Employee Satisfaction among Different

Divisions
A study of Strada Restaurant

Submitted by

Zahid Iqbal
ID: ST10008861

MBA
Cardiff School of Management
University of Wales Institute, Cardiff
July 2011

Signed Statement

DECLARATION
This work is being submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
MBA .and has not previously been accepted in substance for any degree and is not
being concurrently submitted in candidature for any degree.

Signed ...................................................................... (candidate)

Date ..........................................................................
STATEMENT 1
This dissertation is the result of my own work and investigations, except where
otherwise stated. Where correction services have been used, the extent and nature
of the correction is clearly marked in a footnote(s).
Other sources are acknowledged by footnotes giving explicit references. A
bibliography is appended.
Signed ..................................................................... (candidate)
Date .........................................................................
STATEMENT 2
I hereby give consent for my dissertation, if accepted, to be available for
photocopying and for inter-library loan, for deposit in UWICs e-Repository, and that
the title and summary may be available to outside organisations.
Signed ..................................................................... (candidate)
Date .........................................................................

Supervisor Declaration Form

Student Name

ZAHID IQBAL.

Supervisors Name

BARBARA BARNES

I acknowledge that the above named student has regularly attended the
planned meetings and actively engaged in the dissertation supervision
process.
They have provided regular timely draft chapters of the
dissertation and followed given guidance.

Signed

Date

Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to investigate employee satisfaction among different
divisions which are based on the type of work and task which they perform. The
study was conducted to indentify the factors which have a relationship with employee
satisfaction and to compare the level of job satisfaction between front of house
(FOH) employees and back of house (BOH) employees.
Design/methodology/ approach
The researcher adapted interpretivism research philosophy for this study as it is
focused on the research of people. The literature is available on employee
satisfaction and with the help of job satisfaction theories and models; it was possible
to find out the variables of employee satisfaction. The researcher decided to adopt
deductive approach.
The researcher selected mixed method data collection technique, 40 questionnaires
were delivered to the selected sample of people from the population and 5 people
were interviewed. These interviews were semi structured interviews.

The

information collected through these data collection techniques were analysed using
tabular and graphical methods.
Findings
Data analysis shows that FOH workers have low job satisfaction than BOH workers
in the chosen restaurant for this study. However due to the complex nature of human
behaviour, the researcher does not suggest that FOH workers always have low job
satisfaction than BOH.
Practical Implications
The researcher has given suggestions to the management for the improvement of
employee satisfaction among restaurant staff. There are strong possibilities that
implementation of these recommendations will increase job satisfaction. As FOH
employees are involved with dealing customers, it will help to raise the customer
satisfaction and business growth.
4

Acknowledgements

My sincere thanks to Barbara Barnes, my dissertation supervisor, without her

knowledge and support, this dissertation would not exist. She helped and guided me
in a very kind and professional manner.
I give a general thank you to all my friends who have supported and believed in me
during this period of my life; they do not know how much their support has meant.
A final thank you must go to all those who took the time to fill in and return my
questionnaire, and to those who gave further time for the semi-structured interview
stage of data collection; without their time and honesty this dissertation would not
have been possible.

Table of Contents
Chapter 1......................................................................................................................8
1.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................9
1.2 Research Background......................................................................................10
1.3 Measuring Employee Satisfaction.....................................................................11
1.4 The Impact of Employee Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction................................11
1.5 Purpose.............................................................................................................12
1.6 Research Questions.........................................................................................13
1.7 Aim....................................................................................................................13
1.8 Objectives.........................................................................................................13
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................14
2.1 Why Employee Satisfaction?............................................................................14
2.2. Personal Factors and Employee Satisfaction:.................................................15
2.3 MASLOWS NEED THEORY:...........................................................................16
2.5 THREE FACTOR THEORY:..............................................................................19
2.6 The Study, Employee Satisfaction, Customer Satisfaction and Financial
Performance: An empirical Study..........................................................................22
2.7

Practice Trends: Driving Employee Satisfaction:..........................................23

Chapter 3:...................................................................................................................24
Research Methodology:..............................................................................................24
3.1 Research Philosophy:.......................................................................................24
3.2 Research Approaches:......................................................................................26
3.3 Research Strategy:...........................................................................................27
3.4 Data Collection Methods:..................................................................................29
Chapter 4....................................................................................................................30
Results /Discussions...................................................................................................30
4.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................30
Data Analysis and Findings........................................................................................30
4.2 Response Rate.................................................................................................30
4.3 Gender Division of Respondents......................................................................31
4.4 Age Groups of Employees in Restaurant.........................................................32
4.5 Working Duration for Strada.............................................................................33
4.6 Weekly Average Hours of Employees in BOH & FOH......................................35
6

4.7 Weekly Salary of Employees in BOH and FOH................................................36

4.8 Satisfaction from Salary in BOH and FOH workers..........................................38
4.9 Overall satisfaction from Job in FOH and BOH................................................41
4.10 Satisfaction from Policies in FOH and BOH...................................................43
4.11 Relations with Supervisor in FOH and BOH...................................................45
4.12 The attitude of the Management with Employees in FOH and BOH..............46
4.13 Relations with Colleagues and Management.................................................47
4.14 Findings from Qualitative Data:......................................................................48
4.15 Employee Satisfaction Evaluation in FOH and BOH:.....................................49
Chapter 5:...................................................................................................................51
Conclusion and Recommendations:...........................................................................51
5.1 Personal Factors and Employee Satisfaction:..................................................51
5.2 Weekly Hours and Employee Satisfaction:.......................................................51
5.3 Weekly Salary of Employees and Employee Satisfaction:...............................52
5.4 Satisfaction from Policies and Employee Satisfaction......................................52
5.5. Relations with Supervisor and Employee Satisfaction....................................53
5.6 Management Attitude and Employee Satisfaction:...........................................54
5.7 Relations with Colleagues and Management:..................................................54
5.8 Evaluation of Mixed factors and Employee Satisfaction...................................55
5.9 Comparison of Employee Satisfaction in FOH and BOH.................................55

List of Tabl
Table 4. 1....................................................................................................................30
Table 4. 2....................................................................................................................31
Table 4. 3....................................................................................................................32
Table 4. 4....................................................................................................................33
Table 4. 5....................................................................................................................34
Table 4. 6....................................................................................................................35
Table 4. 7....................................................................................................................36
Table 4. 8....................................................................................................................37
Table 4. 9....................................................................................................................38
Table 4. 10..................................................................................................................39
Table 4. 11...................................................................................................................41
Table 4. 12..................................................................................................................42
Table 4. 13..................................................................................................................43
Table 4. 14..................................................................................................................44
Table 4. 15..................................................................................................................45
Table 4. 16..................................................................................................................46
Table 4. 17..................................................................................................................46
Table 4. 18..................................................................................................................47
Table 4. 19..................................................................................................................49
Table 4. 20..................................................................................................................50

List of FiguresY
Figure 4.1....................................................................................................................31
Figure 4. 2...................................................................................................................32
Figure 4. 3...................................................................................................................33
Figure 4. 4...................................................................................................................34
Figure 4. 5...................................................................................................................35
Figure 4. 6...................................................................................................................36
Figure 4. 7...................................................................................................................37
Figure 4. 8...................................................................................................................38
Figure 4. 9...................................................................................................................39
Figure 4. 10.................................................................................................................40
Figure 4. 11.................................................................................................................41
Figure 4. 12.................................................................................................................42
Figure 4. 13.................................................................................................................43
Figure 4. 14.................................................................................................................44
Figure 4. 15.................................................................................................................45
Figure 4. 16.................................................................................................................46
Figure 4. 17.................................................................................................................47
Figure 4. 18.................................................................................................................48
9

Chapter 1
1.1 Introduction
This study focuses on investigating differences of employee satisfaction among
different divisions of Strada Restaurant, More London. It is very important to
understand that the phrase different divisions means different employee categories
according to the nature of their job. In any restaurant, there are two main divisions of
employees: those, who are working in the kitchen back of house (BOH) staff, and
the people who welcome customers, guide them to their seats, help them to choose
their food and serve them the food called front of house (FOH) staff. The focus of
the study is to compare the employee satisfaction between these two categories of
employees.
Both of these two categories i.e. BOH and FOH are skilled workers but the nature of
skills is different. Generally speaking FOH requires skills such as strong
communication, knowledge about menu, pleasant personality, confidence and good
interpersonal skills whereas BOH needs mainly good cooking skills such as pizza
making, pasta cooking, grill, preparing deserts, and they need sufficient language
skills to understand the order and to communicate with the colleagues. So it
becomes evident that BOH and FOH cannot be classified as skilled, semiskilled or
unskilled etc.
According to Armstrong (2006), the main objective of human resource management
(HRM) is to make sure that the workers in an organisation make their best efforts for
the success of organisation. As this study is to explore the satisfaction among
employees so it is closely linked with the improvement of HRM policies to make
human resources more enthusiastic.
There are many reasons to choose the topic employee satisfaction among different
divisions. The researcher has a desire to know more about the problems of
managing employees and the potential solutions. The quality of work life can be
enhanced by identifying and solving such problems.
10

1.2 Research Background

According to Robbins & Judge (2007), employee satisfaction is an attitude which has
a relationship with employee performance, his behaviour in organisation, customer
satisfaction, absenteeism and turnover.
According to Robbins, Judge, & Campbell (2010), the relationship between
employee satisfactin and employee performance is pretty strong, as was suggested
by 300 studies. Organisations with more satisfied employees tend to be more
effective than organisatoins with fewer satisfied employees. According to Bratton et
al (2007), employee performance depends on two types of variables; first is the
ability and skill of employee and second is employee satisfaction.
According to Robbins & Judge (2009), satisfied employees usually talk positively
about their job and organisation, help collegaues and go beyond the normal
expectations in their job.
According to Robbins & Judge (2007), the evidence shows that satisfied
employees have a relationship with customer satisfaction and loyalty. Especially in
service organisations, where front line staff interacts with customers, it has an impact
on customer retention. The relationship also exist in reverse state that dissatisfied
customers can increase an employees job dissatisfaction.
According to Piper (2006), there is a strong relationship among employee
satisfaction, customer satisfaction and business growth. This shows that employee
satisfaction can indirectly affect the business growth and directly affect customer
satisfaction. This means that employee satisfaction is the matter of concern for any
organisation.
According to Robbins, Judge, & Campbell (2010), employee satisfaction has
negative relationship with absenteeism. Studies show that correlation is moderate to
weak. Dissatisfied employees tend to miss the work but there are also other factors
which impact absenteeism.

11

According to Robbins and Judge (2009). Employee satisfaction has a negative

relationship with job trunover, and this correlation is stronger than absenteeism.
However there are also other constraints which impact on employees decision to
change the job such as labour market, job opportunities, length of tenure etc.

1.3 Measuring Employee Satisfaction

According to Robbins, Judge, & Campbell (2010), there are two approaches to
measure the job satisfaction first is single global rating and second is summation
score made up of a number of job facets. In sinlge gobal rating apporach,
employees are simply asked about job satisfaction without considering any other
elelment. Summation score approach identifies main job elements and asks about
them from employees using attitude surveys. Typical elements the nature of the
work, supervision, pay, development opportunites, relations with coworkers and
supervisor. The researcher then add the ratings to create an overall job satisfactin
score.

1.4 The Impact of Employee Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction

According to Saks et al (2009, cited in Creed, 2011), people strive for job satisfaction
and no one likes to work at a place where job satisfaction level is low. Managers can
potentially minimise turnove and absenteeism and maximise committment and
productivity by focusing on job satisfaction. Due to the nature of human, people may
loose enthusiasm after getting their required job satisfaction level. As according to
Maslow (1943 cited in Rollinson, 2005), human needs are inexhaustible: as one set
of needs is satisfied another arises in its place.
According to Robbins & Judge (2009), there are outcomes when employee are
happy at work place and and there are outcomes, when employee are not happy at
work. Job dissatifaction may have four responses exit, voice, loyalty, neglect, and
each of them has been discussed below.
i)

Exit: The exit response involves directing behaviour toward leaving the

ii)

organisation. It can be active and destructive.

Voice: The voice response focuses on the improvement of conditons. In
this response problems are disccused with superiors and it is active and
construtive.
12

iii)

Loyalty: The loyalty response invloves passively but constructively waiting

iv)

for conditions to improve.

Neglect: The neglect response passively allows conditons to become
worst.

According to Robbins & Judge (2007), job satifaction may result in the improvment of
performance, customer satisfaction and may reduce turnover and absenteeism. job
dissatisfaction may result in poor performance, dissatisfaction of customers and may
increase turnover and absenteeism.

1.5 Purpose
The purpose of the study was to investigate employee satisfaction among different
divisions which are based on the type of work and task which they perform. The
study was conducted to indentify the variables which have a relationship with
employee satisfaction and to compare the level of job satisfaction of FOH employees
with BOH employees.
According to Gennard and Judge (2005) if people are asked for their suggestions
and recommendations about the work place, it may result in the increase of their job
satisfaction level. In the current study an employee attitude survey was carried out
and they were asked their general information and job satisfaction determinants in
the light of employee satisfaction theories and models.
According to Taylor (2008), the management in an organisation may enhance
employee commitment by giving them enough respect, treating them equally, giving
them a reasonable involvement in decision making processes and by considering
workers and management relations. Increased commitment may result in the
improvement of employee performance. The questionnaire used in the current study
took feedback about such issues to understand the current status according to the
workers point of view and to recommend the development of suitable human
resource management programs.

13

1.6 Research Questions

What are factors which impact employee satisfaction in a restaurant?
Is the level of employee satisfaction different between FOH and BOH staff?

1.7 Aim
Exploring employee satisfaction between two categories of workers i.e. FOH and
BOH in the restaurant industry is the aim of the study. These two categories were
compared to find, how the nature of job can change the job satisfaction level. In the
light of the employee attitude survey, the study recommended the ways to enhance
employee satisfaction.

1.8 Objectives
The list of main objectives is mentioned below;
1. Exploring factors which impact employee satisfaction in a restaurant.
2. Comparing the level of employee satisfaction of FOH workers with BOH workers.

14

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Why Employee Satisfaction?
According to Piper (2006) employee satisfaction has a close relationship with
customer satisfaction, satisfied employees will work hard to make the customers
satisfied and because of happy customers, the business will grow.
According to Piper (2006), satisfied employees work hard to ensure the success of
the business. They feel pride to work for the organisation and they happily participate
in any training and development programs. They express their opinions and
suggestions freely for the betterment of the business. Further he explains that the
best way to know that either the employees are satisfied or not, is employee
attitude surveys.
Piper (2006) explains that the managers normally think that employees are not shy
and they can express them freely but when employee attitude surveys are conducted
then it becomes clear that many employee do not express themselves freely and
they keep their complaints and opinions in their minds and then the mangers are
surprised and shocked after getting the results of surveys.
Piper (2006) also explains the manners in which to conduct surveys like ensuring
anonymity and confidentiality of information, explaining the objectives of study to
participants clearly and giving details about the following steps. In other words
nothing should be hidden from the participants.
According to Penny (2007), there was a decline in employee satisfaction in the
construction industry. There was also decline in the performance of employees which
is a big concern for clients. The focus of study was that the employees want more
satisfaction and the satisfaction of employees has an effect on their performance and
ultimately it will increase client satisfaction. So the core issue is employee
satisfaction. By increasing employee satisfaction, employee performance and client
satisfaction can be increased.
According to Calabro and Snell (2010), every organisation needs to retain the right
people for the organisation. The people will stay in the organisation if they are
15

satisfied, otherwise they may look for other organisation. The way to keep the
efficient people is to make them highly motivated. This is the reality that every
organisation needs high morale people regardless of its size. So employee
satisfaction is a very important factor for the retention of employees. The only way to
know about employee satisfaction is to ask employees about it.

2.2. Personal Factors and Employee Satisfaction:

Personal factors like age, gender and tenure for the organisation are considered in
the context of employee satisfaction.
Age:
According to Robbins & Judge (2009), most studies indicate a positive association
between age and satisfaction. He also explained that when people get older then
there are fewer possibilities of absenteeism and job quit. However he says that it is
a widespread belief that productivity declines with age. These all are assumptions
on the basis of different studies.
Gender:
According to Robbins (2005), there are no consistent male female differences in
problem solving ability, analytical skills, competitive drive, motivation, sociability, or
learning ability. He also explains that there is no difference of job turnover in male
and female. However absenteeism rate may be higher in females due to family
responsibilities depending on culture.
Tenure:
According to Robbins & Judge (2009), the evidence indicates that tenure and job
satisfaction are positively related. It means that people who worked longer with
company would have higher job satisfaction than other workers. He also explained
that seniority is negatively related to absenteeism and the longer a person is in a
job, the less likely he or she is to quit.
There are many theories which specify the factors which make employees happy
and satisfied from life and from work. The researchers main focus is to investigate

16

job satisfaction. Only relevant theories are going to be considered and discussed
here.

2.3 MASLOWS NEED THEORY:

According to Maslow (1954 cited in Rollinson, 2008, p.202), the needs of human
beings are unlimited, so because of this when one bunch of needs is satisfied, there
will be many new needs still. He has classified human needs in five levels. The first
three levels are considered as, lower order needs, and then next two levels are
considered as, higher order needs.
1) Physiological needs:
According to Maslow (1954 cited in Huczynski and Buchanan, 2007, p.242), these
are the needs of human body to survive like sunlight, sexual expression, food,
water, rest and oxygen.
2) Security needs:
According to Maslow (1943 cited in Brooks, 2009, p.88), when the physiological
needs of a human being are satisfied, then he will switch to a comparatively higher
order need which is called security need.
3) Affiliation needs:
According to Maslow (1954 cited in Bratton et al, 2010, p.194), when first two level
are satisfied then people seek companionship and love.
4) Esteem needs:
According to Maslow (1954 cited in Robbins and Judge, 2009, p.210), after the
satisfaction of first three level, the next level is esteem needs. He divided esteem
needs into internal and external factors. Internal factors are self respect, autonomy
and achievement and external factors are status, recognition and attention.
5) Self Actualisation needs:
According to Maslow (1954 cited in Butler & Rose, 2011, p.90), these needs are
defined as, the achieving of an individuals full potential.
Critical Review:
17

According to Bratton et al (2010), it is very difficult to understand that which need is

predominant at any given time. So without knowing this thing, managers are not
able to redesign the workplace. For example if there is a threat to life a person, at
that time, he or she will not have any concern with thirst or hunger, so the order of
needs is different in this example from Maslows need theory.
According to Rollinson (2008), the theory assumes that this specific order of needs is
applicable everywhere which is practically not true. More he explains that the theory
was not proved with any research evidence. But it does not mean that the theory has
no importance at all. In fact, it gives a general framework for categorising needs of
different types.
According to Mullins (2008), first main thing is that the workers life is not confined
within the boundaries of the organisation. They also have a life outside the
workplace. So if employees are satisfied at work, it does not make it clear that they
are also happy from their life. Further different people have different thinking and
they also believe in different type of philosophy of life. So it is not possible to
generalise the people in this pattern as has been specified by the theory of Maslow
(1943).
According to Armstrong (2006) it has no practical evidence. Further he explains that
the needs can never be in any type of permanent sequence.

2.4 HERZBERGS TWO FACTOR THEORY:

According to Herzberg (1966, 1968 cited in Huczynski & Buchanan, 2010, p.279),
203 professionals were asked critical incident questions to recall events which had
made them feel good and feel bad about their work. Analysis of responses justified
that the factors which directed to job satisfaction were different from those which
directed job dissatisfaction and were grouped as motivator factors and hygiene
factors. Motivator factors are achievement, advancement, growth, recognition,
responsibility and the work itself and hygiene factors are pay, company policy,
supervisory style, status, security, working conditions.
According to Herzberg (1968 cited in Hucznski & Buchanan, 2010, p.280),
improvement in hygiene factors will remove dissatisfaction, but will not increase
motivation and performance.
18

19

Critical Review:
According to Rollinson (2008), the primary objective on this theory is its
research methodology which is called a critical incident technique. According
to this technique, the people were asked to narrate about those incidents
which were really very bad or very good for them. So criticism about this has
been mentioned below;
a) The behaviour of human beings is always very complex in nature and if
a person is feeling bad or good about something then it is possible that
either he is right or wrong.
b) The questions by the researcher can be biased as well and even the
response can be affected by the researcher as per design of the
questionnaire.
c) This theory clearly divides the things into bad or good which is not
always possible. For instance sometimes it is possible that the person
dislikes one aspect of the job but not the job itself.
d) Due to the complex nature of the human psyche it is also possible that
there are some motivators for one person but those can be hygiene
factors for another person.
e) The theory has also been criticised for its limited application, as
originally it was done mostly on a small sample size of professional
people who usually like and enjoy their job as there is the utilisation of
their professional skills.
According to Rollinson (2008) it is also the fact that this theory really gained
remarkable popularity among managers. It has given a distinguished way of
thinking about satisfaction and dissatisfaction at work and also about the
working conditions.
According to Brooks (2009) criticised that sample size for the study was small
i.e. 203 accountants and engineers. It was conducted on professionals and its
application for workers is limited.

20

According to Bloisi, W.Cook, & Hunsaker (2006), the process of job

satisfaction and job dissatisfaction is complex and its description in simple
way like motivators and hygiene factors is not practical.
2.5 THREE FACTOR THEORY:
According to Sirota, Mischkind & Meltzer (2005), three factors actually explain the
sets of goals, most of the workers want and for them these goals are very
essential and are found in every type of organisation culture. While designing the
policies of organisation, the management should consider these goals to raise
employees morale and performance. All of these goals are classified into three
factors equity, achievement and camaraderie.
According to Sirota, Mischkind & Meltzer (2005), surveys reflect that all questions
about these three factors have a very close relationship with the employee morale
and performance.

1. Equity:
According to Sirota, Mischkind & Meltzer (2005), an employee has basic needs and
wants the satisfaction of these needs at work. These needs can be classified into
following three groups.
1. Physiological: These requirements include a safe working place, weekly
hours should not affect physical or emotional health and the working
environment should be good.
2. Economic: The job should be secure, the wages or salary should be
reasonable.
3. Psychological: People in the organisation should behave in a respectful
manner. The workers need a reasonable residence which can be enough for
his / her basic requirements. They also want credible and consistent
management.
All above requirements should be fulfilled reasonably. The term reasonable, is very
important to understand that what level, the employee expects. Employees do not
expect a perfection level but only reasonable.

21

According to Sirota, Mischkind & Meltzer (2005), there are some other aspects of
equity safety, respect and management credibility.
Safety:
The management must ensure the safety of workers and there should not be any
risk of life or any part of the body at workplace.
Respect:
Some managers have an attitude to monitor employees closely and strictly to get
maximum output. In response to this attitude, the workers get disturbed and angry
and ultimately the output of employee will be less.
The workers should be treated like responsible adults then they can feel happy and
enjoy the work. People come to work to do their job and they want to perform well.
They should be treated respectfully; this will make their morale high and they will do
their job in a better way and the ultimate result will be high performance level.
Management Credibility:
It is very important that whatever the management commits to do with or for the
workers, they must do it. A manager who does not keep his words has no credibility.
For example if a manager has committed promotion with an employee after a time
period, the employee must be promoted according to the commitment; otherwise, the
morale of the employee will be very low.
2. Achievement:
According to Sirota, Mischkind & Meltzer (2005), the employees perception about
the nature of work and the type of organisation has a considerable role in his
satisfaction. The employee should feel pride in the accomplishment of the work. The
perception about work has two factors; first what the worker thinks about his work
and second what others say about his work especially the management. Many
people enter organisations with high morale and the evidence showed that
managers de-motivate them.
According to Sirota, Mischkind & Meltzer (2005), statistical analysis shows that the
following are the main sources of sense of achievement.
22

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Challenging job
Learning of new skills
Capability to perform
Perception about importance of the job.
Recognition for good performance
Good reputation of company.

3. Camaraderie:
According to Sirota, Mischkind & Meltzer (2005), human beings are social animals,
so it is very essential that people have good relationships with other colleagues and
managers. In fact the organisation is not only a business entity but also a
community, that fulfils the social and emotional requirements of its elements.
According to Sirota, Mischkind & Meltzer (2005), the evidences from surveys show
that the workers mostly like their good relationships with colleagues and
management. Employees feel very happy when they get help during any type of
difficulty to perform job. Similarly the attitude of management to resolve their
problems makes a good impression and motivates them for better performance.
Critical Review:
According to Sirota, Mischkind & Meltzer (2005, p.9), the evidence on which our
assertions about human motivation are based is, observing and querying
employees for more than four decades and the literally ten of thousands of
employees with whom we have had direct contact and the millions we surveyed by
questionnaire. This shows that the theory is based on strong evidences.
This theory describes job satisfaction but an employee has also a life outside the
organisation. It does not make sure that if an employee is satisfied at work, he will
also be satisfied from his life.

23

2.6 The Study, Employee Satisfaction, Customer Satisfaction and

Financial Performance: An empirical Study
According to Bernhardt et al. (2000), Harter et al (2002), Koys (2003), Tornow and
Wiley (1991) and Wangenheim (2007) cited in Chi & Gursoy (2008), employee
satisfaction has a positive relationship with customer satisfaction. According to
Matzler and Renzl (2007 cited in Chi & Gursoy 2008), due to this supposed positive
relationship, employee satisfaction has become a very important and critical issue
and has been focused by the researchers. According to Lam et al. (2001 cited in Chi
& Gursoy 2008) employee satisfaction has got especially more importance in the
service industry as this industry is heavily depended on the customer satisfaction. So
the main reason due to which the employee satisfaction has got importance is its
close relationship with customer satisfaction. 2
According to Chi & Gursoy (2008), employee satisfaction and customer satisfaction
have a very deep relationship and the purpose was to find out three direct
relationships and one indirect relationship. Three direct relationships were between
employee satisfaction and customer satisfaction, employee satisfaction and financial
performance, customer satisfaction and financial performance and one indirect
relationship between employee satisfaction and financial performance.
The concerned people for the study were employees, customers and management
so the data were collected from five different locations and 50 three star and four star
hotel were selected at each location. The data about employee satisfaction was
collected from employees, about customer satisfaction from customers, about
financial performance from the management.
Employee satisfaction and customer satisfaction have a profound relationship with
financial performance. By increasing employee satisfaction, the organisation can
increase not only customer satisfaction but also its financial performance.
Critical Review:
As according to Sirota, Mischkind & Meltzer (2005) equity, achievement and
camaraderie are three factors which help to understand the employee satisfaction.
There are many other variables which have strong impact on three factors. But in
this study all those variables were ignored, participants were not asked about the
24

variables which have a strong relationship with employee satisfaction instead they
were just asked about their satisfaction.
According to Schneider (1991 cited in Chi & Gursoy 2008), employee satisfaction
and customer satisfaction are a few factors which can have effect but not always on
financial performance. Actually there are also many other factors which have an
impact on financial performance.

2.7 Practice Trends: Driving Employee Satisfaction:

According to King (2010), this study was to explore employee satisfaction among
the

professionals of financial

services.

The

factors

work

environment,

compensation, daily tasks, co-workers, benefits, advancement opportunities,

supervisor and training & development programs were mainly investigated to
determine employee satisfaction. Analysis shows that a high percentage of
employees is satisfied and only 14.2 % are not satisfied. Key indicators for satisfied
people are compensation and working environment. Similarly reasons for
dissatisfaction of employees are advancement opportunity, compensation and
working environment. Findings recommend the improvement in these factors to
enhance employee satisfaction.
Critical Review:
In this study, the researcher identified very suitable factors to determine employee
satisfaction and it was conducted using employee attitude survey which is a good
tool. But the study is only about professionals who are enjoying their positions and
utilising their skills. The utilisation of profession skills makes the employees
satisfied. Due to these reasons, the application of study is very limited and it cannot
be generalised for the workforce in other industries.

25

Chapter 3:
Research Methodology:
The research methodology will be used to explore the employee satisfaction among
different divisions and then the researcher will be able to find out that the workers
are more satisfied on floor (FOH) or in kitchen (BOH).
To find out suitable research methodology for the research, the research onion is
followed. According to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2008), the following are the
important research onion layers which are adapted.

Source: Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009)

3.1 Research Philosophy:

According to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009) there are four research
philosophies pragmatism, interpretivism, realism and positivism. Which have been
shortly described as follows;
26

Pragmatism:
According to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009) this research philosophy focuses
on the answer of the research questions. This does not emphasize only one type of
approach or method but it encourages the mixed methods like both qualitative and
quantitative.
Positivism:
According to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009), this philosophy is adopted in
research which is similar to natural sciences. According to Remenyi et al. (1998
cited in Saunders et al 2009) positivism is preferred when there is a social reality
which can be observed and ultimate result is like a general law which are usually
made by scientists.
Realism:
According to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009) the entities have their presence
without any link with the human mind. In other words the realities exist without any
concern the human can feel it or not. There are two types of realism; direct realism
and critical realism.
Interpretivism:
According to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009), this philosophy is quite different
from positivism, as due to the complexity of business and management world,
human behaviours cannot be described by definite laws. In this philosophy the
humans are considered as social actors. So they play their role according to their
own objectives or directed by management.
Interpretivism asserts that all access to reality is socially construted. Researchers
attempt to understand phenomena through meaning assigned to them by individuals
rather than seekaing an objective. ( Hair Jr. et al, 2011)
Knowledge is develped and theory bulit through developing ideas inducted from the
observed and interpreted social constructions. (Blumberg, Cooper, & Schindler,
2008)
27

Research Philosophy for Current Study:

The researcher has adapted interpretivism for current study as it is concerned with
people. The reason is that the researcher agrees with this concept that human
beings should be treated different as compared to other physical resources in the
organisations like computers, equipment and stock etc.

3.2 Research Approaches:

There are two types of research approaches: deductive and inductive.
Deductive Approach:
According to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009), the deductive approach starts
from formulating of hypotheses, stating hypotheses in a practical way, testing it,
observing the outcome of the research and then finally, if required changing the
theory according to the findings of research.
Deductive theory represents the commonest view of the nature of the relationship
between theory and research (Bryman & Bell, 2007).
Inductive Approach:
According to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009), in this approach, first data is
collected and then the data is analysed. After the analysis of data, then theory is
developed. This approach is usually suitable to use with interpretivism philosophy.
Research Approach for Current Study:
Due to the nature of current study, there is enough literature available on the topic of
employee satisfaction and with the help of different theories it was possible to find
out the variables of employee satisfaction. The focus of study is exploring the
relationship of employee satisfaction with the nature of work. Due to these reasons it
was decided by the researcher to adopt deductive approach for the study.
Hypothesis for Study:
1. FOH workers have higher job satisfaction than BOH workers.
2. FOH workers have low job satisfaction than BOH workers.
3. The nature of work / task has no relationship with job satisfaction.

28

3.3 Research Strategy:

According to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009), there are different research
strategies which are used; some research strategies are linked with inductive
approach and some with deductive approach, but there is no definite division for this
purpose. These strategies are explained here;
Experiment:
According to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009), this strategy is mainly linked with
natural sciences but it is also used in social sciences. Experiments are mostly used
in exploratory and explanatory research.
Experiments are studies involving intervention by the researcher beyond that
required for measurement (Cooper & Schindler, 2008).
Survey:
According to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009), survey strategy is normally
linked with the deductive approach. This strategy mostly used in business research.
If the research questions have the words like, who, what, where, how much and
how many, then to answer these type of questions, this strategy is most popular.
The survey strategy allows you to collect quantitative data which you can analyse
quantitatively using descriptive and inferential statistics. Further the data, which is
collected using survey can be utilised to justify the specific relationships among
variables and the models can be produced to represent these relationships.
Case Study:
A strategy for doing research which involves an empirical investigation of a
particular contemporary phenomenon within its real life context using multiple
sources of evidence defined by Robson (2002:78 cited in Saunders et al 2009).
According to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009), the case study is completely
contrary to experiment strategy where the research is conducted in controlled
circumstances. However it is also different from survey as in survey there is a limit of
number of variables for data collection. The case study can be single case, multiple
case, holistic case or embedded case.

29

Action Research:
According to Coghlan and Brannick (2005 cited in cited in Saunders et al 2009), the
action research emphasized about research in action and it is not research about
action.
According to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009), the action research spiral has
these four steps which are iterated;
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)

Diagnosing
Planning
Taking Action
Evaluating

Grounded Theory:
According to Goulding (2002 cited in Saunders et al. 2009), grounded theory is
particularly helpful for research to predict and explain behaviour, the emphasis being
upon developing and building theory.

Mostly in business, the management is

concerned about the behaviours of people, like the behaviour of customers, the
behaviour of employees, so this can be very helpful for business issues.
According to Saunders et al. (2009), in grounded theory first step is data collection
without any theoretical framework. Data is generated after observing the things, on
the basis of which theory is developed.
Ethnography:
According to Saunders et al. (2009), ethnography is preferred in the inductive
approach. To do the research using this strategy, the researcher submerges himself
or herself in the social world which is researched to maximum extent. It is time
consuming strategy.
According to Hilaire (2005), Ethnography is the study of Cultures,

and he

explained that it needs a long time to conduct this study. The researcher experiences
as many things of the culture as he can.

Archival Research:
30

According to Saunders et al. (2009), this strategy is used when actual records and
the documents of organisation are the main data source. Here the research is
completely on the basis of secondary data as it is not originally recorded for the
research but to perform day to day business activities.
It can have the limitations due to sensitivity of data or data may be missing or can be
refused due to its confidentiality. So before starting the study, the researcher should
make sure the availability of data.
Research Strategy Selected for Current Study:
The research strategy selected for current study is survey using questionnaires and
interviews. As the strategy is really suitable for the collection of quantitative data and
it also supports the analysis of data using different descriptive and inferential
statistics. More is that survey strategy is also good to use with deductive approach.
Due to all these mentioned reasons, it is the best suitable strategy for current study.

3.4 Data Collection Methods:

According to Saunders et al (2009) there are two main data collection techniques:
quantitative and qualitative. Most famous quantitative data collection technique is
questionnaire and the example of qualitative data collection technique is interview.
Mixed method is that technique which combines the methods of quantitative and
qualitative.
Data Collection Technique for Current Study:
The researcher selected mixed method data collection technique so 40
questionnaires were delivered to the selected sample of the people from the
population and 5 people were interviewed. These interviews were semi structured
interviews. The information collected through these data collection techniques were
analysed using tabular and graphical methods.

31

Chapter 4
Results /Discussions
4.1 Introduction
The data collection was performed using both quantitative and qualitative data. For
quantitative data, the questionnaires were distributed among the employees of the
organisation. The researcher selected 40 employees as the sample from the
population of 50 employees. Narrowing down this sample, 20 people were chosen
from Back of House (BOH) and 20 people from front of house (FOH). For qualitative
data collection 5 employees were selected from respondents.

Data Analysis and Findings

4.2 Response Rate
Data Response Rate
FOH
TOTAL
20

RESPON
SE

BOH
NON
RESPON

TOTAL

SE
20

20

RESPON
SE

NON
RESPON
SE

17

Table 4. 1

The researcher got back 20 questionnaires from FOH and 17 from BOH.

32

120%
100%

100%
85%

80%
60%
40%
15%

20%
0%

0%

Figure 4.1

Figure 4.1 shows that response rate from FOH was 100% and from BOH 85%. Non response rate of BOH was 15% which shows that response rate of FOH was higher
than BOH.

4.3 Gender Division of Respondents

The gender division of respondents has been shown by the following table.
Gender Division of Respondents
FOH
BOH
TOTAL
Male
Female
TOTAL
Male
Female
20
11
9
20
17
0
Table 4. 2

Respondents from FOH include 11 males and 9 females but BOH has only male
staff.

33

28%

50%

23%

Figure 4. 2

Figure 4.2 shows the percentages of gender division in respondents. In FOH, there
are 55% male respondents and 45% female respondents. In BOH there are 100%
male respondents.

4.4 Age Groups of Employees in Restaurant

Age Groups
Age Range
Employees

FOH
20-30
31-40
41-50
14
6

BOH
31-40

20-30
0

12

41-50
3

Table 4. 3

Table 4.3 shows that mostly people who are working in BOH and FOH are in the age
range of 20-30, as in FOH 14 out of 20 and in BOH, 12 out of 17 are in this
mentioned age range. Fewer people are working in the age range of 41-50 work at
the restaurant.

34

Age Groups of Employees

80%

71%

70%

70%
60%

Employees

50%
40%

30%

30%

18%

20%

12%

10%
0%
0%

Figure 4. 3

Figure 4.3 shows that 70% of respondents in FOH are in the age group of 20-30 and
71% of respondents in BOH are in same age range. In FOH there are 0% employees
from 41-50 and 12% in 41-50.

4.5 Working Duration for Strada

Working duration for Organisation
FOH
<1
Duration
2 years
3 years
4 years
>=5 years
year
Employees
9
6
2
2
1
Table 4. 4

Table 4.4 shows that 9 people out of 20 have less than one year experience in the
company whereas only 1 out of 20 has more than 5 years experience. Others have
experience from 2 to 4 years with the company.

35

Work Duration of FOH Employees

>=5 years

5%

4 years

10%

3 years

10%

Employees

2 years

30%

< 1 year
0%

45%
10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Figure 4. 4

Figure 4.4 demonstrates that 45% of the selected FOH employees have less than
one year working duration with the organisation and only 5% employees have more
than 5 years working duration.
Working duration for Organisation
BOH
Duration
<1 year 2 years
3 years
4 years
>=5 years
Employees
9
6
1
1
0
Table 4. 5

Table 4.5 illustrates the working duration of BOH staff in Strada restaurant, the same
trend as of FOH, 9 out of 17 people have been working for less than one year and no
person from the selected random sample have work experience more than 5 years
with Strada.

36

Work Duration of BOH Employees

>=5 years
0%
4 years

6%

3 years

6%

Employees

2 years

35%

<1 year
0%

53%
10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Figure 4. 5

Figure 4.5 explains that 53% of BOH respondents have working duration less than a
year with Strada and 0% have the work experience of 5 years or more than 5 years
with the organisation.

4.6 Weekly Average Hours of Employees in BOH & FOH

Avg Hours
Employees

Average Hours Per Week

FOH
20-30
31-40
> 40
20-30
3
15
2

BOH
31-40
0

>40
8

Table 4. 6

Table 4.6 depicts that maximum number of workers from FOH and BOH are working
from 31-40 hours per week. In FOH 15 out of 20 are working from 31-40 hours range
whereas in BOH 8 out of 17 are working from 31-40 hours per week. The workers
who are working minimum hours in FOH are from 20-30 but every person in BOH is
working more than 30 hours. From FOH there are 2 people who are working more
than 40 hours but in BOH there are 9 people who are working more than 40 hours.
So it shows that most of the people in BOH are working more than 40 hours.

37

Weekly Hours of Employees

53%
47%
Employees

0%
7%
75%
15%
0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

80%

Figure 4. 6

Figure 4.6 indicates that 75% from FOH respondents work from 31-40 hours, 15%
from 20-30 hours and only 7% work more than 40 hours. The analysis of BOH
respondents show that 53% work more than 40 hours, 47% from 31- 40 hours and
no workers in the range of 20-30 hours.

4.7 Weekly Salary of Employees in BOH and FOH

Salary Per Week
FOH
Salary

100-

201-300

200

301-400

401 - 500

> 500

Employee
s

12

Table 4. 7

Table 4.7 indicates that 12 out of 20 people in FOH have the salary from 201-300, 4
people have the salary from 100- 200 and 2 people have the salary from 401-500
and no employee from respondents has the salary more than 500.

38

FOH Weekly Salalry

60%
60%
50%
40%

Employees

30%

20%

20%

10%

10%

10%
0%

100-200 201-300 301-400 401 - 500 > 0%

500

Figure 4. 7

Figure 4.7 displays that 60% of FOH respondents has the salary in the range 201300, 20% from 100-200, 10% form 301- 400 and 10% from 401 500 but no
employee from respondents has the salary more than 500.
Salary Per Week
BOH
Salary

100-

201-300

200

301-400

401 500

> 500

Employee
s

Table 4. 8

Table 4.8 shows that 8 out of 17 in BOH have the salary from 201 to 300, 7 out of
17 from 301 to 400, and 2 out of 17 from 401 to 500. So mostly people from
BOH respondents are in the range of 201 to 300 and fewer people are in the
range of 401 500 per week.

39

BOH Salary per week

50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%

47%
41%

Employees
12%

0% 201-300 301-400 401 - 500 > 0%

100-200
500

Figure 4. 8

Figure 4.8 shows that 47% employees from BOH have the salary from 201 to 300,
41% from 301 to 400 and only 12% from 401 to 500. So the highest percentage of
employees is in the range of 200 to 300.

4.8 Satisfaction from Salary in BOH and FOH workers

Satisfaction From Salary for FOH workers
Neither
Extremel
Criteria

y
Satisfied

Satisfie
d

Satisfied
Nor

Dissatisfie

Dissatisfie

Extremely
Dissatisfie
d

d
Employee
s

15

Table 4. 9

Table 4.9 shows that the highest percentage, 15 out of 20 respondents in FOH are in
the category of Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 2 workers out of 20 in FOH are
satisfied with their salary and 3 out of 20 workers are dissatisfied. It is an important
point that only a few people are satisfied with their salary.

40

FOH Satisfaction from Salary

Satisfied; 10%

Dissatisfied; 15%

Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied; 75%

Figure 4. 9

Figure 4.9 shows that 75% of respondents are neither satisfied and nor dissatisfied
form the salary, only 10% of respondents are satisfied from salary and 15% of
respondents are dissatisfied. On the extreme side of satisfaction and dissatisfaction
from the salary, there are no respondents.
Satisfaction From Salary in BOH
Neither
Extremel
Criteria

y
Satisfied

Satisfie
d

Satisfied

Dissatisfie

Nor
Dissatisfie

Extremely
Dissatisfie
d

d
Employee
s

Table 4. 10

Table 4.10 explains that 6 out of 17 people are satisfied from the salary and 6 out of
17 are also dissatisfied form the salary. Interestingly in BOH employees 1 worker out
41

of 17 is extremely satisfied and 1out of 17 is extremely dissatisfied. Only 3 out of 17

people of BOH are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
The results of BOH and FOH are quite different on the basis of category of
satisfaction from the salary.

Satisfaction from Salary in BOH

40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%

35%
6%

35%
18%
6%

Employees

Figure 4. 10

Figure 4.10 shows that 35% employees from respondents are satisfied and 35%
employees are dissatisfied from the salary. Extremely satisfied and extremely
dissatisfied employees are 6% and 18% employees from BOH respondents are
neither satisfied and nor dissatisfied.
Comparing BOH and FOH satisfaction from the salary, it becomes clear that in FOH
75% of respondents are neither satisfied and nor dissatisfied whereas in BOH there
are only 18% who are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
In FOH only 10% of respondents are satisfied from the salary but in BOH 35% of
respondents are satisfied from the salary, which shows BOH workers have higher
ratio of satisfaction from the salary than FOH.
In FOH 15% of respondents are dissatisfied from the salary and in BOH 35% of
respondents are dissatisfied from the salary. This shows that BOH workers also have
higher ratio of dissatisfaction from the salary than FOH.

42

4.9 Overall satisfaction from Job in FOH and BOH

Overall Job Satisfaction in FOH
Neither
Extremel
Criteria

y
Satisfied

Satisfie
d

Satisfied
Nor
Dissatisfie

Dissatisfie
d

Extremely
Dissatisfie
d

d
Employee
s

10

10

Table 4. 11

Table 4.11 justifies that 10 out of 20 workers are satisfied on the basis of overall job
satisfaction in FOH and 10 out of 20 people are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
There are no people in the category of extremely satisfied, dissatisfied and extremely
dissatisfied. This shows a very positive trend that in FOH respondents there are no
people who are dissatisfied from the job.

Overall job Satisfaction in FOH

60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

50%

50%

Employees
0%

0%

0%

Figure 4. 11

Figure 4.11 displays that in FOH on the basis of overall job satisfaction, 50%
respondents are satisfied and 50% respondents are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
This is a significant graph as it shows the most important part of the research. In fact

43

this is positive finding for the management that in FOH there are no employees who
are dissatisfied from the job.

Overall Job Satisfaction in BOH

Neither
Extremel
Criteria

Satisfie

Satisfied

Satisfied

Dissatisfie

Nor
Dissatisfie

Extremely
Dissatisfie
d

d
Employee
s

13

Table 4. 12

Table 4.12 represents that in BOH 13 out of 17 people are satisfied, 1 out of 17 is
extremely satisfied and 3 out of 17 are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. Interestingly
there are no dissatisfied or extremely dissatisfied people in BOH. Again this is
positive trend in BOH that dissatisfied employees do not exist.

Overall job satisfaction in BOH

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

76%

6%

18%

Employees
0%

0%

Figure 4. 12

Figure 4.12 shows that 76% workers from respondents of BOH are satisfied, 6% are
extremely satisfied, and 18% are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. Dissatisfied and
extremely dissatisfied have 0% ratio which is positive trend and it means that these
categories do not exist in BOH.
44

Comparing BOH and FOH on the basis of overall job satisfaction criteria, the
research shows that 76% workers are satisfied in BOH whereas 50% workers are
satisfied in FOH, 6% workers are extremely satisfied in BOH and 0% extremely
satisfied in FOH. These ratios gave a very clear idea that the employees in BOH
have higher job satisfaction than the employees in FOH.

4.10 Satisfaction from Policies in FOH and BOH

Satisfaction from Policies FOH
Neither
Extremel
Criteria

y
Satisfied

Satisfie
d

Satisfied

Dissatisfie

Nor
Dissatisfie

Extremely
Dissatisfie
d

d
Employee
s

14

Table 4. 13

Table 4.13 shows that in FOH there are 14 workers out of 20 who are satisfied from
the policies of the company and 6 out of 20 are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
There are no workers in the category of extremely satisfied, dissatisfied, and
extremely dissatisfied from the company policies.

Satisfaction from Policies in FOH

Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied; 30%

Satisfied; 70%

45

Figure 4. 13

Figure 4.3 depicts that 70% workers in FOH are satisfied from the policies of the
company and 30% are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. The trend is very positive
and nearly similar to the trend of overall job satisfaction in FOH.

Satisfaction from Policies BOH

Neither
Extremel
Criteria

y
Satisfied

Satisfie
d

Satisfied

Dissatisfie

Nor
Dissatisfie

Extremely
Dissatisfie
d

d
Employee
s

Table 4. 14

Table 4.14 shows 1 out of 17 employees in BOH is extremely satisfied from the
company policies, 8 out of 17 are satisfied, 7 out of 17 are neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied, 1 out of 17 is dissatisfied and no one is extremely dissatisfied.

Satisfaction from Policies in BOH

50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%

47%

41%

6%

6%
0%

Figure 4. 14

Figure 4.14 depicts that the 47 % workers in BOH from respondents are satisfied,
41% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 6% extremely satisfied, 6% dissatisfied from
46

the company policies. The trend is a little bit different from overall job satisfaction in
BOH as there are no workers who are dissatisfied from overall job but 6%
employees in BOH are dissatisfied from company policies.

4.11 Relations with Supervisor in FOH and BOH

Relations with Supervisor FOH
Neither
Extremel
Criteria

y
Satisfied

Satisfie
d

Satisfied

Dissatisfie

Nor
Dissatisfie

Extremely
Dissatisfie
d

d
Employee
s

12

Table 4. 15

Table 4.15 shows that in 3 out of 20 employees in FOH are extremely satisfied, 12
out of 20 are satisfied, 5 are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied from relations with
supervisor. No one is dissatisfied or extremely dissatisfied from the relations with
supervisor.

47

Relations with Supervisor FOH

Extremely Dissatisfied
0%
Dissatisfied
0%
Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied

25%

Satisfied
Extremely Satisfied

60%
15%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Figure 4. 15

Figure 4.15 displays that in FOH 60% of respondents are satisfied, 15% extremely
satisfied, and 25% are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied from the relations with
supervisor. Dissatisfied and extremely dissatisfied respondents from the relations
with supervisor are 0%. The trend shown by this graph is very similar to the trend of
overall job satisfaction in FOH respondents.

Relations with Supervisor BOH

Neither
Extremel
Satisfied
Dissatisfie Extremely
Criteria
y
Satisfied
Nor
d
Dissatisfied
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Employees
1
8
7
1
0
Table 4. 16

Table 4.16 shows that in BOH 1 out of 17 is extremely satisfied, 8 out of 17 satisfied,
7 neither satisfied not dissatisfied, 1 out of 17 dissatisfied and no one is extremely
dissatisfied from the relations with supervisor.

48

Relations with Supervisor BOH

Extremely Dissatisfied
0%
Dissatisfied

6%

Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied

41%

Satisfied
Extremely Satisfied
0%

47%
6%
10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Figure 4. 16

Figure 4.16 shows that in BOH 6% of respondents are extremely satisfied, 47%
satisfied, 41% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 6% dissatisfied and no one is
extremely dissatisfied from the relations with supervisor.

4.12 The attitude of the Management with Employees in FOH and BOH
Does Management Look After you?
FOH
BOH
Criteria
Yes
No
Yes
Employee
s

20

14

No
3

Table 4. 17

Table 4.17 shows that 20 out of 20 workers from FOH says that the management
look after them whereas in BOH, 14 out of 17 expresses that the management looks
after them and 3 out of 17 says that the management does not look after them.

49

Looking After by Management

100%

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

82%

Employees

18%

0%

Figure 4. 17

The figure 4.17 shows that the 100 % respondents in FOH are happy from the
management whereas in BOH this percentage is 82 and 18% respondents from
BOH says that the management does not look after them.

4.13 Relations with Colleagues and Management

Relations with Colleagues & Management
FOH
BOH
Criteria

Fair

Good

Very Good

Fair

Very

Good

Good

Employee
s

12

Table 4. 18

In FOH 3 respondents out of 20 ranks the relations with colleagues and

management as fair, 12 out of 20 as good, and 5 out of 20 as very good. In BOH 3
respondents out of 17 categorise ranks it as fair, 8 out of 17 as good and 6 out of 17
as very good.

50

Relations with Colleagues and Management

60%
60%
47%

50%
40%

35%

30%
20%

25%
18%

15%

10%
0%

Figure 4. 18

Figure 4.18 portrays that in FOH 60% of respondents think that their relations with
colleagues and management are good, 25% very good and 15% fair. In BOH 47%
ranks it as good, 35% as very good and 18% as fair.

4.14 Findings from Qualitative Data:

The researcher conducted 5 interviews; 3 with BOH employees and 2 with FOH
employees. The reason for dissatisfaction from policies in BOH was less
development opportunities.
Employees of BOH and FOH want increase in salary. However they are satisfied
from the relations with colleagues and management. People are not interested in
changing the job or organisation.

51

4.15 Employee Satisfaction Evaluation in FOH and BOH:

FOH employee satisfaction on the basis of various criteria:
Criteria

4 5

Delegation of Decision Authority

3 0

Change in working methods by worker

3 0

Job support and job security

2 0

Appreciation of feed back by management

3 0

Development opportunities

3 0

Likeness with the nature of work

2 1

Physical working condition

2 0

Feeling pride being part of organisation

3 0

Contribution in the organisations success

3 0

Recommendation for others to work here

1 0

Satisfaction with bonus and reward

2 11 4 2

Job continuity in the organisation

2 0

Table 4. 19

Table 4.19 describes the satisfaction on the basis of many criteria ranking from 1 to 5
from strongly agree to strongly disagree. So it can be said that 1 is strongly agree, 2
agree, 3 neither agree nor disagree, 4 disagree and 5 strongly disagree.
By analysing above data statement K has 6 out of 20 people who are disagreeing
with the statement which is about bonus and reward, so this issue should be
considered. Overall it is showing a positive trend about the satisfaction of
employees.

52

BOH employee satisfaction on the basis of various criteria:

Criteria

3 4 5

Delegation of Decision Authority

3 2 6

Change in working methods by worker

6 1 2

Job support and job security

3 3 6

Appreciation of feed back by management

7 1 1

Development opportunities

4 0 4

Likeness with the nature of work

2 1 2

Physical working condition

3 3 0

Feeling pride being part of organisation

11 2

3 0 1

Contribution in the organisations success

2 2 2

Recommendation for others to work here

2 3 0

Satisfaction with bonus and reward

2 2 8

Job continuity in the organisation

1 1 2

Table 4. 20

Table 4.20 describes the satisfaction in BOH respondents on the basis of many
criteria ranking from 1 to 5 from strongly agree to strongly disagree. So it can be said
that 1 is strongly agree, 2 agree, 3 neither agree nor disagree, 4 disagree and 5
strongly disagree.

. The researcher is highlighting only very critical issues from

above data which are criteria A (as 8 out of 17 people disagree), C (as 9 out of 17
workers disagree) and K (8 out of 17 disagree). It is very important to address these
issues which are delegation of decision authority, job security and bonus and reward.

53

Chapter 5:
Conclusion and Recommendations:
5.1 Personal Factors and Employee Satisfaction:
According to Robbins & Judge (2009) workers with older ages have high job
satisfaction and less job turnover as compared to younger people. Analysis of data
shows that in selected restaurant, high percentage of workers are in the age range of
20-30 and only a small percentage of employees are in the age range of 31-40 and
41-50. Information from data analysis does not show any type of relationship
between age and employee satisfaction.
According to Robbins (2005), the gender of employees does not affect motivation of
employees. The research data of current study shows that there is no trend of
females to work in BOH of restaurant but females like to work in FOH. Data analysis
does not highlight any type of relationship between gender and employee
satisfaction.
According to Robbins & Judge (2009), the evidence indicates that tenure and job
satisfaction are positively related. Analysis of data shows that the highest
percentage of workers have worked for the company less than one year and the
lowest percentage of workers have worked there for more than 5 years. This shows
that, in the restaurant business, even with good job satisfaction levels, it is difficult to
retain staff.

5.2 Weekly Hours and Employee Satisfaction:

According to Sirota, Mischkind & Meltzer (2005), the number of hours per week of a
worker is supposed to be reasonable which does not disturb physical or emotional
health of a worker. Weekly hours analysis shows that employees work reasonable
hours per week in selected restaurant. During interview it became clear that number
of hours per week is according to the willingness of employee and the requirements
of organisation and people were happy with their work load. Weekly hours of
54

employees shows a strong relationship with employee satisfaction. The people are
satisfied from the working hours per week and they are also satisfied from the job.
So the study is confirming Sirota et al. (2005) three factor theory.

5.3 Weekly Salary of Employees and Employee Satisfaction:

About the salary of employees, they were asked two questions, first the range of
their weekly salary and second was about their satisfaction level from salary. Data
analysis shows that in FOH 15% dissatisfied, and 75% neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied from salary whereas in BOH 35% dissatisfied and 18% neither satisfied
nor dissatisfied and 6% extremely dissatisfied. Dissatisfaction level from salary in
BOH is alarming and it also exists in FOH.
According to Herzberg (1968 cited in Hucznski & Buchanan, 2010, p.280),
improvement in hygiene factors will remove dissatisfaction, but will not increase
motivation and performance. In the light of this theory and statistical information, the
researcher suggests management to redesign wages per hour to remove
dissatisfaction from salary. It will not increase employee satisfaction but it will
remove dissatisfaction from salary.
Comparing satisfaction from salary with overall job satisfaction of employees
highlights that there is no significant relationship between satisfaction form salary
and overall job satisfaction. In selected restaurant for study, FOH division has 10%
satisfied people from salary but 50% satisfied people from job. BOH division has
35% satisfied workers from salary but 76% are satisfied and 6% extremely satisfied
from job. This information suggests that there is no significant relationship between
salary of worker and employee satisfaction.

5.4 Satisfaction from Policies and Employee Satisfaction

According to Herzberg (1968 as cited in Robbins, Judge & Campbell, 2010, p.143),
company policy is a hygiene factor. If hygiene factors are enough, the people do
not feel dissatisfaction.

55

Analysis of data shows that dissatisfaction level from policies in FOH is zero but only
6% are dissatisfied from policies in BOH. This was actually 1 out of 17 respondents
in BOH.
The researcher conducted interview with an unhappy worker to know the reason
behind dissatisfaction from policies and the outcome was that the worker was
expecting promotion from Kitchen Porter to Chef. But instead promoting him, the
company got a worker from another restaurant due to which he got dissatisfaction
from company policies.
In the light of Herzbergs theory and from the analysis of data, the researcher
recommends the company to keep a fair promotion policy and prioritise promotion
from inside the restaurant.
The relationship of Satisfaction from Policies and Job Satisfaction:
Analysis of data shows that 70% FOH workers are satisfied from company policies
and 50% are satisfied from job and 50% are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied from
job. According to Herzberg (1968 cited in Hucznski & Buchanan, 2010, p.280),
improvement in hygiene factors will remove dissatisfaction and by increasing
satisfaction from policies in FOH, the organisation has removed job dissatisfaction
from FOH.
Analysis of BOH workers shows that 47% BOH workers are satisfied from policies,
6% extremely satisfied, 41% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied and 6% dissatisfied. By
removing this small percentage of dissatisfaction from policies, the management
may improve job satisfaction in BOH.
Above discussion suggests a positive relationship between satisfaction from policies
and removal of job dissatisfaction.

5.5. Relations with Supervisor and Employee Satisfaction

According to Herzberg (1968 cited in Hucznski & Buchanan, 2010, p.280),
supervisory style is a hygiene factor. Relations with supervisor, describes
supervisory style.

56

Data analysis shows that the majority of workers in FOH are satisfied from relations
with supervisor and only 25 % are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. In FOH overall
job satisfaction is 50% and remaining 50% workers are neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied. This indicates a trend as was mentioned by Herzberg (1968, cited in
Robbins, 2005, p.173), when hygiene factors are adequate people will not be
dissatisfied; neither they will be satisfied. As 25% workers are neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied from supervisory relations and 50% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied from
the job, it proves the fact that by improving supervisory relations, the organisation
has removed job dissatisfaction.
According to Sirota, Mischkind & Meltzer (2005), third factor, camaraderie is about
the relationships of a worker with colleagues and supervisor. It also emphasized on
the importance of good employee relationships with supervisor and management.
In BOH, 6% employees are dissatisfied from relations with supervisor which is
actually 1 out of 17 employees. So the researcher recommends the improvement of
supervisory relations in BOH.
Above discussion and results show that there is a positive relationship between
relations with supervisor and removal of job dissatisfaction.

5.6 Management Attitude and Employee Satisfaction:

Data analysis shows that in FOH the employees are 100% satisfied from the
management behaviour and attitude. However in BOH 18% people think that the
management do not look after them.
Overall trend is good but the management should focus on BOH as during interviews
it became clear that a few people from BOH think that the management do not take
interest in resolving their problems.

5.7 Relations with Colleagues and Management:

Data analysis shows that majority of people from FOH and BOH has ranked the
relations with colleagues and management as good and very good which is a very
positive trend.

57

According to Sirota et al (2005), this is very important for employees that they have
good relations with colleagues and management to make them enthusiastic. So
the organisation needs to improve this trend a little bit to change the perception of
those employees who ranked the relations as Fair.

5.8 Evaluation of Mixed factors and Employee Satisfaction

Many factors were analysed like delegation of decision authority, application of own
working methods, job support and job security, the worth of feedback by
management, development opportunities, liking of work, feeling proud for
organisation, contribution in organisations success, satisfaction from bonus and
reward and job retention. These all are the factors which have been taken from
theories which were discussed in literature review.
In the light of data analysis from table 4.19, main concern of employees in FOH is
bonus and reward, as 20% employees are dissatisfied from bonus and reward and
10% are extremely dissatisfied.
Data analysis of table 4.20 shows that 47% are dissatisfied from delegation of
decision authority; 53% are dissatisfied from job support and job security and 47%
are dissatisfied from bonus and reward so these three issues required
management attention. According to Herzberg (1967 cited in Kinicki & Kreitner, 2006,
p.154) all of these factors are hygiene factors and with improvement in these factors
results in the removal of job dissatisfaction. However according to Sirota, Mischkind
& Meltzer (2005), all these factors are under one category of equity factor and
these are supposed to be provided at a reasonable level for every employee.

5.9 Comparison of Employee Satisfaction in FOH and BOH

It was one of the objectives of study to find out that whether the employee
satisfaction is different in FOH and BOH. To explore this objective the following
hypothesis was made:
1. FOH workers have higher job satisfaction than BOH workers.
2. FOH workers have low job satisfaction than BOH workers.
3. The nature of work / task has no relationship with job satisfaction.

58

By comparing figure 4.11 and figure 4.12, it is evident that BOH has 76% satisfied
and 6% extremely satisfied workers whereas FOH has 50% satisfied workers. Data
analysis suggests that FOH workers have low job satisfaction than BOH workers.
Due to the complex nature of human behaviour, the researcher is unable to suggest
that FOH workers always have low job satisfaction than BOH.
Maslows theory (1943, cited in Dick & Ellis, 2006, p.84), after satisfying,
physiological, safety, social and esteem needs, people look for self actualization
needs. As 50% people from FOH and 18% people from BOH are neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied, so by applying Maslows theory, it seems that these people are now
realising their self actualization needs.
Herzbergs (1968 cited in Brooks, 2006, p. 60) describes that if hygiene factors are
insufficient, it can create dissatisfaction and if sufficient then it can eliminate
dissatisfaction. As the selected organisation provided adequate hygiene factors, it
has resulted in the elimination of dissatisfaction due to which 50% FOH workers and
18% BOH workers are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. The researcher recommends
management to focus on motivators to enhance their level of satisfaction.
According to Sirota, Mischkind and Meltzer (2005), there are three factors; equity,
achievement and camaraderie, which are in fact the goals of employees at work
place. In the light of this theory, employees have good level of equity and
camaraderie in the organisation but needs improvement in the area of achievement
to increase job satisfaction.

59

References
Armstrong, M. (2006). A handbook of Human Resource Mangement Practice (10th
ed.). London: Kogan Page Limited.
Bloisi, W., W.Cook, C., & Hunsaker, P. L. (2006). Management and Organisational
Behaviour (2nd ed.). Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Education.
Blumberg, B., Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2008). Business Research Methods
(Second European ed.). Berkshire: McGraw Hill Higher Education.
Bratton, J., Callinan, M., Forshaw, C., & Sawchuk, P. (2007). Work and
Organizational Behaviour. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bratton, J., Sawchuk, P., Forshaw, C., Callinan, M., & Corbett, M. (2010). Work and
Organizational Behaviour (2nd ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Brooks, I. (2006). Organisational Behaviour (3rd ed.). Essex: Pearson Education
Limited.
Brooks, I. (2009). Organisational Behaviour (4th ed.). Essex: Pearson Education
Limited.
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2007). Business Research Methods (Second ed.). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Butler, M., & Rose, E. (2011). Introduction to Organisational Behaviour. London:
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Developmnet.
Calabro, A., & Snell, F. (2010). Employee Satisfaction Surveys Highlight
Communcation Breakdowns. O & P Business News , 19 (5), 28-30.
Chi, C. G., & Gursoy, D. (2008). Employee Satisfaction, Customer Satisfaction and
Financial Performance: An Empirical Examination. International Journal of
Hospitality Management , 28 (2), 245-253.
Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2008). Business Research Methods (Tenth ed.).
New York: McGraw Hill.
Creed, A. (2011). Organisational Behaviour. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Dick, P., & Ellis, S. (2006). Introduction to Organizational Behaviour (3rd ed.).
Berkshire: McGrawHill Education.
Gennard, J., & Judge, G. (2005). Employee Relations (4th ed.). London: Chartered
Institute of Personnel and Development.

60

Hair Jr., J. F., Celsi, M. W., Money, A. H., Samouel, P., & Page, M. J. (2011).
Business Research Methods (Second ed.). New York: M.E.Sharpe.
Hilaire, A. S. (2005). Reserach Methods in Business. Essex: Pearson Custom
Publishing.
Huczynski, A. A., & Buchanan, D. A. (2007). Organizational Behaviour (sixth ed.).
Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Huczynski, A. A., & Buchanan, D. A. (2010). Organizational Behaviour (Seventh ed.).
Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
King, R. (2010). PRACTICE TRENDS: Driving Employee Satisfaction. Journal of
financial planning (Denver, Colo.) (9), A12.
Kinicki, A., & Kreitner, R. (2006). Organizational Behaviour Key Concepts, Skills &
Best Practices (Second ed.). New York: McGRAW - HILL.
Mullins, L. J. (2008). Essentials of Organisational Behaviour (2nd ed.). Essex:
Prentice Hall.
Penny, E. (2007). Employees want more Satisfaction. Contract Journal , 439 (6630),
8.
Piper, B. (2006). Why Employee Satisfaction? Professional Builder , 71 (1), 43.
Robbins, S. P. (2005). Organizational Behaviour (Eleventh ed.). New York: Pearson
Prentice Hall.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2007). Organizational Behaviour (Twelfth ed.). New
Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2009). Organizational Behaviour (13th ed.). London:
Pearson Prentice Hall.
Robbins, S. P., Judge, T. A., & Campbell, T. T. (2010). Organizational Behaviour.
Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Rollinson, D. (2005). Organisational Behaviour and Analysis (Third ed.). Essex:
Pearson Education Limited.
Rollinson, D. (2008). Organisational Behaviour and Analysis (4th ed.). Essex:
Pearson Educaiton Limited.
Sirota, D., Mischkind, L. A., & Meltzer, M. I. (2005). The enthusiastic employee: how
companies profit by giving workers what they want. London: Prentice Hall.
Taylor, S. (2008). People Resourcing (4th ed.). London: Chartered Institute of
Personnel and Development.
61