1

Research Project on Employee Satisfaction in Two Automotive Companies Department of Commerce BS (Commerce) 8th
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my Supervisor Sir Fahad Munir for his excellent guidance, caring, patience, and providing me with an excellent atmosphere for doing research. I would like thank to Sir Fahad Munir Who let me experience the research of Employee Satisfaction in two Automobile Companies in the field and practical issues beyond the textbooks patiently corrected my writing and supported my research.
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to observe satisfaction level of employees in two automobiles companies. Level of satisfaction can be examined through 5 factors of satisfaction. Employee satisfaction is the terminology used to describe whether employees are happy, contended and fulfilling their desires and needs at work. Many measures support that employee satisfaction is a factor in employee motivation, employee goal achievement and positive employee morale in the work place. Basically Employee satisfaction is a measure of how happy workers are with their job and working environment. In this study various variables responsible for employee satisfaction has been discussed such as Organization development factors, Job security factors, Work task factors, Policies of compensation and benefit factor and opportunities which give satisfaction to employees such as Promotion and career development also has been described. This study also deals the various ways by which one can improve employee satisfaction. It is a known fact that the organizations, which give more attention to the satisfaction of their employees, produce more successful outcomes than others do. In this sense, we have constructed an original model and carried out a research analysis in metalworking manufacturing, which the main subject is about to investigate the employee satisfaction depending on the factors of organizational culture and organizational learning capacity. The aim of the research is to contribute to academic researchers as well as managerial level and human resource department employees of automobiles organizations, in maximizing the employee satisfaction. The population of the study consisted male and female employees who are in production department of AL-Amin and Ahmad automobiles companies. Sample comprising of 100 employees (males and females) from manufacturing industries. Sample is selected by random sampling.
Table of Content Chapter No. 1 Introduction: Contents Page No.

10 10 10 11 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 13
Employee Satisfaction Background of the study History of Employee Satisfaction Processes in automotive manufacturing Satisfaction by Factors Objective of the study Purpose Research Question Data analysis tool Limitation
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Literature View: Methodology: Theoretical Framework Data Analysis: Conclusion: Recommendations: References: Questionnaire:
15 20 24 26 61 63 66 68
Introduction Employee satisfaction:

Employee satisfaction is how content an individual is with his or her job. Scholars and human resource professionals generally make a distinction between affective employee satisfaction and cognitive employee satisfaction. Affective employee satisfaction is the extent of pleasurable emotional feelings individuals have about their jobs overall, and is different to cognitive employee satisfaction which is the extent of individuals satisfaction with particular facets of their jobs, such as pay, pension arrangements, working hours, and numerous other aspects of their jobs.
Background of the Study:

The Automotive industry has been an active and growing field in Pakistan for a long time, however not as much established to figure in the prominent list of the top automotive industries, having a stable annual production 100-170 thousands only. Despite significant production volumes, transfer of technology and localization of vehicle components remains low, and only a few car models are assembled in the country while customers have a very small variety of vehicles to choose from. The lack of competition in the local auto industry due to the presence of just three assemblers -and only one small car assembler- has resulted in technological stagnation of the industry; small cars produced by Pak Suzuki, the country's largest auto assembler, in the country are globally retired models utilizing obsolete technology and not offering any safety features. Auto Sector remains the second largest payer of indirect taxes after the Petroleum Sector. In Pakistan's context there are 10 cars in 1,000 persons which is one of the lowest in the emerging economies which itself speaks of high potential of growth in the auto sector and more so in the car production. Rising per capita income with changing demographic distribution and an anticipated influx of 30 to 40 million young people in the economically active workforce in the next few years provides a stimulus to the industry to expand and grow (Source AUTOMARK Magazine). (Storey, George, & O, 1995, 2000, 2000). People are an important component of the production factors of an organization. A variety of factors influence their work lives. These factors affect their performance and ultimate productivity. Employee satisfaction is a key factor in productivity. Employees satisfaction levels are reflected in their intrinsic and extrinsic willingness to put their labor at the disposal of their employer. (Daniels & Gower, 2001, 2003) Employee satisfaction is certainly not the only factor that causes people to produce at different rates. In addition to being influenced by the level of satisfaction, performance is affected by a worker's ability as well as a number of situational and environmental factors such as mechanical breakdowns, low quality materials, an inadequate
7
supply of materials, and availability of stock and market forces. However it is not easy to determine if employees experience employee satisfaction. (Cockburn & Haydn, 2004) Suggest that the main problem might be that employees within companies do not discuss the level of their employee satisfaction, nor do they admit that their jobs might not be satisfying. Hence managers also find it difficult to determine whether employee satisfaction is experienced in the workplace.
History of Employee Satisfaction:

One of the biggest preludes to the study of employee satisfaction was the Hawthorne studies. These studies (19241933), primarily credited to Elton Mayo of the Harvard Business School, sought to find the effects of various conditions on workers productivity. These studies ultimately showed that novel changes in work conditions temporarily increase productivity (called the Hawthorne Effect). It was later found that this increase resulted, not from the new conditions, but from the knowledge of being observed. This finding provided strong evidence that people work for purposes other than pay, which paved the way for researchers to investigate other factors in employee satisfaction. Scientific management (aka Taylorism) also had a significant impact on the study of employee satisfaction. Frederick Winslow Taylors 1911 book, Principles of Scientific Management, argued that there was a single best way to perform any given work task. This book contributed to a change in industrial production philosophies, causing a shift from skilled labor and piecework towards the more modern of assembly lines and hourly wages. The initial use of scientific management by industries greatly increased productivity because workers were forced to work at a faster pace. However, workers became exhausted and dissatisfied, thus leaving researchers with new questions to answer regarding employee satisfaction. It should also be noted that the work of W.L. Bryan, Walter Dill Scott, and Hugo Munsterberg set the tone for Taylors work. Some argue that Maslows hierarchy of needs theory, a motivation theory, laid the foundation for employee satisfaction theory. This theory explains that people seek to satisfy five specific needs in life physiological needs, safety needs, social needs, self-esteem needs, and selfactualization. This model served as a good basis from which early researchers could develop employee satisfaction theories. Employee satisfaction can also be seen within the broader context of the range of issues which affect an individual's experience of work, or their quality of working life. Employee satisfaction can be understood in terms of its relationships with other key factors, such as general wellbeing, stress at work, control at work, home-work interface, working conditions, pay, supervision, team etc. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_satisfaction).
8
Processes in automotive manufacturing:

An automotive manufacturing plant typically has 3 shops wherein different processes take place Bodyshop, Paintshop and assembly line. The Body shop is where the differently stamped metal bits are welded together and a vehicle body shell is the output. From the Body shop, the body shell gets transported to the Paint shop where it is painted the required color. Thereafter it goes to General Assembly, where the rest of the parts are assembled onto the painted body shell and a finished vehicle emerges.
Satisfaction by different factors:

Employee Satisfaction by Pay:
The measurement of Employee Satisfaction related to pay can be done with the help of payment system. Different companies use different type of payment system. The workers of low paid and high paid in developing and under-developed countries to analyze employee satisfaction level and also highlight different determinants of employee satisfaction among the workers that exist in low and higher wages/pay in across the world. Job satisfaction level is less for employees, who receive less amount of pay whereas higher amount receiving employees have high level of satisfaction. Employees should be satisfied with competitive salary packages and they should be satisfied with it when comparing their pay packets with those of the outsiders who are working in the same industry.
Employee Satisfaction by Promotion:

Promotion is a Shifting of employee for a job of higher significance and higher compensation. The upward movement of an employee in the hierarchy of the organization, typically that leads to increase of responsibility and rank and an improved compensation package is a promotion. Another definition of promotion is the reassignment of an employee to a higher-rank of job. Many researchers give their opinion that employee satisfaction is strongly correlated with promotion opportunities and there is a direct and positive association between promotional opportunities and Employee satisfaction.
Employee Satisfaction by Co-Worker:

A good co-worker, team, group have significantly increase the level of satisfaction of employees. This is a natural desire of every human to interact with others. The co-workers with different thinking and mind can decrease the level of satisfaction. The existence of group of related mind employees in companies is an observable factor.
Employee Satisfaction by Supervision:

A good working relationship with your supervisor is essential since, at every stage, you need his or her professional input, constructive criticism, and general understanding. Following these points come under this category:
9
Relationship with immediate supervisor. Communication between employees and senior management.
Employee Satisfaction by Work:

An employee work also affect on the satisfaction of employees job. Employees are high ly motivated with good working conditions as they provide a feeling of safety, comfort and motivation. Employees satisfy from job which is challenging. Their work must be related to their ability and skills. Every employee wants to use their mental creative ability to perform their work.
Organizational Structure of companies in which satisfaction is measured:

The organizational structure of both companies (AL-Amin automobile & Ahmad automobile companies) is almost same. 5 to 8 members made up a team which is handling by a supervisor. Supervisor reported to company manager for all issues related to manufacture of automobiles.
Objective of the study:

Measure Employee satisfaction level in two automobiles manufacturing companies. Recommend possible solutions to improve Employee satisfaction within the companies. These objectives were made with a main assumption in mind that the measured Employee satisfaction levels between the two companies would be different.
Purpose:
The main purpose of the study of the study is to examine the level of satisfaction in two manufacturing companies by interrogating 5 factors of satisfaction in both companies. The 5 factors are Pay, Promotion, Co-Worker, Supervision and Work.
Research Question:
What is the difference in the levels of Employee satisfaction of manufacturing companys employees?
Data Analysis Tool:

The tool which is used to analysis the data is Mann Whitney U test. It is a non-paramatic test of null hypothesis that the two populations are same against an alternate hypothesis. Especially that a particular population tends to have larger values than the other. Mann Whitney U test also called MannWhitneyWilcoxon (MWW), Wilcoxon rank-sum test, or WilcoxonMannWhitney test.
Limitations:
This exploratory study about employees satisfaction has some limitations that however do not liquidate the purpose of the study. Data for the study will collect Rahim Yar Khan and Sadiq Abad. I selected only 2 companies according to our convenience.
10
11
Literature View
Manufacturing is the utilization of machines, equipment and labor to manufacture goods for use or sale. The term manufacturing may refer to a range of human operations, from handicraft to high technology, but is most commonly practical to industrial manufacturing, in which inputs are transformed into completed goods on a large scale. Such completed goods may be used for production other, more intricate products, such as aircraft, housekeeping appliances or automobiles, or sold to wholesalers, who sell them to retailers, who then sell them to end customer - the Final consumers" (Spector, 1997) Over years, employee satisfaction has been a key area of research among industrial and organizational psychologists. There are important reasons why companies should be concerned with employee satisfaction, which can be classified according to the focus on the employee or the organization. First, the humanitarian perspective is that people deserve to be treated fairly and with respect. Employee satisfaction is the reflection of a good treatment. It also can be considered as an indicator of emotional well-being or psychological health. Second, the utilitarian perspective is that Employee satisfaction can lead to behavior by an employee that affects organizational functioning. Furthermore, Employee satisfaction can be a reflection of organizational functioning. Differences among organizational units in Employee satisfaction can be diagnostic of potential trouble spots. Each reason is sufficient to justify concern with Employee satisfaction. Combined they explain and justify the attention that is paid to this important variable. Managers in many organizations share the concerns of researches for the Employee satisfaction of employees. (Hughes, 2009) The assessment of Employee satisfaction is a common activity in many organizations where management feels that employee well-being is important. It makes sense that people that are comfortable within their working environment will work far more effectively and will enjoy the working process more than those who are uncomfortable. Therefore you should consider certain aspects of your employees workspace quite carefully. There are several issues that affect the comfort of the working environment. The first issue is noise. If it appears that there might be a problem with the amount of noise within the workplace then special actions should be implemented, such as the measurement of noise levels by a competent person. Noise can be the cause of irreversible hearing damage and also lead to increased levels of stress. It is normally caused by loud machines and it is necessary to check the noise emission levels when buying any new plant or machinery. The remedies are usually quite simple, for example providing the employees with hearing protection, rotating staff who works close to noisy machinery to decrease their exposure times, and clearly marking any high noise areas to warn people of the risk.
12
(Armstrong, 2006,) The level of Employee satisfaction is affected by intrinsic and extrinsic motivating factors, the quality of supervision, social relationships with the work group and the degree to which individuals succeed or fail in their work. It is believed that the behavior that helps the firm to be successful is most likely to happen when the employees are well motivated and feel committed to the organization, and when the job gives them a high level of satisfaction. The research showed that the key factors affecting Employee satisfaction are career opportunities, job influence, teamwork and job challenge. (Kahn, 1972) Mentioned that job content, supervision, physical work conditions and possibly organization structure are amongst the highly probable causes of satisfaction and dissatisfaction in the workplace. In the automotive industry, jobs are standardized and have a narrow range, as designed according to scientific management principles. (Kreitner, 1999) People are fitted into jobs and are expected to adjust accordingly, which doesnt allow room for self-expression and results in alienation and frustration in the workplace. There is no independence and freedom allowed in doing the job, therefore the employees need for self-esteem is not satisfied, as outlined in Maslows hierarchy of needs theory. (Gardell & Schultz, 1976 & 1986) This diminishes the sense of achievement as the job is limited to a particular repetitive operation, depriving the person of the opportunity to see a job through to its final completion. As a result, the individual experiences a basic frustration that manifests itself in different efforts to achieve adjustment. These could be high dissatisfaction, turnover and absenteeism.
Definition of Employee Satisfaction:

Greenberg and Baron (1999:170) defined job satisfaction as an individuals reaction to their job. This reaction they categorized as cognitive, affective and evaluative. Smith, Kendall and Hulin (1969) defined job satisfaction as the feelings a worker has about his job, with different feelings attached to different aspects of the job.
Factor Affecting Employee Satisfaction: Pay:

Pay does play a significant role in determining of satisfaction. Salaries and wages are instrumental in fulfilling so many needs. Money facilities the obtaining of food, shelter, and clothing and provides the means to enjoy valued leisure interest outside of work. Moreover, pay can serve as symbol of achievement and a source of recognition. Employees often see pay as a reflection of organization. Fringe benefits have not been found to have strong influence on job satisfaction direct wages.
13
Promotion:
Firstly, promotion indicates an employees worth to the organization which is highly m oral boosting. This is particularly true in case of high level jobs. Secondly, employee takes promotion as the ultimate achievement in his career and when it is realized, he feels extremely satisfied Luthans (2002a). Thirdly, promotion involves positive changes e.g. high salary, less supervision, increased status etc which enhances job satisfaction.
Co-Worker:
Robbins (2003) a friendly and cooperative group provides opportunities to the group members to interact with each other. The co-worker will be even a stronger source of satisfaction when members have similar attitudes and values. Smaller team provides greater opportunity for building mutual trust and understanding as compared to larger groups. Thus, team/group size and quality of interpersonal relations within the group play a significant role in workers satisfaction.
Supervision:
Employee centered or consideration supervisors who establish a supportive personal relationship with subordinates and take a personal interest in them. The other dimension of supervisory style influence participation in decision making, employee who participates in decision that affect their job, display a much higher level of satisfaction with supervisor and the overall work situation (Davis & Newstrom 2002).
Work:
Employees prefer interesting and challenging work that provides chances of self-actualization and recognition. Employees that execute their tasks efficiently, they need skills and abilities through training and development, which serve to enable the employer to reach its HR targets, not forgetting that these two are of mutual interest to the employer and the employee.
Measurement of Employee satisfaction:

General attitude of an employee about their job is an employee satisfaction. Employee satisfaction can assessed/measured by questionnaire, meetings and from their behavior. (al, 2001) Offer that various instruments/tools are used to measure the employee satisfaction. Few of these are Rating scale these are questionnaires in which people inform their reactions to their jobs. Example is JDI. Interviews Structured interviews provide a basis for comparison and ensure that important aspects are covered. There are many methods for measuring job satisfaction. By far, the most common method for collecting data regarding job satisfaction is the Likert scale (named after Rensis Likert). Other less common methods of for gauging job
14
satisfaction include: Yes/No questions, True/False questions, point systems, checklists, and forced choice answers.
15
16
Methodology
This section provides an overview of the methods used in the study. Areas covered include research design, population, sample and sampling technique, data collection and analysis. This research report is anticipated to inspect the perception of employee satisfaction. This report will include definition of perception of employee satisfaction, factor that effected employee satisfaction.
Sampling unit:
Samples for this study shall include 2 automobiles manufacturing companies of Sadiq Abad and Rahim Yar Khan (Pakistan). Convenience samples are drawn from the both automobiles manufacturing companies. Our definition of convenience samples includes only one dimension that is easy access to the sample units otherwise it was random selection of individuals from a companys employees. The data will be collected using a structured questionnaire. Data is collected from the targeted employees in their organization. The questionnaire had the following dimensions: Demographics of the employees such as Gender, age and income. Factors affecting the employee satisfaction.
Sample size:
Since it is an exploratory study, a sample size of 100 thought to be an adequate one. Accordingly 100 respondents from the target population were approached to fill in the questionnaire.
Methods of data analysis:

Many statistical techniques like descriptive statistics are used to analyze the data by using softwares like SPSS and M.S excel est. have use the following tools in analysis: Frequency distribution Chart
Data collection:
17
Primary data
Primary data refer to information obtained firsthand by the researcher on the variable of interest for the specific purpose of study.
Sources of primary data are:

Individual. Focus Group. Panels of respondents specifically set up by the researcher to get the information time to time. A formal questionnaire will be used for the data collection. The questionnaire will be designed in such a way that this will make farmers to respond correctly and completely.
Data collection method:

Data can be collected in variety of ways depending upon the different types of studies, (field study or lab setting) and vary as per different sources (Primary source and secondary source). Interviews Questionnaire.
Data Analysis:
Data gathered are statistically analyzed to see if the hypotheses that were generated have been supported. Mann Whitney U test is used to test the data. We used this test because we have 2 independent samples we used this test to find the difference in satisfaction between two automobiles companies.
Hypothesis:
Significant level is 5%
18
Ho = There is no significant difference between employee satisfaction in both companies. Ha = There is a significant difference between employee satisfaction in both companies. H0 = There is no significance difference in pay between both companies. H1 = There is significance difference in pay between both companies. H0 = There is no significance difference in promotion between both companies. H1 = There is significance difference in promotion between both companies. H0 = There is no significance difference in co-worker between both companies. H1 = There is significance difference in co-worker between both companies. H0 = There is no significance difference in supervision between both companies. H1 = There is significance difference in supervision between both companies. H0 = There is no significance difference in work between both companies. H1 = There is significance difference in work between both companies.
19
Theoretical Framework
Variable A variable is anything that can take on differing or varying values.
20
Dependent variable
The dependent variable in this study is Difference in Employee Satisfaction between two automobile companies (AL-Amin & Ahmad).
Independent variable
Pay Promotion Co-worker Supervision Work
21
Data Analysis
22
The result of the study job satisfaction by providing the descriptive and inferential statistics from the responses which we received from questionnaire filled by the employees of the automobiles companies.
Analysis of Result:
The tables which are shown below show the result of questionnaire of employee satisfaction by using JDI.
Descriptive Statistics Frequencies:

These are the descriptive statistics of the combined responses of both companies (AL-Amin & Ahmad automobiles). The following are the responses.
Pay:
My income is adequate for my normal expenses.
Out of 100 questionnaire 24% are strongly dissatisfied, 28% dissatisfied, 18% neutral, 16% agree and 14% strongly agree from this question and the mean is 2.680. My income is adequate for my normal expenses
Frequency Valid S.D D N A S.A Total 24 28 18 16 14 100 Percent 24.0 28.0 18.0 16.0 14.0 100.0 Valid Percent 24.0 28.0 18.0 16.0 14.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 24.0 52.0 70.0 86.0 100.0
Statistics My income is adequate for my normal expenses

N Valid Missing Mean Median Std. Deviation 100 0 2.6800 2.0000 1.36980
23
The company shares its profits satisfactorily.

Responses from this question showed that 27% strongly dissatisfied, 18% dissatisfied, 19% neutral, 17% agree and 19% are strongly agree from this question and the mean is 2.8300.
The company shares its profits satisfactorily Frequency Percent Valid S.D D N A S.A Total 27 18 19 17 19 100 27.0 18.0 19.0 17.0 19.0 100.0 Valid Percent 27.0 18.0 19.0 17.0 19.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 27.0 45.0 64.0 81.0 100.0
Statistics
The company shares its profits satisfactorily N Valid Missing Mean Median Std. Deviation 100 0 2.8300 3.0000 1.47747
24
I can manage on the income I get from my company.

Responses from this question showed that 26% strongly dissatisfied, 14% dissatisfied, 18% neutral, 21% agree and 21% strongly agree from this question and the mean is 2.9700.
I can manage on the income I get from my company Frequency Percent Valid S.D D N A S.A Total 26 14 18 21 21 100 26.0 14.0 18.0 21.0 21.0 100.0 Valid Percent 26.0 14.0 18.0 21.0 21.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 26.0 40.0 58.0 79.0 100.0
Statistics
I can manage on the income I get from my company N Valid Missing Mean Median Std. Deviation 100 0 2.9700 3.0000 1.50054
25
My pay from this company is secure.

My pay from this company is secure Frequency Percent Valid S.D D N A S.A Total 8 28 22 19 23 100 8.0 28.0 22.0 19.0 23.0 100.0 Valid Percent 8.0 28.0 22.0 19.0 23.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 8.0 36.0 58.0 77.0 100.0
Statistics
My pay from this company is secure N Valid Missing Mean Median Std. Deviation 100 0 3.2100 3.0000 1.29720
26
I am satisfied with the compensation package I get from this company.

I am satisfied with the compensation package I get from this company Frequency Percent Valid S.D D N A S.A Total 6 16 30 30 18 100 6.0 16.0 30.0 30.0 18.0 100.0 Valid Percent 6.0 16.0 30.0 30.0 18.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 6.0 22.0 52.0 82.0 100.0
Statistics
I am satisfied with the compensation package I get from this company N Valid Missing Mean Median Std. Deviation 100 0 3.3800 3.0000 1.13511
Mean Pay:
The mean pay is 3.014.
27
Promotion:
There is a good opportunity for advancement in company.
There is a good opportunity for advancement in company Frequency Percent Valid S.D D N A S.A Total 16 28 23 20 13 100 16.0 28.0 23.0 20.0 13.0 100.0 Valid Percent 16.0 28.0 23.0 20.0 13.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 16.0 44.0 67.0 87.0 100.0
Statistics
There is a good opportunity for advancement in company N Valid Missing Mean Median Std. Deviation 100 0 2.8600 3.0000 1.27936
28
Promotions at company are based on ability.

Promotions at company are based on ability Frequency Percent Valid S.D D N A S.A Total 26 18 19 12 25 100 26.0 18.0 19.0 12.0 25.0 100.0 Valid Percent 26.0 18.0 19.0 12.0 25.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 26.0 44.0 63.0 75.0 100.0
Statistics
Promotions at company are based on ability N Valid Missing Mean Median Std. Deviation 100 0 2.9200 3.0000 1.53531
29
I have a specific career path.

I have a specific career path Frequency Percent Valid S.D D N A S.A Total 26 17 21 15 21 100 26.0 17.0 21.0 15.0 21.0 100.0 Valid Percent 26.0 17.0 21.0 15.0 21.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 26.0 43.0 64.0 79.0 100.0
Statistics
I have a specific career path N Valid Missing Mean Median Std. Deviation 100 0 2.8800 3.0000 1.48583
30
This Company has a fair promotion policy.

This Company has a fair promotion policy Frequency Percent Valid S.D D N A S.A Total 18 29 18 22 13 100 18.0 29.0 18.0 22.0 13.0 100.0 Valid Percent 18.0 29.0 18.0 22.0 13.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 18.0 47.0 65.0 87.0 100.0
Statistics
This Company has a fair promotion policy N Valid Missing Mean Median Std. Deviation 100 0 2.8300 3.0000 1.31852
31
There are frequent promotions in company.

There are frequent promotions in company Frequency Percent Valid S.D D N A S.A Total 7 18 32 26 17 100 7.0 18.0 32.0 26.0 17.0 100.0 Valid Percent 7.0 18.0 32.0 26.0 17.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 7.0 25.0 57.0 83.0 100.0
Statistics
There are frequent promotions in company N Valid Missing Mean Median Std. Deviation 100 0 3.2800 3.0000 1.15540
Mean promotion:
Mean promotion is 2.95.
32
Co-Worker:
My co-workers work well as a team.
My co-workers work well as a team Frequency Percent Valid S.D D N A S.A Total 32 24 13 15 16 100 32.0 24.0 13.0 15.0 16.0 100.0 Valid Percent 32.0 24.0 13.0 15.0 16.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 32.0 56.0 69.0 84.0 100.0
Statistics
My co-workers work well as a team N Valid Missing Mean Median Std. Deviation 100 0 2.5900 2.0000 1.47090
33
My co-workers are loyal.

My co-workers are loyal Frequency Percent Valid S.D D N A S.A Total 18 17 15 23 27 100 18.0 17.0 15.0 23.0 27.0 100.0 Valid Percent 18.0 17.0 15.0 23.0 27.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 18.0 35.0 50.0 73.0 100.0
Statistics
My co-workers are loyal N Valid Missing Mean Median Std. Deviation 100 0 3.2400 3.5000 1.47107
34
My co-workers are hard-working.

My co-workers are hard-working Frequency Percent Valid S.D D N A S.A Total 27 24 15 14 20 100 27.0 24.0 15.0 14.0 20.0 100.0 Valid Percent 27.0 24.0 15.0 14.0 20.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 27.0 51.0 66.0 80.0 100.0
Statistics
My co-workers are hardworking N Valid Missing Mean Median Std. Deviation 100 0 2.7600 2.0000 1.49152
35
My co-workers are responsible.

My co-workers are responsible Frequency Percent Valid S.D D N A S.A Total 12 18 21 30 19 100 12.0 18.0 21.0 30.0 19.0 100.0 Valid Percent 12.0 18.0 21.0 30.0 19.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 12.0 30.0 51.0 81.0 100.0
Statistics
My co-workers are responsible N Valid Missing Mean Median Std. Deviation 100 0 3.2600 3.0000 1.29193
36
My co-workers learn new skills quickly.

My co-workers learn new skills quickly Frequency Percent Valid S.D D N A S.A Total 15 25 29 24 7 100 15.0 25.0 29.0 24.0 7.0 100.0 Valid Percent 15.0 25.0 29.0 24.0 7.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 15.0 40.0 69.0 93.0 100.0
Statistics
My co-workers learn new skills quickly N Valid Missing Mean Median Std. Deviation 100 0 2.8300 3.0000 1.16389
37
I trust my co-workers.
I trust my co-workers Frequency Percent Valid S.D D N A S.A Total 11 18 26 17 28 100 11.0 18.0 26.0 17.0 28.0 100.0 Valid Percent 11.0 18.0 26.0 17.0 28.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 11.0 29.0 55.0 72.0 100.0
Statistics
I trust my co workers N Valid Missing Mean Median Std. Deviation 100 0 3.3300 3.0000 1.34881
Mean Co-Worker:
Mean Co-Worker is 2.985.
38
Supervision:
My supervisor gives me relative autonomy.
My supervisor gives me relative autonomy Frequency Percent

Valid
Valid Percent 29.0 31.0 14.0 11.0 15.0 100.0
Cumulative Percent 29.0 60.0 74.0 85.0 100.0
S.D D N A S.A Total
29 31 14 11 15 100
29.0 31.0 14.0 11.0 15.0 100.0
Statistics
My supervisor gives me relative autonomy N Valid Missing Mean Median Std. Deviation 100 0 2.5200 2.0000 1.40331
39
My supervisor runs the area properly.

My supervisor runs the area properly Frequency Percent Valid S.D D N A S.A Total 19 10 29 20 22 100 19.0 10.0 29.0 20.0 22.0 100.0 Valid Percent 19.0 10.0 29.0 20.0 22.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 19.0 29.0 58.0 78.0 100.0
Statistics
My supervisor runs the area properly N Valid Missing Mean Median Std. Deviation 100 0 3.1600 3.0000 1.39059
40
My supervisor is tactful.
My supervisor is tactful Frequency Percent Valid S.D D N A S.A Total 29 26 17 19 9 100 29.0 26.0 17.0 19.0 9.0 100.0 Valid Percent 29.0 26.0 17.0 19.0 9.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 29.0 55.0 72.0 91.0 100.0
Statistics
My supervisor is tactful N Valid Missing Mean Median Std. Deviation 100 0 2.5300 2.0000 1.3292 0
41
My supervisor is polite.
My supervisor is polite Frequency Percent Valid S.A D N A S.A Total 18 23 16 26 17 100 18.0 23.0 16.0 26.0 17.0 100.0 Valid Percent 18.0 23.0 16.0 26.0 17.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 18.0 41.0 57.0 83.0 100.0
Statistics
My supervisor is polite N Valid Missing Mean Median Std. Deviation 100 0 3.0100 3.0000 1.38166
42
My supervisor knows the (his/her) job well.

My supervisor knows the (his/her) job well Frequency Percent Valid S.D D N A S.A Total 11 19 26 22 22 100 11.0 19.0 26.0 22.0 22.0 100.0 Valid Percent 11.0 19.0 26.0 22.0 22.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 11.0 30.0 56.0 78.0 100.0
Statistics
My supervisor knows the (his/her) job well N Valid Missing Mean Median Std. Deviation 100 0 3.2500 3.0000 1.29782
43
My supervisor praises good work.

My supervisor praises good work Frequency Percent Valid S.D D N A S.A Total 12 20 25 15 28 100 12.0 20.0 25.0 15.0 28.0 100.0 Valid Percent 12.0 20.0 25.0 15.0 28.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 12.0 32.0 57.0 72.0 100.0
Statistics
My supervisor praises good work N Valid Missing Mean Median Std. Deviation 100 0 3.2700 3.0000 1.37698
Mean Supervision:
Mean Supervision is 2.955.
44
Work:
My work is satisfying.
My work is satisfying Frequency Percent Valid S.D D N A S.A Total 34 25 17 16 8 100 34.0 25.0 17.0 16.0 8.0 100.0 Valid Percent 34.0 25.0 17.0 16.0 8.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 34.0 59.0 76.0 92.0 100.0
Statistics
My work is satisfying N Valid Missing Mean Median Std. Deviation 100 0 2.3900 2.0000 1.31729
45
My work is physically challenging.

My work is physically challenging Frequency Percent Valid S.D D N A S.A Total 17 14 24 20 25 100 17.0 14.0 24.0 20.0 25.0 100.0 Valid Percent 17.0 14.0 24.0 20.0 25.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 17.0 31.0 55.0 75.0 100.0
Statistics
My work is physically challenging N Valid Missing Mean Median Std. Deviation 100 0 3.2200 3.0000 1.41121
46
My work involves my creative ability.

Responses from this question showed that 26% strongly dissatisfied, 26% dissatisfied, 18% neutral, 12% agree and 18% strongly agree from this question and the mean is 2.7000
My work involves my creative ability Frequency Percent Valid S.D D N A S.A Total 26 26 18 12 18 100 26.0 26.0 18.0 12.0 18.0 100.0 Valid Percent 26.0 26.0 18.0 12.0 18.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 26.0 52.0 70.0 82.0 100.0
Statistics
My work involves my creative ability N Valid Missing Mean Median Std. Deviation 100 0 2.7000 2.0000 1.43900
47
My work is mentally challenging.

Responses from this question showed that 9% strongly dissatisfied, 21% dissatisfied, 22% neutral, 27% agree and 21% strongly agree from this question and the mean is 3.3000
My work is mentally challenging Frequency Percent Valid S.D D N A S.A Total 9 21 22 27 21 100 9.0 21.0 22.0 27.0 21.0 100.0 Valid Percent 9.0 21.0 22.0 27.0 21.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 9.0 30.0 52.0 79.0 100.0
Statistics
My work is mentally challenging N Valid Missing Mean Median Std. Deviation 100 0 3.3000 3.0000 1.26730
48
My work involves routine.

My work involves routine Frequency Percent Valid S.D D N A S.A Total 13 14 30 26 17 100 13.0 14.0 30.0 26.0 17.0 100.0 Valid Percent 13.0 14.0 30.0 26.0 17.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 13.0 27.0 57.0 83.0 100.0
Statistics
My work involves routine N Valid Missing Mean Median Std. Deviation 100 0 3.2000 3.0000 1.25529
Mean Work:
Mean work is 2.96.
49
Inferential Statistics Frequencies:

Welman and Kruger (2000) mentioned that in a frequency histogram where all responses are plotted, the mean of a normally distributed frequency histogram will be the average point where the majority of the responses will lie. However, for a skewed frequency histogram, the Mode represents the point with the most frequent responses, while the Median divides the Standard Deviation in half for a skewed distribution. The type of test which we applied for testing hypothesis is Mann Whitney U test. This test is used two find the difference between two variables.
Test For Hypothesis testing:

We use Mann Whitney U test for testing hypothesis. The Mann-Whitney U test is used to compare differences between two independent groups when the dependent variable is either ordinal or continuous, but not normally distributed. For example, you could use the MannWhitney U test to understand whether attitudes towards pay discrimination, where attitudes are measured on an ordinal scale, differ based on gender (i.e., your dependent variable would be "attitudes towards pay discrimination" and your independent variable would be "gender", which has two groups: "male" and "female"). The Mann-Whitney U test is often considered the nonparametric alternative to the independent t-test.
P value in Mann Whitney U test:

You can't interpret a P value until you know the null hypothesis being tested. For the MannWhitney test, the null hypothesis is a bit hard to understand. The null hypothesis is that the distributions of both groups are identical, so that there is a 50% probability that an observation from a value randomly selected from one population exceeds an observation randomly selected from the other population. Pay Test Statisticsa
I am satisfied with the
My income is I can manage on compensation adequate for The company the income I get My pay from this package I get my normal shares its profits from my company is from this expenses satisfactorily company secure company Mann-Whitney U Wilcoxon W Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Exact Sig. (2-tailed) Exact Sig. (1-tailed) Point Probability 960.000 2235.000 -2.049 .040 .040 .020 .000
1062.000 2337.000 -1.326 .185 .187 .093 .002 853.500 2128.500 -2.796 .005 .005 .002 .000 1178.500 2453.500 -.506 .613 .621 .310 .001 890.000 2165.000 -2.565 .010 .010 .005 .000
a. Grouping Variable: Companies 50
Significance level is 5% (0.05)
Pay:
H0 = There is no significance difference in pay between both companies. H1 = There is significance difference in pay between both companies. Our sample size is not so large so we take the exact significance (1-tailed) = 0.08 which is greater than significance level so that null hypothesis is not rejected. There is no difference in pay between both companies.
Promotion Test Statistics
a
There is a good opportunity Promotions for at company advancement are based on in company ability Mann-Whitney U Wilcoxon W Z Asymp. Sig. (2tailed) Exact Sig. (2-tailed) Exact Sig. (1-tailed) Point Probability 1097.500 2372.500 -1.078 .281 .282 .141 .001 1236.500 2511.500 -.095 .924 .931 .466 .004
This Company There are I have a has a fair frequent specific promotion promotions in career path policy company 1137.000 2412.000 -.797 .426 .433 .217 .003 1085.500 2360.500 -1.163 .245 .248 .124 .003 1233.500 2508.500 -.117 .907 .907 .453 .001
a. Grouping Variable: Companies
Promotion:
H0 = There is no significance difference in promotion between both companies. H1 = There is significance difference in promotion between both companies. Our sample size is not so large so we take the exact significance (1-tailed) = 0.20 which is greater than significance level so that null hypothesis is not rejected. There is no difference in promotion between both companies.
51
Co-worker Test Statisticsa My coMy coMy coMy coMy co-workers I trust my workers work workers are workers are workers are learn new skills cowell as a team loyal hard-working responsible quickly workers Mann-Whitney U Wilcoxon W Z Asymp. Sig. (2tailed) Exact Sig. (2tailed) Exact Sig. (1tailed) Point Probability 1176.500 2451.500 -.522 .602 .605 .303 .003 1122.500 2397.500 -.900 .368 .369 .184 .001 949.500 2224.500 -2.123 .034 .034 .017 .000 1187.500 2462.500 -.442 .658 .661 .330 .000 1118.500 2393.500 -.934 .350 .354 .177 .002 1146.000 2421.000 -.736 .462 .457 .229 .001
Co-Worker:
H0 = There is no significance difference in co-worker between both companies. H1 = There is significance difference in co-worker between both companies. Our sample size is not so large so we take the exact significance (1-tailed) = 0.20 which is greater than significance level so that null hypothesis is not rejected. There is no difference in co-worker between both companies.
52
Supervision Test Statisticsa My supervisor gives me relative autonomy Mann-Whitney U Wilcoxon W Z Asymp. Sig. (2tailed) Exact Sig. (2tailed) Exact Sig. (1tailed) Point Probability 1213.500 2488.500 -.260 .795 .797 .398 .001 My supervisor runs the area properly 1131.000 2406.000 -.842 .400 .403 .202 .001 My My My My supervisor supervisor supervisor supervisor is knows the praises is tactful polite (his/her) job well good work 1110.500 2385.500 -.989 .323 .325 .163 .001 1220.500 2495.500 -.208 .835 .856 .428 .004 1045.000 2320.000 -1.448 .148 .150 .075 .001 1205.500 2480.500 -.315 .753 .759 .380 .001
Supervision:
H0 = There is no significance difference in supervision between both companies. H1 = There is significance difference in supervision between both companies. Our sample size is not so large so we take the exact significance (1-tailed) = 0.27 which is greater than significance level so that null hypothesis is not rejected. There is no difference in supervision between both companies.
53
Work Test Statisticsa My work is physically challenging 1120.000 2395.000 -.917 .359 .362 .181 .001 My work involves my creative ability 1072.000 2347.000 -1.258 .208 .213 .107 .004 My work is mentally challenging 1056.500 2331.500 -1.368 .171 .173 .087 .001 My work involves routine 1122.500 2397.500 -.904 .366 .371 .186 .002
My work is satisfying Mann-Whitney U Wilcoxon W Z Asymp. Sig. (2tailed) Exact Sig. (2-tailed) Exact Sig. (1-tailed) Point Probability 1215.000 2490.000 -.249 .803 .807 .403 .002
Work:
H0 = There is no significance difference in work between both companies. H1 = There is significance difference in work between both companies. Our sample size is not so large so we take the exact significance (1-tailed) = 0.19 which is greater than significance level so that null hypothesis is not rejected. There is no difference in work between both companies.
54
Difference in Employee satisfaction between companies:

The mean of 5 factor of employee satisfaction were calculated from both the companies and results are recorded in the table shown below. Ahmad automobiles employee show higher mean on the questions related to pay, co-worker and supervision. While question related to promotion and work have equal mean. AL-Amin Co. 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Companies means per JDI Ahmad Co. 3.0 2.9 3.0 3.0 2.9 3.00
Mean Pay Mean Promotion Mean Co-Worker Mean Supervision Mean work Companies JDI Mean
The responses of both the companies have lie almost on a neutral point on the Likert scale (2.9 to 3.0). In testing whether there is a significant difference in employee satisfaction the means of 5 factors of both companies are tested against set hypothesis. 5% significant level (Ho is rejected if p<0.05) p-value Mean Pay 0.08 Mean Promotion 0.20 Mean Co-Worker 0.20 Mean Supervision 0.27 Mean work 0.19 Companies Mann Whitney test result
Pay:
p= 0.08 therefore the H0 (Hypothesis) is not rejected. There is no significance difference between the means of both companies related to pay.
Promotion:
p= 0.20 therefore the H0 (Hypothesis) is not rejected. There is no significance difference between the means of both companies related to promotion.
Co-Worker:
p= 0.20 therefore the H0 (Hypothesis) is not rejected. There is no significance difference between the means of both companies related to co-worker.
55
Supervision:
p= 0.27 therefore the H0 (Hypothesis) is not rejected. There is no significance difference between the means of both companies related to supervision.
Work:
p= 0.19 therefore the H0 (Hypothesis) is not rejected. There is no significance difference between the means of both companies related to work. Ho = There was no significant difference between employee satisfaction in both companies. Ha = There was a significant difference between employee satisfaction in both companies. The combined mean of the JDI 5 factors is 0.94 which is greater than significance level. The result shows that there is no difference in satisfaction between both companies.
Conclusion:
This chapter provided the quantitative results of the study into the employee satisfaction of the manufacturing employees of AL-Amin and Ahmad automobile companies. No significant differences are found between the 5 factors of the JDI.
56
57
Conclusion & Findings

No significant difference was found between the 5 overall JDI categories between the 2 Auto manufacturing companies, indicating that employees between the 2 companies were more or less equally almost neutral with their jobs. There was, however, no difference between the 2 companies in the promotions and work category. The Ahmad auto company employees were neutral in pay, supervision and co-worker category while the AL-Amin auto company employees scored between neutral and dissatisfied almost equal to neutral. Of the 5 categories of the JDI, the all categories have almost equal mean. No significant difference in employee satisfaction was found between the Companies. Indications are that they will eventually get used to it and report neutral/indifferent feelings on the subject the longer they continue their employment with the company, judging by the results of the 5 categories. The Team members, Team leaders and Coordinators survey results indicated no significant difference between the 5 JDI categories. The three employee ranks surveyed reported more or less the same employee satisfaction. One would have thought that the low income earners would be dissatisfied with their pay and the high earners would be satisfied, however, that was not the case. The results showed that the employees surveyed felt equitably remunerated according to their role in the company. In conclusion, in conducting this research, what seemed the case in the researchers eyes was investigated and found not to be the case? It once again demonstrates that employee satisfaction is a not-so-tangible concept. What is seen at face value has no semblance to what is the case. What you see is not always what you get. Deeper analysis revealed similarity in employee satisfaction levels of two seemingly different Companies.
58
59
Recommendations 1. Develop an attractive employee value proposition.

An employee value proposition means that your company has something attractive to offer that is perceived as valuable to an employee. As an employer, you must understand what makes your organization attractive to potential recruits and current employees.
2. Create a total reward structure that includes more than compensation.

Every company should have all the normal compensation mechanisms common to their type of employees.
3. Give feedback on employee performance on a regular basis.

Most managers and employees are not enamored with the performance appraisal process in their organization. Yet, total rewards packages go far beyond money.
4. Create a culture of engagement.

Employees have become more connected with others in the organization (and the broader supply-and-customer chain) through project-based team work and process management activities.
5. Train managers to be effective.

Exit interviews consistently show that poor and bad management practices greatly contribute to an employees decision to leave a company.
60
61
References
A, W. (n.d.). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_satisfaction . al, N. e. (2001). job satisfaction and job performance , 35. al, S. e. (1969). employee satisfaction in two plants of G.M , 36. Armstrong. (2006,). EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AND JOB SATISFACTION , 11-12. Cockburn, & Haydn. (2004). Job satisfaction , Dissertion , 2 out of 180. Daniels, & Gower. (2001, 2003). 01 Dissertion, factor affecting job satisfaction , 2. Gardell, & S. a. (1976 & 1986). EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION IN TWO FACILITIES OF GENERAL MOTORS IN SOUTH AFRICA , 15. Hughes. (2009). Employee Satisfaction and motivation , 13. Kahn. (1972). MATUTOANE. A STUDY OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION IN TWO MANUFACTURING FACILITIES OF GENERAL MOTORS SOUTH AFRICA , 14. Kaplan. (1996). EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AND EMPLOYEE MOTIVATION , 11. Kreitner, e. a. (1999). EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION IN TWO FACILITIES OF GENERAL MOTOR OF SOUTH AFRICA , 15. Spector. (1997). EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AND EMPLOYEE MOTIVATION , 11. Storey, George, & O. M. (1995, 2000, 2000). 01 dissertation , 1.
ADAMS, J. S., 1965. Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol2. New York: Academic Press. ALAVI, H.R. & ASKARIPUR, M.R., 2003. The relationship between self-esteem and job satisfaction of personnel in government organizations. Public Personnel Management. 32,4:591-598. ALDERFER, C.P., 1972. Existence, relatedness, and growth. New York: Free Press.
62
BARBASH, J., 1976. Job satisfaction attitudes surveys. Paris: Organization for Economic Co operation and Development. JACOBY, J. & OLSON, J.C., 1985. Perceived Quality: How consumers view stores and merchandise. Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company. JACQUES, E., 1990. Creativity and Work. Madison, Connecticut: International Universities Press, Inc. KAHN, R.L., 1972. The meaning of Work: Interpretation and Proposals for measurement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. KATZ, D. & KAHN, R.L., 1978. The social psychology of organizations (2e). New York: John Wiley and Sons. KELLY, J.E., 1982. Scientific management, job redesign and work performance. London: Academic Press.
63
64
Employee Satisfaction Questionnaires

Dear Respondent: The Questionnaire is based on the measurement of Employee/Job satisfaction in manufacturing sector (automobiles). Your response will be very helpful for completing this research. The employees related to production department can only fill this questionnaire.
Organization: Job title: Gender: Select your Salary:

a) 5,000 to 10,000 b) 10,001 to 15,000 c) 15,001 to 20,000 d) 20,001 to 30,000 e) 30,001 to 40,000 f) 40,0001 to 55,000 g) 55,001 to 70,000
Male/Female
Age:
Pay: S.D
My income is adequate for my normal expenses The company shares its profits satisfactorily I can manage on the income I get from my company My pay from this company is secure I am satisfied with the compensation package I get from this company
A S.A
Promotion: S.D D
There is a good opportunity for advancement in company Promotions at company are based on ability I have a specific career path This Company has a fair promotion policy There are frequent promotions in company
S.A
65
Co-worker: S.D
My co-workers work well as a team My co-workers are loyal My co-workers are hard-working My co-workers are responsible My co-workers learn new skills quickly I trust my co-workers
S.A
Supervision: S.D
My supervisor gives me relative autonomy My supervisor runs the area properly My supervisor is tactful My supervisor is polite My supervisor knows the (his/her) job well My supervisor praises good work
S.A
Work: S.D
My work is satisfying My work is physically challenging My work involves my creative ability My work is mentally challenging My work involves routine
S.A
66
67

1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Project on Employee Satisfaction in Two Automotive Companies Department of Commerce BS (Commerce) 8th

Table of Content Chapter No. 1 Introduction: Contents Page No.

Introduction Employee satisfaction:

Background of the Study:

History of Employee Satisfaction:

Processes in automotive manufacturing:

Satisfaction by different factors:

Employee Satisfaction by Promotion:

Employee Satisfaction by Co-Worker:

Employee Satisfaction by Supervision:

Employee Satisfaction by Work:

Organizational Structure of companies in which satisfaction is measured:

Objective of the study:

Data Analysis Tool:

Definition of Employee Satisfaction:

Factor Affecting Employee Satisfaction: Pay:

Measurement of Employee satisfaction:

Methods of data analysis:

Sources of primary data are:

Data collection method:

Descriptive Statistics Frequencies:

Statistics My income is adequate for my normal expenses

The company shares its profits satisfactorily.

I can manage on the income I get from my company.

My pay from this company is secure.

I am satisfied with the compensation package I get from this company.

Promotions at company are based on ability.

I have a specific career path.

This Company has a fair promotion policy.

There are frequent promotions in company.

My co-workers are loyal.

My co-workers are hard-working.

My co-workers are responsible.

My co-workers learn new skills quickly.

My supervisor gives me relative autonomy Frequency Percent

Valid Percent 29.0 31.0 14.0 11.0 15.0 100.0

Cumulative Percent 29.0 60.0 74.0 85.0 100.0

S.D D N A S.A Total

29.0 31.0 14.0 11.0 15.0 100.0

My supervisor runs the area properly.

My supervisor knows the (his/her) job well.

My supervisor praises good work.

My work is physically challenging.

My work involves my creative ability.

My work is mentally challenging.

My work involves routine.

Inferential Statistics Frequencies:

Test For Hypothesis testing:

P value in Mann Whitney U test:

a. Grouping Variable: Companies 50

Significance level is 5% (0.05)

a. Grouping Variable: Companies

a. Grouping Variable: Companies

a. Grouping Variable: Companies

a. Grouping Variable: Companies

Difference in Employee satisfaction between companies:

Conclusion & Findings

Recommendations 1. Develop an attractive employee value proposition.

2. Create a total reward structure that includes more than compensation.

3. Give feedback on employee performance on a regular basis.

4. Create a culture of engagement.

5. Train managers to be effective.

Employee Satisfaction Questionnaires