It is
important to provide a good standard of well-being at work in order to have more creative,
loyal and productive employees and flexible work arrangement is one of the techniques
followed by organizations that lead to increased work commitment (Kelliher & Anderson,
2010).
Working environment
The work environment includes supervisors and peer support, organizational resistance to
change and performance coaching, both negative and negative feedback (Barrett, 2008).
Basically, the work environment is where the task is finished. It may involve the physical
geographical location as well as the workplace's immediate environment, as well as other
factors such as air quality, noise level, and additional employment benefits. The internal
quality of the work environment is the single most important factor contributing to employee
satisfaction. This internal environment is determined by the feelings of the employees
towards their jobs, colleagues, and employers Employees want to feel they are part of the
team and serve a valued function in the practice's operation (Hatala & Fleming, 2007).
Benefit
Beside typical money rewards, non-monetary rewards, also known as employee benefits,
gained importance in the last few decades (Stalmašeková, et al., 2017). Legally required

4
benefits packages include social security, workers' compensation, and optional services
include insurance, health benefits, pension plans, time off pay, tuition reimbursement,
appreciation awards, Foreign Service fees, childcare, housing on campus, promotion, annual
increase and a host of others (Cascio, 2003). For organizations, they provide an opportunity
for organizations to differentiate themselves from other businesses, attract new workers and
maintain current employees. Most organizations are now building their corporate identity on
interesting and unique benefits to workers. And employee satisfaction comes from benefit,
which in turn affects work performance and organizational commitment of employees
(Tomčíková, 2016).
Relationship
Relationships in the workplace are unique interpersonal relationships with significant
implications for individuals in those relationships and organizations in which relationships
exist and develop. Relationships in the workplace act as decision making, sharing of authority
and instrumental and emotional support systems (Kram & Isabella, 1985) & (Rawlins, 1994).
As such, the quality of these relationships, including employee information experiences, has
significant consequences for employee experiences. The present study examined the links
between employee information experiences and the quality of two main types of
relationships in the workplace – supervisor-subordinate and peer relationships (Sias, 2005).
Therefore, workplace relationships also affect employee satisfaction, creating good
relationships between colleagues or good relationships between superiors and subordinates
also make employees more excited every time to go to work.
Promotion
Incentives can be used as a reward in an enterprise. It is a way to reward workers for
fulfilling corporate objectives. Therefore, it can serve as a means of achieving personal goals
and organizational goals (Lazear & Sherwin, 1981). According to Rosen, the deciding factor for
the position of any individual in the hierarchy is his talent, higher the level of talent in any
individual higher will be his position in the hierarchy (Rosen, 1982). The promotion is
important because it involves a significant change in an employee's wage package (Murphy,

5
1985). In this highly competitive corporate world, promotion can be used as one of the tools
for competing organizations to track down one organization's most productive participant to
be worth hiring for other different organizations (Bernhardt & Scoones, 1993). In such a way,
the promotion get highlights an employee in the external environment and help to realize his
worth in the internal environment. According to Carmichael, promotion increases an
organization's yield when a worker scales a promotional ladder on a seniority basis and, as a
result, gets a higher wage level (Carmichael, 1983). The effect of the promotional wage
increase on job satisfaction is found to be more important than fixed income (Clark & Oswald,
1996). If workers believe that there are golden prospects for advancement, they are happy
with the position in the organization (DeSouza, 2006).
Job Description
According to Robbins, explains that a job description creates a formal relationship
between the worker and the organization. He added that a job description is a template that
the employee must follow to allow the employee to perform duties within the organization's
standards (Robbins, 1998). Therefore, a job description provides a list of duties that a person
should do the responsibilities that need to be undertaken’ (Dessler, 2013). Sanchez and
Levine postulated that a job description represents the minimum work committed to the
performance of the employee (Sanchez & Levine, 2009). This means that an employee can be
expected to perform tasks not included in the job description (National Labor Relations Board,
2008). In general, researchers and experts agree on what a job description consists of:
definitions, summaries, duties and responsibilities, and often other data (Brannick, et al.,
2007). However, the same information is conveyed. He states that there are five elements of
a job description, including job title, work and procedures, working and physical environment,
social environment, and employment conditions. One of these aims is to help employees
(Cascio, 1998). Precise and detailed job descriptions are important here for an organization's
performance and the organization's employees. The job description of the employee
describes the duties, responsibilities, qualifications required and reporting relationships of a
specific job (Nduta, 2017). Therefore, it can be said that the job description has a great

6
influence on employee satisfaction with an organization. A job described specifically will make
employees understand what their job, and they will be more responsible for the job itself.
2. Research model
According to Mushtaq and others claim that employee satisfaction (ES) impacts from a
working environment, benefit, relationship, promotion and job description (Mushtaq, et al.,
2013).
Figure 1: Employee Satisfaction Conception
3. Research Hypothesis
From the model of this research, it can identify full fill about the relationship and impacts of
all the factors into employee satisfaction in the workplace. There are some hypotheses of the
impact of each factor on employee satisfaction in the workplace.
H1: Working environment has an impact on employee satisfaction in the workplace
H2: Benefit has an impact on employee satisfaction in the workplace
H3: Relationship has an impact on employee satisfaction in the workplace
H4: Promotion has an impact on employee satisfaction in the workplace
Employee
Satisfaction
Working
Environment
Benefit
Relationship
Promotion
Job
Description

7
H5: Job description has an impact on employee satisfaction in the workplace
III. Method and Database
1. Source
The data were gathered from both primary and secondary sources. Firstly, Primary data was
collected from an online survey on Google Form; which has provided in the links:
https://forms.gle/TttHKcz12XTC924S9. Secondly, Secondary data were collected from available
books, publications, research studies, articles, and websites.
2. Design Survey
A design survey is developed based on the already used questionnaires and past literature.
These included Working Environment, Benefit, Relationship, Promotion, Job Description, and
Employee Satisfaction.
Table 1: Working Environment
No. Working Environment Source
1 The atmosphere in the hotel is pleasant
(Mokaya, et al., 2013)2 Decorations of facilities are clean
3 The hotel provides a safe work condition
This factor has three questions to ask the employee working at the Sheraton about their
working environment. To evaluate, their satisfaction with the working environment here.
Table 2: Benefit
No. Benefit Source
1
The hotel provides all welfare (insurance,
childcare, housing on campus, etc.) for every
employee
(Mokaya, et al., 2013)
(Naseem, et al., 2011)

8
2
The hotel still pay salary to the employee's
bonus with also days-off when performance is
good
3
The income is fair between staffs in the same
level of responsibility in other hotels
The benefit factor has three questions collected from two sources to ask Sheraton’s
employees about their benefit when they are working there. To assess their satisfaction with the
benefit here.
Table 3: Relationship
No. Relationship Source
1 The hotel manager always helps employees
(Mokaya, et al., 2013)
(Abdullah, et al., 2011)
2 Supervisor treats employees fairly
3 The colleagues have a good relationship
The relationship is an important factor impact on employee satisfaction at Sheraton, so three
questions from the table above to use evaluate the satisfaction with the relationship there.
Table 4: Promotion
No. Promotion Source
1 Promotion rules are very clear in the hotel
(Mokaya, et al., 2013)
2 Every employee have the opportunity to get a
promotion in the hotel
3 The hotel has a perfect evaluation of
performance system for promotion
From the table above, as can see that have three questions to ask an employee about the
promotion at Sheraton. To evaluate their satisfaction with the promotion here.

9
Table 5: Job Description
No. Job description Source
1 Favorable working conditions enable me to
work comfortably
(Nduta, 2017)
2
Job identification in my organization matches
my skills according to my duties and
responsibilities
3
The number of hours that I spend at the
workplace is key in determining my job
performance
Have three questions in the table above to ask Sheraton’s employee about the job description
of them. And those used to evaluate their satisfaction with the job description here.
Table 6: Employee Satisfaction
No. Employee Satisfaction Source
1 I have the opportunities to learn as well as
gain more knowledge
(Abdullah, et al., 2011)2 I am a part of the hotel organization
3 I am satisfied with the preferential policies
that positively impact productivity
To evaluate the employee satisfaction from where, so has collected three questions from
their survey or article to conducted research about employee satisfaction at Sheraton.
3. Methodology
This research conducted based on the descriptive method of research. The questionnaire
method is used for collecting data. Data collected from the employees are working at Sheraton
Hotel and Resort. The targeted participants were the employees of the hotel from upper
management to lower-level management. The questionnaires used for data analysis were 18 with

10
125 participants, and all the questionnaires were express through a Likert-type scaling, ranging
from 1 = Completely Disagree to 5 = Completely Agree.
The few variables used in this research like working environment, benefit, relationship,
promotion, job description. Validity of questionnaire tested from the comments and suggestions
of participants and reliability is tested through Cronbach’s alpha which is 0.6 for all variables;
Exploratory Factor Analysis; Multivariate Regression Model.
After the collection of data, the answer sheets were scored. Then, the data was tabulated on
Statistical Package for the SPSS ver.20 was used for all statistical analysis. Descriptive statistics for
demographic information and Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was performed in
order to find the correlation between all variables and employee satisfaction.
4. Data Analysis
Table 7: Demographic profile of the respondents
Demographic Profiles Frequency Percentage
Gender
Male 24 19.2
Female 101 80.8
Education Level Workers, Vocational
Schools, Colleges 35 28.0
Undergraduates 43 34.4
Post-graduates 47 37.6
Working Condition
Part-time 22 17.6
Full-time 103 82.4
Total 125 100
The research with 125 participants working at Sheraton Hotel and Resort can see the
percentage of all gender through table 7 can infer that 19.2% of participants are male and 80.8%
of participants are female. With the education level can infer that 28.0% of participants are
workers, vocational schools, colleges, 34.4% of participants are undergraduates, and 37.6% of

11
participants are post-graduates. 17.6% of participants are working part-time and 82.4% of
participants are working full-time.
Table 8: Working Environment factor
The working environment has three factors and the total of all those averages evaluate at
mean equal 3.79. In which, the hotel provides safe work condition factor most chosen with mean
equal 4.02, and decorations of facilities are clean is the lowest chosen with mean equal 3.50.
Moreover, the mode equal 4 is the most repeated index of all three factors on Likert scale. So, it
can conclude that working environment factor achieve the employee satisfaction at the Sheraton.
Table 9: Benefit Factor
Benefit has three factors and the total of all those averages evaluate at mean equal 3.65. In
which, the income is fair between staffs in the same level of responsibility in other hotels factor is
most chosen with mean equal 3.71, and the hotel provides all welfare (insurance, childcare,
Mean Mode
The atmosphere in the hotel is pleasant 3.86 4
Decorations of facilities are clean 3.50 3
The hotel provides a safe work condition 4.02 4
Working Environment Factor 3.79
Mean Mode
The hotel provides all welfare (insurance, childcare,
housing on campus, etc.) for every employee 3.56 4
The income is fair between staffs in the same level of
responsibility in other hotels 3.71 4
The hotel stills pay salary the employees bonus with also
days-off when performance is good 3.70 4
Benefit Factor 3.65

12
housing on campus, etc.) for every employee is the lowest chosen with mean=3.56. The mode=4
is the most repeated index of all three factors on Likert scale. So, it can conclude that the benefit
factor achieves employee satisfaction at the Sheraton.
Table 10: Relationship Factor
Mean Mode
The hotel manager always helps employees 3.84 4
Supervisor treats employees fairly 3.80 4
The colleagues have a good relationship 3.87 4
Relationship Factor 3.83
The relationship has three factors and the total of all those averages evaluate at mean equal
3.83. In which, the colleagues have good relationship factor most chosen with mean=3.87,
Supervisor treats employees fairly is the lowest chosen with mean=3.80. The mode=4 is the most
repeated index of all three factors on Likert scale. So, it can conclude that the relationship factor
achieves the employee satisfaction at the Sheraton.
Table 11: Promotion Factor
Mean Mode
Promotion rules are very clear in the hotel 3.32 3
Every employee have the opportunity to get a promotion
in the hotel 3.83 4
The hotel has a perfect evaluation of performance
system for promotion 4.19 4
Promotion Factor 3.78
The promotion has three factors and the total of all those averages evaluate at mean equal
3.78. In which, promotion rules are very clear in the hotel is the factor most chosen with mean
equal 3.32, and the hotel has a perfect evaluation of performance system for promotion is the
lowest chosen with mean equal 4.19. The mode equal 4 is the most repeated index of all three

13
factors on Likert scale. So, it can conclude that the promotion factor achieves the employee
satisfaction at the Sheraton.
Table 12: Job Description Factor
Mean Mode
Favorable working conditions enable me to work
comfortably 3.01 4
Job identification in my organization matches my skills
according to my duties and responsibilities 3.08 3
The number of hours that I spend at the workplace is key
in determining my job performance 3.82 4
Job Description Factor 3.30
The job description has three factors and the total of all those averages evaluate at mean
equal 3.30. In which, the number of hours that I spend at the workplace is key in determining my
job performance factor most chosen with mean equal 3.82, and favorable working conditions
enable me to work comfortably is the lowest chosen with mean equal 3.01. The mode equal 4 is
the most repeated index of all three factors on Likert scale. So, it can conclude that the job
description factor achieves the employee satisfaction at the Sheraton.
Table 13: Employee Satisfaction Factor
Mean Mode
I have the opportunities to learn & grow 3.83 4
I am a part of the hotel organization 3.91 4
I am satisfied with the preferential policies that positively
impact productivity 3.71 4
Employee Satisfaction Factor 3.81
Employee Satisfaction has three factors and the total of all those averages evaluate at mean
equal 3.81. In which, I am a part of the hotel organization is the factor most chosen with mean

14
equal 3.91, and I have the opportunities to learn & grow is the lowest chosen with mean equal
3.83. The mode equal 4 is the most repeated index of all three factors on Likert scale. So, it can
conclude that the Employee Satisfaction factor achieves the employee satisfaction at the
Sheraton.
IV. Data Analysis Results
1. Reliability Cronbach’s alpha scale
Table 14: Working Environment towards employees
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
The atmosphere in the hotel is pleasant .499 .485
Decorations of facilities are clean .498 .483
The hotel provides a safe work condition .372 .652
Cronbach’s Alpha .644
Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.644 more than 0.6, all Corrected Item-Total Correlation are greater than
0.3 and no case of elimination of the observed variable could make Cronbach’s Alpha of this scale
larger than 0.644. Therefore, all observed variables are accepted and will be used in subsequent
factor analysis.
Table 15: Benefit towards employees
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
The hotel provides all welfare (insurance, childcare, housing on campus, etc.)
for every employee .659 .710
The income is fair between staffs in the same level of responsibility in other
hotels .631 .740
The hotel stills pay salary the employees bonus with also days-off when
performance is good .642 .729
Cronbach’s Alpha .799
Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.799 more than 0.6, all Corrected Item-Total Correlation are greater than
0.3 and no case of elimination of the observed variable could make Cronbach’s Alpha of this scale

15
larger than 0.799. Therefore, all observed variables are accepted and will be used in subsequent
factor analysis.
Table 16: Relationship towards employees
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
The hotel manager always helps employees .603 .807
Supervisor treats employees fairly .711 .698
The colleagues have good relationship .687 .723
Cronbach’s Alpha .815
Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.815 > 0.6, all Corrected Item-Total Correlation are greater than 0.3 and
no case of elimination of the observed variable could make Cronbach’s Alpha of this scale larger
than 0.815. Therefore, all observed variables are accepted and will be used in subsequent factor
analysis.
Table 17: Promotion towards employees
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
Promotion rules are very clear in the hotel .439 .654
Every employee have the opportunity to get a promotion in the hotel .515 .536
The hotel has a perfect evaluation of performance system for promotion .517 .549
Cronbach’s Alpha .672
Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.672 more than 0.6, all Corrected Item-Total Correlation are greater than
0.3 and no case of elimination of the observed variable could make Cronbach’s Alpha of this scale
larger than 0.672. Therefore, all observed variables are accepted and will be used in subsequent
factor analysis.

16
Table 18: Job Description towards employees
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
Favorable working conditions enable me work
comfortably .671 .351
Job identification in my organization matches
my skills according to my duties and
responsibilities
.651 .386
The number of hours that I spend at the
workplace is key in determining my job
performance
.242 .873
Cronbach’s Alpha .688
Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.688 more than 0.6, Corrected Item-Total Correlation of “the number of
hours that I spend at the workplace is key in determining my job performance” is smaller than 0.3
(0.242 < 0.3), and Cronbach’s Alpha of this item deleted 0.873 more than 0.688. Other items no
case of elimination of the observed variable could make Cronbach’s Alpha of this scale larger than
0.688. Therefore, all observed variables except “the number of hours that I spend at the
workplace is a key in determining my job performance” are accepted and will be used in
subsequent factor analysis.
Table 19: Employee Satisfaction with the hotel
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
I have the opportunities to learn & grow .593 .634
I am a part of the hotel organization .549 .673
I am satisfied with the preferential policies that positively impact productivity .565 .659
Cronbach’s Alpha .740
Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.740 more than 0.6, all Corrected Item-Total Correlation are greater
than 0.3 and no case of elimination of the observed variable could make Cronbach’s Alpha of this
scale larger than 0.740. Therefore, all observed variables are accepted and will be used in
subsequent factor analysis.

17
2. EFA – Employee Satisfaction Factors
2.1. KMO and Bartlett’s Test of five factors
Table 20: KMO and Barlett's Test of 5 factors
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .625
Bartlett's Test of
Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square 529.621
df 91
Sig. .000
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO) is 0.625 in [0.5-1]. Value Sig of
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity is 0.000 less than 5%.
Table 21: Total Variance Explained of 5 factors
Total Variance Explained
Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 2.338 16.700 16.700 2.338 16.700 16.700
2 2.282 16.302 33.002 2.282 16.302 33.002
3 2.178 15.555 48.558 2.178 15.555 48.558
4 1.765 12.604 61.161 1.765 12.604 61.161
5 1.390 9.926 71.087 1.390 9.926 71.087
Value Initial Eigenvalues of 5 factors more than 1. Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings factors
71.087 more than 50%.
Table 22: Rotated Component Matrix of 5 factors
Rotated Component Matrix
Component
1 2 3 4 5
The atmosphere in the hotel is pleasant .804
Decorations of facilities are clean .800
The hotel provides a safe work condition .665
The hotel provides all welfare (insurance, childcare,
housing on campus, etc.) for every employee .840
The income is fair between staffs in the same level of
responsibility in other hotels .846

18
The hotel stills pay salary the employees bonus with
also days-off when performance is good .829
The hotel manager always helps employees .805
Supervisor treats employees fairly .879
The colleagues have a good relationship .865
Promotion rules are very clear in the hotel .709
Every employee have the opportunity to get a
promotion in the hotel .829
The hotel has a perfect evaluation of performance
system for promotion .783
Favorable working conditions enable me to work
comfortably .930
Job identification in my organization matches my skills
according to my duties and responsibilities .928
All components have data bigger than 0.5. Therefore, has changed in the model, the
relationship factor has three items selected by staff so it will be ranked first in the research
model. The benefit factor has three items through the table it will be ranked second in the
research model. Promotion factor has three items and it will be ranked third in the research
model, and the working environment factor has three items so it will be ranked four in the
research model. The last factor is the job description will be ranked five in the research model. It
will be released in the changing research model below.
2.2. KMO and Bartlett's Test of Employee Satisfaction factor
Table 23: KMO and Bartlett's Test of Employee Satisfaction factor
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .688
Bartlett's Test of
Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square 82.647
Df 3
Sig. .000
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO) is 0.688 in [0.5-1]. Value Sig of
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity is 0.000 less than 5%.

19
Table 24: Total Variance Explained of Employee Satisfaction factor
Total Variance Explained
Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 1.986 66.212 66.212 1.986 66.212 66.212
2 .537 17.911 84.123
3 .476 15.877 100.000
Value Initial Eigenvalues of factor more than 1. Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings factors
66.212 more than 50%.
Table 25: Component Matrix of Employee Satisfaction factor
Component Matrix
Component
1
I have the opportunities to learn & grow .829
I am a part of the hotel organization .800
I am satisfied with the preferential policies that positively impact productivity .812
All Value Loading of an Item in a factor in Component Matrix more than 0.5. Therefore,
employees’ satisfaction with the Sheraton hotel & resort.
3. Changing Research Model

20
Figure 2: Employee Satisfaction Changing Research Model
There are changing research hypothesis from the changing research model:
H1: Relationship has an impact on employee satisfaction in the workplace
H2: Benefit has an impact on employee satisfaction in the workplace
H3: Promotion has an impact on employee satisfaction in the workplace
H4: Working environment has an impact on employee satisfaction in the workplace
H5: Job description has an impact on employee satisfaction in the workplace
4. Econometric Research Model
The changing research model can conduct econometric research for each variable.
Y = β0 + β1X1 +β2X2 + β3X3 + β4X4 + β5X5 + U
Y: Employee Satisfaction;
X1: Relationship at the workplace towards its employees;
X2: Benefit at the workplace towards its employees;
Employee
Satisfaction
Relationship
Benefit
Promotion
Working
Environment
Job
Description

21
X3: Promotion at the workplace towards its employees;
X4: Working Environment at the workplace towards its employees;
X5: Job Description at the workplace towards its employees;
U: Error (residual) of the model.
5. Design Hypothesis Testing
Based on an econometric research model below will design hypothesis to the test model.
Model Testing:
- Null Hypothesis H 0: R2 equal 0 “Model does not exist”. “Relationship, benefit, promotion,
working environment, job description have not to impact employee satisfaction in the
workplace”.
- Alternative Hypothesis Ha: R2 not equal 0 “Model exist”. “Relationship, benefit,
promotion, working environment, job description impact on employee satisfaction in the
workplace”.
H1:
- The null hypothesis (H1.0): β1 equal 0 “Relationship has not to impact employee
satisfaction in the workplace”.
- The alternative hypothesis (H 1.a): β1 not equal 0 “Relationship has an impact on employee
satisfaction in the workplace”.
H2:
- The null hypothesis (H 2.0): β2 equal 0 “Benefit has not to impact on employee satisfaction
in the workplace”.
- The alternative hypothesis (H2.a): β2 not equal 0 “Benefit has an impact on employee
satisfaction in the workplace”.
H3:
- The null hypothesis (H 3.0): β3 equal 0 “Promotion has not to impact employee satisfaction
in the workplace”.

22
- The alternative hypothesis (H 3.a): β3 not equal 0 “Promotion has an impact on employee
satisfaction in the workplace”.
H4:
- The null hypothesis (H 4.0): β4 equal 0 “Working Environment has not to impact employee
satisfaction in the workplace”.
- The alternative hypothesis (H 4.a): β4 not equal 0 “Working Environment has an impact on
employee satisfaction in the workplace”.
H5:
- The null hypothesis (H 5.0): β5 equal 0 “Job Description has not to impact employee
satisfaction in the workplace”.
- The alternative hypothesis (H 5.a): β5 not equal 0 “Job Description has an impact on
employee satisfaction in the workplace”.
6. Model Hypothesis Testing
Model Hypothesis Testing used to see if this model exists or not.
Null hypothesis H0: R2 equal 0 “Model does not exist”
Table 26: ANOVA Testing
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1
Regression 8.123 5 1.625 1.668 .147b
Residual 115.877 119 .974
Total 124.000 124
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Satisfaction
b. Predictors: (Constant), Job Description, Working Environment, Promotion,
Benefit, Relationship
Sig value in ANOVA 0.147 more than 5% cannot reject H0, significance 5% model not exist
which means “relationship, benefit, promotion, working environment, job description have not to
impact on employee satisfaction in the workplace”.
7. Model Assumption Testing
 Assumption 1: The residual of the model is normally distributed.

23
 Assumption 2: The autocorrelation does not exist in the model.
 Assumption 3: The multi regression does not exist in the model.
 Assumption 4: The heteroscedasticity does not exist in the model.
8. Normally Distribution Testing
Normally Distribution Testing to help see if the remainders of the variables are distributed
normally.
Table 27: One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
Unstandardized Residual
N 125
Normal Parametersa,b Mean 0E-7
Std. Deviation .96668968
Most Extreme
Differences
Absolute .043
Positive .043
Negative -.041
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z .482
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .974
Sig value in One-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test 0.974 more than 5% cannot reject H0,
significance 5% “the residual of the model is not normally distributed”.
9. Autocorrelation Testing
Autocorrelation Testing helps to consider the autocorrelation does exist or not in the model.
Table 28: Runs Test
Runs Test
Unstandardized Residual
Test Valuea 0E-7
Cases < Test Value 62
Cases >= Test Value 63
Total Cases 125
Number of Runs 59
Z -.808

24
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .419
a. Mean
Value Sig of Runs test 0.419 more than 5% cannot reject H0. The autocorrelation does not
exist in the model
10. Multi Regression Testing
Multi Regression Testing used when it wants to predict the value of a variable based on the
value of two or more other variables.
Table 29: Variance Inplation Factors (VIF)
All values of VIF less than 10 cannot reject H0, the multi regression does not exist in the
model.
11. Heteroscedasticity Testing
Heteroscedasticity Testing to describe the case where the variance of errors or the model is
not the same for all observations, while often one of the basic assumptions in modeling is that
the variances are homogeneous and that the errors of the model are identically distributed.
Variance Inplation Factors (VIF)
Coefficientsa
Model Collinearity Statistics
Tolerance VIF
1
(Constant)
Relationship 1.000 1.000
Benefit 1.000 1.000
Promotion 1.000 1.000
Working
Environment 1.000 1.000
Job Desctiption 1.000 1.000

25
Table 30: Spearman’s rho correlations
All value sig of Spearman’s rho correlations more than 5% no reject H0, residual and
independent variables (Xi) is no correlation  “the heteroscedasticity does not exist in the
model”.
12. Factors Hypothesis Testing
Factor hypothesis testing allows researchers to know the meaningful value of each factor and
recognize the hypothesis rejection from that.
Table 31: Linear Regression Model
Linear Regression Model
Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1
(Constant) 6.307E-017 .088 .000 1.000
Relationship -.112 .089 -.112 -1.260 .210
Benefit .134 .089 .134 1.516 .132
Promotion .160 .089 .160 1.800 .074
Spearman’s rho correlations
Correlations
Unstandardized Residual
Spearman's rho
Relationship
Correlation Coefficient .038
Sig. (2-tailed) .674
N 125
Benefit
Correlation Coefficient .030
Sig. (2-tailed) .742
N 125
Promotion
Correlation Coefficient .003
Sig. (2-tailed) .975
N 125
Working Environment
Correlation Coefficient .044
Sig. (2-tailed) .625
N 125
Job Desctiption
Correlation Coefficient .015
Sig. (2-tailed) .870
N 125

26
Working
Environment -.049 .089 -.049 -.555 .580
Job Description -.084 .089 -.084 -.953 .342
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Satisfaction
- Value Sig of X1 0.210 more than 5% cannot reject H1.0 significance 5% “Relationship has
not to impact on employee satisfaction in the workplace”.
- Value Sig of X2 0.132 more than 5% cannot reject H2.0 significance 5% “Benefit has not to
impact on employee satisfaction in the workplace”.
- Value Sig of X3 0.074 more than 5% cannot reject H3.0 significance 5% “Promotion has not
impact on employee satisfaction in the workplace”.
- Value Sig of X4 0.580 more than 5% cannot reject H4.0 significance 5% “Working
Environment has no impact on employee satisfaction in the workplace”.
- Value Sig of X5 0.342 more than 5% cannot reject H5.0 significance 5% “Job Description has
no impact on employee satisfaction in the workplace”.
Table 32: The impact of the relationship, benefit, promotion, working environment, job description to employee satisfaction
Factors Sig.
Conclude
Statistic
Hypothesis
Research
Hypothesis
(Yes)
1. Relationship .210 Cannot Reject Reject
(Accepted)
2. Benefit .132 Cannot Reject Reject
(Accepted)
3. Promotion .074 Cannot Reject Reject
(Accepted)
4. Working
Environment .580 Cannot Reject Reject
(Accepted)
5. Job Description .342 Cannot Reject Reject
(Accepted)
Significance α = 5%

27
From the above analysis, it can identified that this research model does not exist, so from the
Model Assumption Testing to Factors Hypothesis Testing just to practice how to do and write the
assignment for the research project. Therefore, the need to test independent sample tests based
on demographic.
13. Independent Sample Test for Demographic
13.1. Employee Satisfaction with Gender
H0: Male has no different from females about Employee Satisfaction at the Shereton hotel and
resort.
H1: Male has different from females about Employee Satisfaction at the Shereton hotel and
resort.
Table 33: Group Statistics of Employee Satisfaction with Gender
Group Statistics
Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Employee
Satisfaction
Male 24 4.1111 .66425 .13559
Female 101 3.7492 .68703 .06836
Table 34: Independent Samples of Employee Satisfaction with Gender
Independent Samples Test
Employee Satisfaction
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances
F .054
Sig. .817
t-test for Equality of Means
T 2.334 2.384
Df 123 35.650
Sig. (2-tailed) .021 .023
Mean Difference .36194 .36194
Std. Error Difference .15506 .15185
95% Confidence Interval of
the Difference
Lower .05500 .05387
Upper .66887 .67000

28
According to the independent test table above, get the sig from the Levene's test which is
more than the significant level 5%, Sig is 0.817 more than 0.05. So, choose equal variances
assumed. On the Sig. (2-tailed) at equal variances assumed is more than the significant level 5%
Sig (2-tailed) is 0.021 less than 0.05. As a result, reject the null hypothesis with 95% Confident
Interval of the Difference. So, it means that Male has different from females about Employee
Satisfaction at the Shereton hotel and resort. In which, male has mean equal 4.1111 that means
the employee satisfaction of male greater than females has mean equal 3.7492.
13.2. Employee Satisfaction with Working Condition
H0: Part-time has no different from full-time about Employee Satisfaction at the Shereton hotel
and resort.
H2: Part-time has different from full-time about Employee Satisfaction at the Shereton hotel and
resort.
Table 35: Group Statistics of Employee Satisfaction with Working Condition
Group Statistics
Working Condition N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Employee
Satisfaction
Part-time 22 3.6364 .53362 .11377
Full-time 103 3.8576 .72099 .07104
Table 36: Independent Samples Test of Employee Satisfaction with Working Condition
Independent Samples Test
Employee Satisfaction
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances
F 2.086
Sig. .151
t-test for Equality of Means
T -1.360 -1.649
Df 123 39.338
Sig. (2-tailed) .176 .107
Mean Difference -.22124 -.22124
Std. Error Difference .16267 .13413
95% Confidence Interval of
the Difference
Lower -.54324 -.49247
Upper .10075 .04998

29
According to the independent test table above, get the sig from the Levene's test which is
more than the significant level 5%, Sig is 0.151 more than 0.05. So, choose equal variances
assumed. On the Sig. (2-tailed) at equal variances assumed is more than the significant level 5%
Sig (2-tailed) is 0.176 more than 0.05. As a result, cannot reject the null hypothesis with 95%
Confident Interval of the Difference. So, it means that Part-time has no different from full-time
about Employee Satisfaction at the Shereton hotel and resort. In which, full-time has mean equal
3.8576 that means the employee satisfaction of full-time greater than part-time has mean equal
3.6364.
13.3. Benefit with Gender
H0: Male has no different from females about a benefit at the Sheraton hotel and resort.
H3: Male has different from females about a benefit at the Sheraton hotel and resort.
Table 37: Group Statistics of Benefit with Gender
Group Statistics
Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Benefit Male 24 3.4861 .79235 .16174
Female 101 3.6997 .78952 .07856
Table 38: Independent Sample Test of Benefit with Gender
Independent Samples Test
Benefit
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances
F .069
Sig. .794
t-test for Equality of Means
t -1.190 -1.188
df 123 34.689
Sig. (2-tailed) .236 .243
Mean Difference -.21356 -.21356
Std. Error Difference .17941 .17981
95% Confidence Interval of
the Difference
Lower -.56869 -.57870
Upper .14157 .15159

30
According to the independent test table above, get the sig from the Levene's test which is
more than the significant level 5%, Sig is 0.794 more than 0.05. So, choose equal variances
assumed. On the Sig. (2-tailed) at equal variances assumed is more than the significant level 5%
Sig (2-tailed) is 0.236 more than 0.05. As a result, cannot reject the null hypothesis with 95%
Confident Interval of the Difference. So, it means that Male has no different from females about a
benefit at the Sheraton hotel and resort. In which, female has mean equal 3.6997 that means the
employee satisfaction of female greater than male has mean equal 3.4861.
13.4. Education Level with Gender
H0: Male has no different from females about education level at the Sheraton hotel and resort.
H4: Male has different from females about education level at the Sheraton hotel and resort.
Table 39: Group Statistics of Education level with Gender
Group Statistics
Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Education
Level
Male 24 1.96 .908 .185
Female 101 2.13 .783 .078
Table 40: Independent Sample Test of Education Level with Gender
Independent Samples Test
Education Level
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances
F 2.261
Sig. .135
t-test for Equality of Means
t -.929 -.847
df 123 31.624
Sig. (2-tailed) .355 .403
Mean Difference -.170 -.170
Std. Error Difference .183 .201
95% Confidence Interval of
the Difference
Lower -.534 -.580
Upper .193 .239

31
According to the independent test table above, get the sig from the Levene's test which is
more than the significant level 5%, Sig is 0.135 more than 0.05. So, choose equal variances
assumed. On the Sig. (2-tailed) at equal variances assumed is more than the significant level 5%
Sig (2-tailed) is 0.355 more than 0.05. As a result, cannot reject the null hypothesis with 95%
Confident Interval of the Difference. So, it means Male has no different from females about
education level at the Sheraton hotel and resort.
V. Conclusion
One of the main goals in this study was to test premises about a causal relationship between
employee satisfaction with the working environment, benefit, relationship, promotion and job
description. According to the ANOVA results, the parameter proves that the model does not exist.
In contrast, because the model does not exist so can testing employee satisfaction based on
demographics with all factors. As a result, the benefit factor between two genders no different
when they choose to work at the Sheraton, next testing is the job description factor with part-
time and full-time no different when they choose to work there because they think the hotel
create the flexible time for them to work, the last testing is education level with two genders no
different between employees of the sexes.
The drawbacks of this analysis are that in a limited area of the hotel, the study is carried out
with a limited number of samples. Operating to larger sample sizes would be beneficial in this
regard.

32
Reference
Abdullah, R. B. et al., 2011. The Study of Employee Satisfaction and its Effects towards Loyalty in Hotel. International
Journal of Business and Social Science, Volume 2, pp. 1-9.
Barrett, B., 2008. Continuing Personal and Professional Development at UCL.
Bernhardt, D. & Scoones, D., 1993. Promotion, turnover, and preemptive wage offer. American Economic Review,
83(4), pp. 771-791.
Brannick, M. T., Levine, E. L. & Morgeson, F. P., 2007. Job and WorkAnalysis: Methods, Research and Applications for
Human Resource Management. s.l.:Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.
Carmichael, L., 1983. Firm-specific human capital and promotion ladders. Bell Journal of Economics, Volume 14, pp.
251-258.
Cascio, W., 2003. Managing human resources: Productivity, Quality of work, life, profits.. 6 ed. s.l.:New-York : McGraw
Hill Higher Education..
Cascio, W. F., 1998. Applied Psychology in Human Resource Management. 5 ed. s.l.:Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River,
NJ.
Clark, A. E. & Oswald, A. J., 1996. Satisfaction and comparison income. Journal of Public Economics, Volume 61, pp.
359-381.
DeSouza, R., 2006. Walking upright here: Countering prevailing discourses through reflexivity and methodological
pluralism. s.l.:Muddy Creek Press; null edition.
Dessler, G., 2013. Human resource, management. 13 ed. s.l.:New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall.
Grover, H. & Wahee, S. J., 2013. Study on Factors Influencing Job Satisfaction of Employees in Delhi/NCR. Opinion-
International Journal of Business Management, 3(2), pp. 101-112.
Hatala, J.-P. & Fleming, P. R., 2007. Making Transfer Climate Visible: Utilizing Social Network Analysis to Facilitate the
Transfer of Training. Human Resource Development Review.
Kelliher, C. & Anderson, D., 2010. Doing more with less? Flexible working practices and the intensification of work.
Human Relations, Volume 63, pp. 83-106.
Kram, K. E. & Isabella, L. A., 1985. Mentoring alternatives: The role of peer relationships in careerdevelopment..
Academy of Management Journal, Volume 28, pp. 110-132.
Lazear, E. P. & Sherwin, R., 1981. Rank-order tournaments as optimum labor contracts. Journal of Political Economy,
Volume 89, pp. 841-864.
Mokaya, S. O., Musau, J. L., Wagoki, J. & Karanja, K., 2013. Effects of Organizational Work Conditions on Employee Job
Satisfaction in the Hotel. International Journal of Arts and Commerce, Volume 2, pp. 1-12.

33
Murphy, K., 1985. Corporate performance and managerial remuneration: An empirical analysis. Journal of Accounting
and Economics, Volume 7, pp. 11-42.
Mushtaq, T., Ashraf, M., Jianhong, M. & Saleem, M., 2013. Employee's Satisfaction Impact on Employee's
Performance: The Case of Fan Industry from Pakistan. International Conference on Psychology in Health, Educational,
Social, and Organization Settings, pp. 188-193 .
Naseem, A., Sheikh, S. E. & GPHR, P. K. P. M., 2011. Impact of Employee Satisfaction on Success of. International
Journal of Multidisciplinary Sciences and Engineering , Volume 2, pp. 1-6.
National Labor Relations Board, 2008. Decisions and orders of the national labor relations board. s.l.:Washington, DC:
US Government Printing Service.
Nduta, M. A., 2017. Effect of job description on employee performance at the ministry of water and irrigation, s.l.: A
research project submitted in partial fulfilment for the requirement for the award of the degree of master in business
administration, school of business, University of Nairobi.
Rawlins, W. K., 1994. Being there and growing apart: Sustaining friendships through adulthood. InD. J. Canary & L.
Stafford (Eds.). Communication and relational maintenance, pp. 275-294.
Robbins, S., 1998. Organisational behaviour: Concepts, controversies, applications. 7 ed. s.l.:Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Rosen, J. M., 1982. Guessing: Reading as prediction. San Francisco, CA: Innovative Learning Strategies.
Sanchez, J. I. & Levine, E. L., 2009. What is (or should be) the difference between competency modelling and
traditional job analysis?. Human Resource Management Review, 19(1), pp. 53-63.
Shapiro, M. et al., 2009. Thoracoscopic segmentectomy compares favorably with thoracoscopic lobectomy for patients
with small stage I lung cancer. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 137(6), p. 1388–1393.
Sias, P. M., 2005. Workplace Relationship Quality and Employee Information Experiences. Communication Studies,
Volume 56, pp. 375-395.
Stalmašeková, N., Genzorová, T. & Čorejová, T., 2017. Employee benefits as one of factors of work motivation. CBU
International conference on innovations in science and education , pp. 448-452.
Tomčíková, Ľ., 2016. Employee benefits and trends in the workplace. Economy & Society & Environment, pp. 1339-
4509.

34
APPENDIX
SURVEY ON EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION IN THE WORK WORKPLACE AT
SHERATON HOTEL & RESORT
Welcome!
The purpose of this survey is to understand employee satisfaction in the workplace. This survey is
made up of 23 questions and takes approximately 7 minutes to complete. Please answer to the best of
your ability.
Your given information will be kept confidential and used for research purposes only. Thank you for
your participation!
I. CONTENT
1 5
Completely disagree Completely agree
No. Criteria Opinion
Working environment
1 The atmosphere in the hotel is pleasant 1 2 3 4 5
2 Decorations of facilities are clean 1 2 3 4 5
3 The hotel provides safe work condition 1 2 3 4 5
Benefits
4 The hotel provides all welfare (insurance, childcare,
housing on campus, etc.) for every employee 1 2 3 4 5
5 The income is fair between staffs in the same level
of responsibility in other hotels 1 2 3 4 5

35
6 The hotel stills pay salary the employees bonus with
also days-off when performance is good 1 2 3 4 5
Relationship
7 The hotel manager always helps employees 1 2 3 4 5
8 Supervisor treats employees fairly 1 2 3 4 5
9 The colleagues have good relationship 1 2 3 4 5
Promotion
10 Promotion rules are very clear in the hotel 1 2 3 4 5
11 Every employee have opportunity to get promotion
in the hotel 1 2 3 4 5
12 The hotel has perfect evaluation about performance
system for promotion 1 2 3 4 5
Job description
13 Favorable working conditions enable me work
comfortably 1 2 3 4 5
14 Job identification in my organization matches my
skills according to my duties and responsibilities 1 2 3 4 5
15 The number of hours that I spend at the workplace
is key in determining my job performance 1 2 3 4 5
Employee satisfaction
16 I have the opportunities to learn & grow 1 2 3 4 5
17 I am a part of the hotel organization 1 2 3 4 5
18 I am satisfied with the preferential policies that
positively impact productivity 1 2 3 4 5

36
PART II: RESPONDENT’S INFORMATION
Please answer the following questions related to your personal information:
Question 1: Gender: 1. Male: 2. Female:
Question 2: Year of birth:
Question 3: Education level:
1. Workers, Vocational Schools, Colleges
2. Undergraduates
3. Post-graduates
Question 4: Working Condition
1. Part-time 2. Full-time
Telephone number:
Address:
Our research team members may pay a visit or give you a phone call for an interview, please confirm
yes. Thank you so much for your participation!
Da Nang, Date …. Month …. Year
Respondent’s signature Interviewer’s signature

37
KMO and Bartlett’s Test of five factors
Total Variance Explained
Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared
Loadings
Rotation Sums of Squared
Loadings
Total % of
Variance
Cumulative
%
Total % of
Variance
Cumulative
%
Total % of
Variance
Cumulative
%
1 2.338 16.700 16.700 2.338 16.700 16.700 2.240 16.002 16.002
2 2.282 16.302 33.002 2.282 16.302 33.002 2.220 15.858 31.860
3 2.178 15.555 48.558 2.178 15.555 48.558 1.869 13.348 45.208
4 1.765 12.604 61.161 1.765 12.604 61.161 1.812 12.941 58.149
5 1.390 9.926 71.087 1.390 9.926 71.087 1.811 12.938 71.087
6 .745 5.322 76.409
7 .633 4.518 80.927
8 .570 4.072 85.000
9 .469 3.350 88.350
10 .411 2.934 91.284
11 .382 2.731 94.015
12 .351 2.509 96.524
13 .281 2.004 98.528
14 .206 1.472 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Multi Regression Testing
Variance Inplation Factors (VIF)
Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. Collinearity
Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1
(Constant) 6.307E-017 .088 .000 1.000
Relationship -.112 .089 -.112 -1.260 .210 1.000 1.000
Benefit .134 .089 .134 1.516 .132 1.000 1.000
Promotion .160 .089 .160 1.800 .074 1.000 1.000
Working
Environment -.049 .089 -.049 -.555 .580 1.000 1.000
Job Desctiption -.084 .089 -.084 -.953 .342 1.000 1.000
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Satisfaction
Heteroscedasticity Testing

38
Spearman’s rho correlations
Correlations
Relationship Benefit Promotion Working
Environment
Job
Desctiption
Unstandardized
Residual
Spearman's
rho
Relationship
Correlation
Coefficient 1.000 .054 .021 -.021 .008 .038
Sig. (2-
tailed) . .549 .812 .820 .933 .674
N 125 125 125 125 125 125
Benefit
Correlation
Coefficient .054 1.000 -.026 .018 -.008 .030
Sig. (2-
tailed) .549 . .774 .846 .927 .742
N 125 125 125 125 125 125
Promotion
Correlation
Coefficient .021 -.026 1.000 -.011 -.017 .003
Sig. (2-
tailed) .812 .774 . .903 .854 .975
N 125 125 125 125 125 125
Working
Environment
Correlation
Coefficient -.021 .018 -.011 1.000 .062 .044
Sig. (2-
tailed) .820 .846 .903 . .495 .625
N 125 125 125 125 125 125
Job Desctiption
Correlation
Coefficient .008 -.008 -.017 .062 1.000 .015
Sig. (2-
tailed) .933 .927 .854 .495 . .870
N 125 125 125 125 125 125
Unstandardized
Residual
Correlation
Coefficient .038 .030 .003 .044 .015 1.000
Sig. (2-
tailed) .674 .742 .975 .625 .870 .
N 125 125 125 125 125 125