07th April, 2010

Mr. Tariq Jalees

Supervisor
Methods in Business Research,
KASBIT,
KARACHI.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Respected Sir

We massively pleasure to submitting to first part of the research on the

topic of Job Satisfaction, selected by you and we tried to put our best efforts
on it, we collect information form articles that you selects and from some web
sites as per your kind guidance.

Thank you,

Regards,
Mohammad Asif (4431)
Muhammad Zeeshan (4430)
Mohsin Ahmed Saddiqui (4449)
Irfan Ashraf (2348)

Encl: As above.

[1]
Introduction:

1.0.0 Job satisfaction is in regard to one's feelings or state-of-mind regarding

the nature of their work. Job satisfaction can be influenced by a variety of
factors, e.g., the quality of one's relationship with their supervisor, the quality
of the physical environment in which they work, degree of fulfillment in their
work place

To my knowledge, there is no strong acceptance among researchers,

consultants, etc., that increased job satisfaction produces improve job
performance in fact, and improved job satisfaction can sometimes decrease
job performance. For example, you could let sometime sit around all day and
do nothing. That may make them more satisfied with their "work" in the short
run, but their performance certainly didn't improve. (Job Satisfaction, 2010)

Words such as control, collaboration, influence, autonomy, and respect

are frequently mentioned in job satisfaction discussions, said Anna Gilmore-
Hall, RN, director of labor relations and workplace advocacy for the American
Nurses Association. When dissatisfied nurses turn to a union for help, they
are most often worried about patient care, Gilmore-Hall said. "They say that if
they had increased control over how they performed their work, it would
increase their job satisfaction. (Huff, 1997 )"

Literature Review

1.1.0 Job Performance in Relation to Job Satisfaction

In the field of Industrial / Organizational psychology, one of the most
researched areas is the relationship between job satisfaction and job
performance (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001). Landy (1989)
described this relationship as the “Holy Grail” of Industrial psychology.
Research linking job performance with satisfaction and other attitudes has
been studied since at least 1939, with the Hawthorne studies (Roethlisberger
& Dickson, 1939). In Judge et al. (2001), it was found by Brayfield and
Crockett (1955) that there is only a minimal relationship between job
performance and job satisfaction. However, since 1955, Judge et al. (2001)
cited that there are other studies by Locke (1970), Schwab & Cummings

[2]
(1970), and Vroom (1964) that have shown that there is at least some
relationship between those variables. Iaffaldano and Muchinsky (1985) did an
extensive analysis on the relationship between job performance and job
satisfaction. Across their many studies, they found a mean correlation of 17
(Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 1985). There are also stronger relationships
depending on specific circumstances such as mood and employee level within
the company (Morrison, 1997). Organ (1988) also found that the job
performance and job satisfaction relationship follows the social exchange
theory; employees‟ performance is giving back to the organization from which
they get their satisfaction.
Judge et al. (2001) argued that there are seven different models that can be
used to describe the job satisfaction and job performance relationship. Some
of these models view the relationship between job satisfaction and job
performance to be unidirectional, that either job satisfaction causes job
performance or vice versa. Another model states that the relationship is a
reciprocal one; this has been supported by the research of Wanous (1974).
The underlying theory of this reciprocal model is that if the satisfaction is
extrinsic, then satisfaction leads to performance, but if the satisfaction is
intrinsic, then the performance leads to satisfaction. Other models suggest
there is either an outside factor that causes a seemingly relationship between
the factors or that there is no relationship at all, however, neither of these
models have much research.
(Rashmi Shahu, 2008).

1.1.1 Job Performance in Relation to Job Stress

Stress is the mental and physical condition, which affects the individual
productivity, effectiveness, personal health and quality of work. Job stress
victims experience lowered quality of work life and job satisfaction. The
harmful and costly consequences of stress demonstrate the need for
strategies to limit stressors within the organization.
The impact of stress Organizations that do not adopt strategies to alleviate
stress may find their employees looking elsewhere for better opportunities
from overwork long hours at work and work intensification has had a major
and often devastating effect on organizations. This is the cost for
[3]
compensation claims, reduced productivity, absenteeism, added health
insurance costs and direct medical expenses for stress related illnesses
(Savery and Luks, 2000b). (Rashmi Shahu, 2008).
Many others researches conduct and find it is create negative impact on
organization and their employees‟ turnover ratio is very high that cause more
efforts consumed to groom their fresh employees. Organizations minimize the
job stress at work place. The process of restructuring, downsizing and
reengineering have helped companies to become lean, but not without great
costs. Employees are experiencing more stress and uncertainty because
companies got leaner without building their “muscle”. Just like going on a diet
without exercising.
Research by Froiland (1993) has shown that there is practically no correlation
between either job burnout or performance problems or any of the physical
issues that are commonly addressed by employee assistance programmers.

1.1.2 Productivity
Stress at job is effect the productivity of the employees according to as cited
in Clement (1993), Brayfield and Crockett (1955) examined the relationship
between employee satisfaction and performance. Their findings concluded
that productivity is not an important goal that employees bring with them to
their jobs; this research was further supported in the 1964 work of Vroom
(Rashmi Shahu, 2008).

1.1.3 Self Evaluation

Core self-evaluations (CSE), Defined as fundamental assessments that
individuals make about their worth, competence, and capability (Judge, Bono,
Erez, & Locke, 2005), CSE are the aggregation of self-esteem, generalized
self-efficacy, neuroticism, and locus of control. This self-assessment is a
higher order factor reflecting who the individual is and how the individual
perceives herself or himself (Judge et al., 1997).CSE can impact performance
(Erez & Judge, 2001; Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2003), but
environmental factors also influence workplace behavior (Mischel, 1977). Trait
activation theory (TAT; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Tett & Burnett, 2003) explains the

[4]
interaction of individual personality differences and environmental dynamics.
(Kacmar, Collins, Harris, & Judge, 2009)

Job satisfaction is quite highly correlated with overall happiness, and can be
looked at as one of its main components. The Human Relations movement, of
Elton Mayo and others, believed that job satisfaction had beneficial effects,
including increased work performance (Argyle, 1988). Let us consider whether
this is in fact the case.

1.1.4 Measuring Job Satisfaction

How can job satisfaction be measured? The most widely used measure is a
very simple one. Overall job satisfaction can be assessed by simple questions
such as `Choose one of the following

following statements which best tells how well you like your job: I hate it, I
dislike it, I do not like it, I am indifferent to it, I like it, I am enthusiastic about it,
I love it' (Hoppock, 1935). Later measures have used a series of scales to
measure different components of job satisfaction. Many scales have been
devised for this purpose: one book reviews no fewer than 249 scales of
various kinds (Cook et al., 1981). However, one of the most widely used is the
Job Description Index, which contains five scales, seventy-two items in all,
which are answered `yes', `no' or `uncertain' (Smith, Kendall and Hulin, 1969).
The five scales are designed to measure satisfaction in the following areas:
(1) work on present job, e.g. fascinating; (2) present pay, e.g. income
inadequate for normal expenses (-); (3) opportunities for promotion, e.g. fairly
good chance for promotion; (4) supervision on present job, e.g. lazy (-); (5)
people on present job, e.g. talk too much (-). The minus signs show reversed
items, i.e. those that show dissatisfaction.

It may be important to distinguish between positive and negative aspects of

job satisfaction. Herzberg et al. (1959) stated that (positive) satisfaction is due
to good experiences, and that these are due to `motivators' - achievement,
recognition, the work itself, responsibility and advancement. Dissatisfaction is
due to bad experiences caused by `hygiene' factors - supervisors, fellow
[5]
workers, company policy, working conditions, and personal life (Herzberg et
al., 1959). This was supported by critical incident studies in which workers
were asked to describe occasions when they had felt exceptionally good or
exceptionally bad. However, the theory was supported only when this method
was used. Wall et al. (1971) found that if workers were asked similar
questions in an informal and confidential interview, this pattern of results was
not obtained. They concluded that the Herzberg and pattern of results was
due to `ego-defensive processes'; the results would now be described
perhaps as `defensive attribution' or as `self-presentation'. Good events are
said to be due to one's own achievements, bad events to the failings of
others. As a result it is generally considered that this theory has failed (Griffin
and Bateman, 1986). This may be a mistake, since research on happiness
has found partial independence of positive and negative aspects. Research
on joy confirms Herzberg's finding that achievement is important, but it also
finds that relationships with other people are even more important and not just
a source of distress as he found (Argyle, 1987). (Argyle, 1989)

1.1.5 The correlation Between Job Satisfaction and Productivity

Brayfield and Crockett (1955) astounded the world of occupational psychology
by finding an average correlation of only + .15 from the 26 studies published
up until then. The latest meta-analysis of 217 separate correlations (in 74
studies) also found an overall correlation of + .15 (Iaffaldano & Muchinsky,
1985). (Argyle, 1989)

Eight of these studies produced correlations of +.44 or above; these were all
supervisory or professional workers, using self, peer or supervisory ratings of
performance. Petty et al. (1984) found an overall correlation of +.23; this was
+.31 for supervisors and above, +.15 for those at lower levels. Some recent
studies have found correlations which are higher than this under certain
conditions. An overall correlation of +.35 was found in one, but it was as high
as +.60 when there was little pressure for performance, i.e. when hard work
was more voluntary (Bhagat, 1982).

[6]
It is interesting that the correlation is greater for those in supervisory or
professional jobs. In these jobs performance depends less on external
pressures, like wage incentives or assembly-line speeds, and more on
motivation, creativity and helpfulness. Laboratory experiments on mood
induction have shown that putting subjects in a good mood leads to (1) better
and more original problem-solving, (2) greater helpfulness and generosity,
and (3) more positive attitudes to other people (Argyle, 1987).

The relation between job satisfaction and absenteeism has also been studied.
It would be expected that happy workers would turn up more often to receive
the benefits which they enjoy at work. In fact, the average correlation is quite
low: -.09 in one meta-analysis (Hackett and Guion, 1985), and -.22 in another
(McShane, 1983). However, there is a very skewed distribution of
absenteeism - most people are not absent at all, which reduces the possible
size of correlations (Hackett and Guion, op.cit.). The relationship is greatest
with satisfaction for pay and promotion (Rosse and Miller, 1984), and for the
work itself (Hackett and Guion, op.cit.).

Further evidence about direction of causation is provided by the effect of level

of unemployment. Labour turnover is less when other jobs are more difficult to
find, for example when there is high unemployment. On the other hand, the
link between turnover and job satisfaction is greater when there is high
unemployment (r = -.51); under these conditions, when other jobs are hard to
get, people leave mainly because they are dissatisfied. Under full employment
some people drift in and out of jobs just for a change, not because they are
dissatisfied (Shikiar and Freudenberg, 1982).cited by (Argyle, 1989)

It has been suggested that low job satisfaction is the cause of withdrawal,
which may take the form of absence, lateness, labour turnover, and even
sickness and accidents. One version is that there are alternative kinds of
withdrawal, and that these (labour turnover, absenteeism and lateness) are
among four general responses to job dissatisfaction: exit: i.e. leave, look for
another job; voice, i.e. talk to supervisor, write letters: loyalty, i.e. stick it out,
wait patiently; neglect, i.e. absenteeism and lateness (Farrell, 1983). Spencer
[7]
(1986) found that turnover had a correlation of -.24 with perceived availability
of `voice', e.g. formal grievance procedures, suggestion schemes, employee-
management meetings. However, when there is high absenteeism, labour
turnover is also high - both forms of exit seem to go together. Low productivity
could be seen as another form of withdrawal. A different version of the
withdrawal theory is that the alternatives are hierarchically ordered, the minor
forms of withdrawal being used first and leaving the organization last. Clegg
(1983) found that lateness was a predictor of later absenteeism, providing
evidence of this hierarchy operating. (Argyle, 1989)

There have been useful causal analyses of the effects of job satisfaction on
mental health. Low job satisfaction is correlated with high rates of anxiety,
depression, psychosomatic symptoms, and coronary heart disease; (poor)
mental health is more closely associated with (low) job satisfaction than it is
with features of the job, suggesting that job satisfaction is an intervening state
in the causal chain (Wall, Clegg and Jackson, 1978). (Argyle, 1989)

Another investigation found that job satisfaction was a predictor of length of

life among workers. It correlated +.26, better than physical functioning (+.21)
(Palmore, 1969). There is a high correlation between job dissatisfaction and
coronary heart disease (r = +.83), with other variables held constant (Sales
and House, 1971). It has been found that job dissatisfaction among nurses
predicted tension on the job, particularly for dissatisfaction with the work and
with the doctors. On the other hand, tension also predicted job dissatisfaction;
it worked both ways (Bateman and Strassen, 1983). Another investigation
used causal modelling on the relations between some of these variables, and
concluded that job dissatisfaction and boredom caused anxiety and
depression, which in turn led to bodily complaints (French, Caplan and van
Harrison, 1982). (Argyle, 1989)

1.1.6 The Effects of Job Redesign.

Hackman and Oldham (1980) proposed that five features of jobs both
motivate performance and provide job satisfaction. Many studies have found
correlations between these features and job satisfaction, and a meta-analysis
[8]
by Loher et al (1985) found the following averages: (a) task identity
(completing a clear and identifiable piece of work) +.32; (b) task significance
(the degree to which the job has an impact on the lives of others) +.38; (c) skill
variety +.41; (d) autonomy (the degree to which the job provides freedom,
independence and discretion) +.46; (e) feedback (the extent to which
information about effectiveness is available) +.41.

Cohesiveness increases output when the work requires interaction because it

is socially motivated and a source of social satisfaction. Cohesiveness
probably affects output most when helping is important. It was found, for
example, that the foremen of 60 per cent of high-output sections in a heavy
engineering factory said that their men were good at helping each other,
compared with 41 per cent of foremen in low-output sections (Katz and Kahn,
1952). If individuals are working quite independently, and little help is needed,
cohesiveness produces little advantage. Indeed it can have a negative effect
since workers spend more time in games and irrelevant conversation. (Argyle,
1989)

For example, people with a higher percentage of occupational stress may not
be satisfied with their job and therefore they will not feel happy working in the
organization. They may feel frustrated or “burned out” when they are having
problems with peers or customers. This may leave a negative impact to the
organization itself. Therefore, it is very important for employer and employees
to realize the stress and the stressor that cause all the negative effects.

Numerous studies found that fob stress influences the employees‟ job
satisfaction and their overall performance in their work. Because most of the
organizations now are more demanding for the better job outcomes. In fact,
modern times have been called as the “age of anxiety and stress” (Coleman,
1976).The stress itself will be affected by number of stressors. Nevertheless,
Beehr and Newman (1978) had defined stress as a situation which will force a
person to deviate from normal functioning due to the change (i.e. disrupt or
enhance) in his/her psychological and/or physiological condition, such that the
person is forced to deviate from normal functioning. From the definition that
[9]
has been identified by researchers, we can conclude that it is truly important
for an individual to recognize the stresses that are facing by them in their
career. Some demographic factor may influence the way a university
academic staff act in their workplace.

1.1.7 Management Attitude

Management role of an organization is one of the aspects that affect work-
related stress among workers (Alexandros-Stamatios et. al., 2003).Workers in
an organization can face occupational stress through the role stress that the
management gave. Role stress means anything about an organizational role
that produces adverse consequences for the individual (Kahn and Quinn,
1970). Management will have their own role that stands as their related. Role
related are concerned with how individuals perceive the expectations other
have of them and includes role ambiguity and role conflict (Alexandros-
Stamatios et. al., 2003).

Family and work are inter-related and interdependent to the extent that
experiences in one area affect the quality of life in the other (Sarantakos,
1996). Home-wor interface can be known as the overlap between work and
home; the two way relationship involves the source of stress at work affecting
home life and vice versa affects of seafaring on home life, demands from work
at home, no support from home, absent of stability in home life. It asks about
whether home problems are brought to work and work has a negative impact
on home life (Alexandros-Stamatios G.A et al., 2003). For example, it
questions whether the workers have to take work home, or inability to forget
about work when the individual is at home. Home-work interface is important
for the workers to reduce the level of work-related stress. According to Lasky
(1995) demands associated with family and finances can be a major source of
„extra-organisational‟ stress that can complicate, or even precipitate, work-
place stress. Russo & Vitaliano (1995) argued that the occurrence of
stressors in the workplace either immediately following a period of chronic
stress at home, or in conjunction with other major life stressors, is likely to
have a marked impact on outcome.

[10]
Several studies have highlighted the deleterious consequences of high
workloads or work overload. According to Wilkes et al. (1998) work overloads
and time constraints were significant contributors to work stress among
community nurses.

1.1.8 Link between Job Stress and Job Satisfaction

Several studies have tried to determine the link between stress and job
satisfaction. Job satisfaction and job stress are the two hot focuses in human
resource management researches. According to Stamps & Piedmonte (1986)
job satisfaction has been found significant relationship with job stress. One
study of general practitioners in England identified four job stressors that were
predictive of job dissatisfaction (Cooper, et al., 1989). In other study, Vinokur-
Kaplan (1991) stated that organization factors such as workload and working
condition were negatively related with job satisfaction. Fletcher & Payne
(1980) identified that a lack of satisfaction can be a source of stress, while
high satisfaction can alleviate the effects of stress. This study reveals that,
both of job stress and job satisfaction were found to be interrelated.
The study of Landsbergis (1988) and Terry et al. (1993) showed that high
levels of work stress are associated with low levels of job satisfaction.
Moreover, Cummins (1990) have emphasized that job stressors are predictive
of job dissatisfaction and greater propensity to leave the organization. Sheena
et al. (2005) studied in UK found that there are some occupations that are
reporting worse than average scores on each of the factors such as physical
health, psychological well-being, and job satisfaction. The relationship
between variables can be very important to academician. If a definite link
exists between two variables, it could be possible for a academician to
provide intervention in order to increase the level of one of the variables in
hope that the intervention will also improve the other variable as well
(Koslowsky, et al., 1995)

Part-time employment is becoming a substantial and growing proportion of the

workforce in the United States. In particular, service organizations have
turned to part-time employees, because of their schedule flexibility and
reduced labor costs. About 37% of service-related jobs are occupied by part
[11]
time staff members (U.S. Department of Labor, 2006). While several
researchers started investigating the role of work status in job attitudes (Cha,
Kimy, & Cichyz, 2009)and performance in other industries (c.f., Martin &
Sinclair, 2007; Thorsteinson, 2009)

Research2 in organizational behavior has shown that an individual could suffer

from significant health complications - backaches, headaches, gastrointestinal
disturbances, anxiety and depression amongst others - if subjected to stress
over a long time. Behavioural changes in the form of excessive tobacco
smoking and alcohol consumption, nervous disorders, heart diseases,
diabetes, obesity etc are also related to stress. Job dissatisfaction is known to
lead to job stress, which in turn reduces the productivity (Madeline, 1983).

Over the years, a lot of research has been carried out in the realm of work
place stress and it has been emphatically proven that intense or prolonged
stress leads to a negative impact on one's mental and physical well being.
(Health & Safety Executive, 2001; Cooper et al, 2001).

According to Cooper & Marshall, stress could be due to factors intrinsic to the
job, such as poor physical working conditions, work overload or time
pressures. Often, one's role in the organization and the ambiguity associated
with the job resulting from inadequate information concerning expectations,
authority and responsibilities to perform one's role as well as the conflict that
arises from the demands placed on the individual by superiors, peers and
subordinates could also result in stress. A third factor is the impact of status
incongruence, lack of job security and thwarted ambition on one's career
progression. Rayner and Hoel (1997)

Additional sources of stress documented in the ASSET model include the

impact a person's working life has on their life outside of work (work-life
balance), the amount of satisfaction people derive from their work, the degree
of control and autonomy people have in the work place, and the levels of
commitment in the work place both from the employee to the organisation and
from the organisation to the employee (Sheena 2005).

[12]
Personality: Besides external factors, there are internal factors too that can
cause stress, like the age of the individual, sex, education and a personality
that is deemed Type A or inherently stressful.

1.1.9 Development in Emotional Intelligence

After Salovey and Mayer (1990) initially introduced the term emotional
intelligence to represent an individual‟s ability to deal with his or her own and
others‟ emotions, Goleman (1995) popularized the concept of EI by his
publication Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More than IQ. As his
title suggests, he argued that general intelligence (IQ) only predicts about
20% of the variance relating to an individual‟s success, and emphasized that
EI can be more powerful than IQ. Bar-On‟s work in EI (1997) also needs to be
recognized. Bar-On (1997) defined EI as “an array of non-cognitive
capabilities, competencies, and skills that influence one‟s ability to succeed in
coping with environmental demands and pressure” (p. 16). His conceptual
definition of EI is broader than those of other researchers who consider
emotional intelligence as one part of important social intelligence. Since those
researchers and other EI researchers have claimed the link between EI and
important job attitudes and effective performance, practitioners and
researchers increasingly have paid attention to understanding EI as an
important factor explaining individual performance at work. EI frameworks
theorized by Goleman (1995, 1998, 2000),
Job satisfaction, one of the most extensively researched work attitudes in
organizational behavior literature, is defined as a pleasurable or positive
emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one‟s job or job exper2ience
(Luthan, 1998). Dong and Howard (2006) explained that an employee with
high level of emotional intelligence is able to cope appropriately with
workplace stress; this capacity results in positive moods. Bar-On‟s (1997)
study reported a modest relationship between EI and job satisfaction. Other
empirical studies also supported that individuals with high EI experienced high
levels of job satisfaction (c.f., Carmeli, 2003; Chiva & Alegre, 2008; Kafetsios
& Zampetakis, 2008; Lopes, Grewal, Kadis, Gall, & Salovey, 2006; Sy, Tram,
& Jones, 2006).

[13]
Its not stress that kills us, it is our reaction to it.
Dr. Hans Selye, leading stress expert

1.1.10 Differences Between Distress and Eustress

Most of the studies pay a lot of importance to the negative side of stress, i.e.
distress which is just one aspect of stress. However, some studies have
shown that if one can manage stress effectively, it can lead to a positive
outcome and response. Jennifer (1996) and Selve (1976) proposed the
positive affective response to the stress process and coined the term
'eustress'. Other influential writers have also suggested that stress is not
inherently maladaptive (Hart, 2003; Hart & Cotton, 2002; Karasek, 1979;
Lazarus, 1999; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004). In the
context of the work place, stressful events can lead to perceptions of positive
benefit (Campbell-Quick, Cooper, Nelson, Quick, & Gavin, 2003; Nelson &
Simmons, 2003). Although many researchers have investigated distress,
eustress had been neglected until recently.

Internal locus of control is associated with optimism about success (e.g.,

Schweizer & Schneider,
1997), which can lead individuals to invest less time and energy in planning
and working than are necessary to succeed (Norem & By drawing attention to
risks for others, other orientation may lead to more realistic assessments of
the amount of effort that is necessary (Meglino & Korsgaard, 2004). Finally,
there is considerable evidence that emotionally stable employees have
stronger capabilities for self-regulation and emotion control than neurotic
employees (e.g., Gramzow et al., 2004; Morossanova, 2003; Olson, 2005;
Suls & Martin, 2005). As a result, emotionally stable employees often
underreact to the possibility of failure, neglecting to marshal sufficient anxiety
and worry to achieve effective performance (Tamir, 2005).Cantor, 1986).

Occupational stress has become a common problem throughout the industrial

world. Over the years its prevalence has increased, thus affecting the
individual's mental health and well being. In order to understand its effect on

[14]
health, it becomes important to define 'health' itself. The World Health
Organisation (WHO) terms health1 as a 'state of complete physical, mental
and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity'. In
more recent years, this statement has been modified to include the ability to
lead a 'socially and economically productive life'.

The issue of whether happy employees lead to better firm performance has
been studied for decades. Although it seems logical that employees who are
satisfied with their jobs are more productive and engage more in behaviors
beneficial to the firm, early empirical studies indicate relatively low correlations
between satisfaction and performance (Iaffaldano and Muchinsky, 1985).
Different rationales (e.g., measurement problems, research design
characteristics, levels of analysis) attempt to explain this low correlation. Of
the various explanations offered, the level of analysis for employee attitudes
and performance has the greatest impact. The failure to find a strong
relationship at the individual level has stimulated searches for a job
satisfaction-performance relationship at the organizational level (Ostroff,
1992).
Moreover, limited empirical work investigating the relationship between
aggregated attitudes and Performance provides evidence that job satisfaction
relates to organizational performance (Harter, Schmidt, and Hayes, 2002;
Ostroff, 1992; Schneider et al., 2003). In line with this research stream, we
expect that aggregated employee satisfaction positively affects firm
performance.(KEVIN, JULIE, NAN, & CHENTING, 2008)
More important, we argue that MO behavior contributes to firm performance
through employee job satisfaction and product quality. MO behavior promotes
the collective efforts of individual employees in various departments in
response to market intelligence, with the basic idea that every person in the
company can contribute something of value to end customers (Jaworski and
Kohli, 1993).

[15]
1.2.0. Theoretical Frame Work
In this section a theoretical framework for the job stress behaviour is
developed based on the objectives and previous literature survey in this area.
The model can be developed consistent with previous theory that estimates
the effects of several dimensions thought represent academic and
occupational stress. The reason to conduct this study is to classify some
significant person and environmental variables which contribute to academic
and occupational stress and to estimate their direct and indirect effects on
various relevant outcomes (such as job satisfaction). This research will
provide further insight as to what extend can the four variables influence in the
job satisfaction

Job Satisfaction

Job Stress

Productivity

The
Effects of Job
Redesign

Psychological
Contract

Links between Job Satisfaction and Other Variable

1.2.1. Job Stress
Several studies have tried to determine the link between stress and job
satisfaction. Job satisfaction and job stress are the two hot focuses in human
resource management researches. According to Stamps & Piedmonte (1986)
job satisfaction has been found significant relationship with job stress. In other
study, Vinokur-Kaplan (1991) stated that organization factors such as
workload and working condition were negatively related with job satisfaction.
Fletcher & Payne (1980) identified that a lack of satisfaction can be a source
of stress, while high satisfaction can alleviate the effects of stress.

[16]
Stress is a mental and physical condition, which affects an individual‟s
productivity, effectiveness, personal health and quality of work. Job stress
victims experience lowered quality of work life and job satisfaction. The
harmful and costly consequences of stress demonstrate the need for
strategies to limit stressors within the organization. Organizations that do not
adopt strategies to alleviate stress may find their employees looking
elsewhere for better opportunities. The impact of stress from overwork, long
hours at work and work intensification has had a major and often devastating
effect on organizations of developed nations. A recent American Management
Association survey of 292 member firms revealed that per capita disability
claims tend to increase when positions are eliminated. The survey, which
dealt with layoffs between 1990 and 1995, found that the illnesses disabled
workers sought treatment for – gastrointestinal problems, mental disorders
and substance abuse, hypertension and the like – were stress related (Reese,
1997).
The process of restructuring, downsizing and reengineering have helped
companies to become lean, but not without great costs. Employees are
experiencing more stress and uncertainty because companies got leaner
without building their “muscle”. Just like going on a diet without exercising.
The organization weighs less but the percentage of fat” – which manifests as
high stress, low morale and less than optimal productivity has actually
increased. Some organizations have even become anorexic.
They are too lean, but because the think they are fat, they continue to “diet”.
Shahu, Gole Further, research by Froiland (1993) has shown that there is
practically no correlation between either job burnout or performance problems
or any of he physical issues that are commonly addressed by employee
assistance programmers.
A study by North Western National Life Insurance Co. concluded that job
stress is generally a consequence of two ingredients: a high level of job
demands and little control over one‟s work. Many of today‟s workers are
finding their jobs more stressful than they were simply because they are
working too many hours. The study concluded that “where employees are
empowered where they have more control over how they perform their work
reduces the risk of stress and burnout considerably” (Froiland, 1993). This
[17]
supported work by Umiker (1992) which showed that “… individuals who feel
that they are in control of their jobs and their futures are better able to handle
stress. Also that these empowered workers become more productive out of
being in control” (Umiker, 1992).A study conducted by Bushe et al. (1996),
reported increased productivity and efficiencies from being empowered
measured by reported increased customer satisfaction and innovation.
Further, stress was reduced when a person did no longer have to report to
someone daily. By empowering employees they took upon themselves control
over their work giving them a higher sense of accomplishment, and that this
was found regardless of occupational grouping.
The purpose of empowered work teams in Bushe et al. (1996) research was
to; reduce costs through fewer overheads and to speed up problem
resolution. The organizational outcomes were found to be increased
productivity and efficiencies.
This was due mainly to quicker response rates through empowerment and, in
part, to the removal of organizational barriers often brought about by
increased motivation from a greater sense of ownership and responsibility.
Also, automation has left workers virtually on call 24 hours a day, as well as
shortened the turnaround time from project conception to completion. The ten
hour business day has become routine for many workers. Corporate
restructuring has left employees anxious about the security of their job.
Symptoms of these stressed workers include drops in productivity, changes in
work attitude, low morale and increased absenteeism.

1.2.2. PRODUCTIVITY
Brayfield and Crockett (1955) astounded the world of occupational psychology
by finding an average correlation of only + .15 from the 26 studies published
up until then. The latest meta-analysis of 217 separate correlations (in 74
studies) also found an overall correlation of + .15 (Iaffaldano & Muchinsky,
1985).
Eight of these studies produced correlations of +.44 or above; these were all
supervisory or professional workers, using self, peer or supervisory ratings of
performance. Petty et al. (1984) found an overall correlation of +.23; this was
+.31 for supervisors and above, +.15 for those at lower levels. Some recent
[18]
studies have found correlations which are higher than this under certain
conditions. An overall correlation of +.35 was found in one, but it was as high
as +.60 when there was little pressure for performance, i.e. when hard work
was more voluntary (Bhagat, 1982).
It is interesting that the correlation is greater for those in supervisory or
professional jobs. In these jobs performance depends less on external
pressures, like wage incentives or assembly-line speeds, and more on
motivation, creativity and helpfulness. Laboratory experiments on mood
induction have shown that putting subjects in a good mood leads to (1) better
and more original problem-solving, (2) greater helpfulness and generosity,
and (3) more positive attitudes to other people (Argyle, 1987).
Job satisfaction is also correlated with other kinds of desirable behaviour at
work - there is less sabotage, stealing, doing work badly on purpose, and
spreading rumors or gossip to cause trouble (Mangoine and Quinn, 1975).
This effect was stronger for those over thirty-five years of age, probably
because they would only engage in such behaviour if they had a very strong
sense of grievance. Bateman and Organ (1983) found that non-academic
university staff who were satisfied engaged more in a wide variety of `good
citizenship' behaviour at work - they were more punctual, dependable, helpful,
cooperative and tidy, and they created less waste, made fewer complaints
and were angry less frequently.
The relation between job satisfaction and absenteeism has also been studied.
It would be expected that happy workers would turn up more often to receive
the benefits which they enjoy at work. In fact, the average correlation is quite
low: -.09 in one meta-analysis (Hackett and Guion, 1985), and -.22 in another
(McShane, 1983). However, there is a very skewed distribution of
absenteeism - most people are not absent at all, which reduces the possible
size of correlations (Hackett and Guion, op.cit.). The relationship is greatest
with satisfaction for pay and promotion (Rosse and Miller, 1984), and for the
work itself (Hackett and Guion, op.cit.).
There is a clearer correlation with voluntary or unexcused absence which is
not due to sickness. The relationship is stronger for women, manual workers,
workers in larger firms and younger workers (Metzner and Mann, 1953).

[19]
These are the people who are absent more, so that there is a less skewed
distribution.
Similar analyses have been made of job satisfaction and labour turnover, and
the correlation is typically -.20 to -.30 and rarely greater than -.40 (Mobley,
1982). Carsten and Spector (1987), in a meta-analysis of forty-seven studies,
found an overall correlation of -.23 (but of -.51 under high unemployment, see
below). Labour turnover correlates with different components of job
satisfaction, but especially satisfaction with job content (Mobley et al., 1979).
(Argyle, DO HAPPY WORKERS WORK HARDER?, 1989)
1.2.3. The Effects of Job Redesign.
Hackman and Oldham (1980) proposed that five features of jobs both
motivate performance and provide job satisfaction. Many studies have found
correlations between these features and job satisfaction, and a meta-analysis
by Loher et al (1985) found the following averages: (a) task identity
(completing a clear and identifiable piece of work) +.32; (b) task significance
(the degree to which the job has an impact on the lives of others) +.38; (c)
skill variety +.41; (d) autonomy (the degree to which the job provides
freedom, independence and discretion) +.46; (e) feedback (the extent to
which information about effectiveness is available) +.41.
What happens when jobs are redesigned to enhance these features? Two
kinds of improvement have been distinguished, which enhance these
features in different ways.
(1) Job enlargement. Kelly (1982) analysed a number of cases of job
enlargement, and found increases in productivity per man hour of the order of
20 per cent. However, this was not necessarily caused by increased job
satisfaction and motivation, but by removing delays due to workers waiting for
each other to pass on materials, and by improving methods of working, e.g.
using both hands, and better-designed work stations. If there was an increase
in pay, then additional increases in productivity of the order of a further 35 per
cent or so were found. In most cases job satisfaction increased but in some
cases productivity improved while job satisfaction did not, and vice versa.
(2) Job enrichment. Does job enrichment e.g. inspecting own work, fare any
better? According to Kelly's analysis, it does not for manual workers: any
increases in productivity were due to bargains of more pay for doing more
[20]
things, with a resultant reduction in labour costs. However, for white-collar
workers the findings are more positive. For example, Janson (1971) studied
the effect of the enrichment of the work of typists who were asked to change
their own computer tapes and to correct their own mistakes. (Argyle, DO
HAPPY WORKERS WORK HARDER?, 1989).
1.2.4. Psychological Contract
Psychological contract is defined as the set of reciprocal expectations held by
the individual employee that specifies what the individual and the organization
expect to give and receive in the working relationship (Rousseu, 1990). The
psychological contract is unwritten agreement between employer and
employee that each party will treat the other party and it is based on
presumably shared beliefs. Because of it is unwritten and unofficial and
therefore not legally binding, the motivation for compliance is not, as it is with
explicit written contract but rather the desire to maintain mutual trust. It thus,
constitutes an emotion bond.
Previous researchers have highlighted the implicit relationship between
employer and employees or the role of psychological on work attitude such as
organizational commitment. (Eienberger, 1990) reported that there was a
strong relationship between psychological contract and organizational
commitment. The similar result was recorded in the relationship between job
satisfaction and organizational commitment (Ashford et al., 1990). Recent
studies have found that both psychological contract and job satisfaction were
able to influence organizational commitment. (Simon, 1993) found that the
relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment was
affected after controlling psychological contract. However, Simon‟s findings
revealed of weak and no significant relationship between some job
satisfaction facets and organizational commitment after controlling
psychological contract. (Sarminah, Samad; Za‟faran, Hassan, 2007).

[21]
2.0.0. Methodology
2.0.1 Hypothesis Development
H1: There is a relationship between Productivity and job
satisfaction
H2: There is a relationship between effect of job rotation and job
satisfaction
H3: There is a relationship between psychological contract and job
satisfaction
H4: There is a negative relationship between job stress and job
satisfaction

A survey instrument in the form of close-ended questionnaire was developed

for the purpose of collecting the main data for the study. This study was
conducted in Karachi based companies. Factors such as precision and
confidence, population size, time and cost constraints were taken into
consideration in selecting sample size. Using the non-probability sampling
technique, a total of 300 respondents were selected as a sample of the study
from those Companies. The respondents come from various Departments in
order to give better result. The actual field survey was conducted over a
period one week whereby personal interviews were employed to obtain the
required information from the respondents. The reasons of using the personal
interview are threefold. Firstly, it allows the interviewer to screen the eligibility
of the respondents. Secondly, it also allows a closer supervision and better
interaction between the interviewer and respondents in answering the
questionnaire. Lastly, the interviewer was able to assist the respondents when
they found difficulty in understanding any of the questions in the
questionnaire. Seven companies completed the questionnaire. The response
rate was 67.66% which was very much acceptable in social science research
(Fowler, 1988). The participants were 62.56% female and 37.44% male with
mean age of 37.6 years. More than 50% of them were married (107
respondent or 52.71%), 71 single, 17 separated, 8 divorced.

[22]
2.0.2. Instrument Development
This instrument used in this study is composed of 3 parts. The first part deals
with job stress. Job stress is measured by “Job Stress Questionnaire, JSQ”
proposed by Caplan et al. (1975) and Sahu and Gole (2008). This scale
included four dimensions from Caplan et al (1975), namely (1) workload, (2)
role conflict, (3) role ambiguity and (4) performance pressure which comprised
thirteen items. Each of job stressors was measured on a six-point Likert Scale
in which 1 indicated “strongly disagree”, 2 indicated “disagree”, 3 indicated
“somewhat disagree”, 4 indicated “somewhat agree”, 5 indicated “agree” and
6 indicated “strongly agree”. The main reason for this choice of all six job
stressor was widely used in previous studies. Part 2 includes job satisfaction
which is measured using Job Descriptive Index (JDI) (Smith et al., 1969), a
reliable facet measure over time (Kinicki et al., 2002), applicable across a
variety of demographic groups (Golembiewski and Yeager, 1978; Jung et al.,
1986) and measured on a six point scale wit least satisfied (1) to very satisfied
(6). The structure this section differed from previous studies insofar as it
considered satisfaction as a positive phenomenon. Consequently, there was
no facility for dissatisfaction. Part 3 includes a number of demographic
questions such as gender, age, marital status, race, and education level.

2.0.3. Data Analysis Method

Various statistical methods have been employed to compare the data
collected from 500 respondents. These methods include cross-sectional
analysis, description analysis and regression analysis. Each method has used
to analysis the relationship of different variables.
Firstly, the method of this study will also involve Cross-sectional types of
research methodology based on the guideline given by Hussey and Hussey
(1997). Their reports mention that cross-sectional studies are a positive
methodology designed to obtain information on variables in different contexts,
but at the same time.
Secondly, Descriptive analysis refers to the transformation of raw data into a
form hat would provide information to describe a set of factors in a situation
that will make them easy to understand and interpret (Sekaran, 2000;
Zikmund, 2000). This analysis will be given information for the data through
[23]
the frequency distribution, central tendency, and the dispersion. Data are
collected on demographic variables are processed and reported in
percentages.
Thirdly, multiple regression analysis is an extension of bivariate regression
analysis, which allows for the simultaneous investigation of the effect of two or
more independent variables on a single interval scale dependent variable
(Zikmund, 2000). The dependent variable for this study is Job satisfaction,
whose types of measurement are interval. For this study, there are several
independent variables relating to Job satisfaction, and job stresses whose
types of measurement are interval and simultaneously investigates the
several independent variables single variable a multiple linear regression is
fitted for these variables.

3.0.0. Results and Analysis

3.1.0. Reliability
The internal reliability of the items was verified by computing the Cronbach‟s
alpha (Nunnally, 1978). Nunnally (1978) suggested that a minimum alpha of
0.6 sufficed for early stage of research. The Cronbach alpha estimated for
current management role scale was 0.889, relationship with others scale was
0.890, workload pressure scale was 0.890, homework interface scale was
0.908, role ambiguity scale was 0.901, performance pressure scale was
0.894, overall job stress 0.805 and the overall job satisfaction scale was
0.729. As the Cronbach‟s alpha in this study were all much higher than 0.6,
the constructs were therefore deemed to have adequate reliability.

3.1.1. Normality of Data and Multi-Collinearity

This study involves a relatively large sample (203 academicians) and
therefore, the Central Limit Theorem could be applied and hence there is no
question on normality of the data. Two major methods were utilized in order to
determine the presence of multicollinearity among independent variables in
this study. These methodologies involved calculation of both a Tolerance test
and Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) (Kleinbaum et al, 1988). The results of
these analyzes are presented in Table 1. As can be seen from this data, i)
none of the Tolerance levels is <or equal to .01; and ii) all VIF values are well
[24]
below 10. Thus, the measures selected for assessing independent variables
in this study do not reach levels indicate of multi co linearity. The acceptable
Durbin – Watson range is between 1.5 and 2.5. In this analysis Durbin –
Watson value of 2.015, which is between the acceptable ranges, show that
there were no auto correlation problems in the data used in this research.
Thus, the measures selected for assessing independent variables in this
study do not reach levels indicate of multi co linearity

Table -1
Variable Tolerance VIF
Job stress .509 1.964
Productivity .410 2.442
Effect job Redesigning .561 1.783
Psychological Contract .379 1.472

3.1.2. Hypotheses Testing

To test seven hypotheses the data were analysed using multiple linear
regression analysis following the guidelines established by Hair et al. (1998).
The purpose of regression analysis is to relate a dependent variable to a set
of independent variables (Mendenhal and Sincich, 1993). Table III present the
result of predictors of ICT adoption. The regression coefficient of job stressors
on job stress was estimated. The overall model is significant at the 1% level.
The independent variables explain 50% of the variance in the job stress. Of
the independent variables, workload pressure (+), homework interface (+),
role ambiguity (+), and performance pressure (+) are the predictors
statistically different from zero and had a significant and direct effect on job
stress. The remaining management role (+), relationship with others (-) had no
significant direct effect on job stress. Table II presents the results of the
individual hypotheses being tested.

[25]
Table -2
Variable Beta t-value p- value
Constant 1.781 .076
Job stress .283 4.013 .000
Productivity .218 2.768 .006
Effect job Redesigning .180 2.674 .008
Psychological Contract .209 3.429 .001

3.1.3. The Results of Hypothesis 1

The H1 to support hypothesis 7 we also used multiple regression analysis to
understand the effects of job stress versus job satisfaction. With job
satisfaction as dependent variable and job stress as independent variable, a
regression equation to represent this relationship is computed.
Regress results are shown Tables III and IV. Table III depicts the computer F-
value and R square to understand the overall significance of the regression
model. Research model yielding significant p-values (p<0.01) and R square
around 10 percent of the variance in job satisfaction was explained. Table IV
lists detailed data on the statistical coefficients of the regression model.
Therefore, hypothesis 7 is supported by the collected data.

3.1.4. The Results of Hypothesis 2

According to Lasky (1995) demands associated with family and finances can
be a major source of „extra-organisational‟ stress that can complicate, or
precipitate, work-place stress. The multiple regression analysis shows that the
association between Productivity and job satisfaction is significant with
β=0.218 (ρ=0.01). The result attests that the occurrence of stressors in the
workplace either immediately following a period of chronic stress at home, or
in conjunction with other major life stressors, is likely to have a marked impact
on outcome (Russon & Vitaliano, 1995). Furthermore, with the positive
coefficient value, it could be concluded that the higher the problem in the
home, the chances for the jab satisfaction will be greater.
Surprisingly, the results of this study shows that the association between
relationship with others and job stress is not significant with β=0.055

[26]
(ρ=0.239). The unimportance of relationship factor may be due to fact that all
the faculty members are very much friendly and cooperative. However, we
can expect to get stronger association if the conflict arises from their
colleagues.
3.1.5. The Results of Hypothesis 3
Most research suggests that Effect of job Redesigning is indeed negatively
correlated with job satisfaction, job involvement, performance, tension,
propensity to leave the job and job performance variables (Rizzo, House, &
Lirtzman 1970; Van Sell, Brief, & Schuler 1981; Fisher & Gitelson 1983;
Jackson & Schule 1985; Singh 1998). The result of this study shows that the
association between role ambiguity and job stress is significant with β=0.180
(ρ=0.01). The support for hypothesis 5 reflects that more complex and rapid
changes of organisation exist in the faculty; the possibility of job satisfaction
will be higher.

3.1.6. The Results of Hypothesis 4

The support of H4 (Psychological Contract) is in line with the results found by
Chan et al. (2000). Multiple regression analysis shows relative advantage
having β=0.209 (ρ=0.001) is the strongest predictor of job satisfaction. It is
expected since past literature has consistently shown that performance
pressure now a day is one of most significant and positive influence on job
satisfaction (Townley, 2000).

Table 3: Summary of Regression Analysis Effects of Job Stress toward Job

Satisfaction
Regression F-Value P-Value Adj-R2 Durbin-Watson Test
Statistics
Values 24.098 0.00 .103 1.869
P<0.01

[27]
Table 4: Relationship between Job Stress and Job Satisfaction
Variables Standard error of Coefficient t-value Standard Reg. Co.
Beta (p-value)
Job Stress 0.035 -4.909 0.327 (0.00)

REFERENCES

Alexandrov, A., Babakus, E., & Yavas, U. (2007). The effects of perceived
management concern for frontline employees and customers on turnover
intentions. Journal of Service Research, 9(4), 356 - 371.

Kode Ruyter, Martin Wetzel , “Role stress in call centers its effect on
performance and satisfaction, Journal of interactive marketing”, Vol 15, 2001:
23-30

Steven Simoens, Anthony Scott, bonnie Sibbald Job Satisfaction, “Work-

Related Stress And Intentions To Quit Of Scottish GPS 2003”, Journal of
Management Vol 5 5-12

Rabi S. Bhagat “the Impact of Job Characteristics on Correctional Staff

Members” ,2004 Lambert, The Prison Journal 84: 208-227.

Sherry E. Sullivan, “Organizational stress, job satisfaction and job

performance: where do we go from here?”, 2000 Journal of Management
Jun;62(3):815-25
Lagace RR., “Role-stress differences between salesmen and saleswomen:
effect on job satisfaction and performance”, 2001 Journal of Management
Dec,12(3):15-25

Joe W. Kotrlik, James E., Bartlett II, “The Relationship Between Job Stress
And Job satisfaction Among Industrial And Technical Teacher Educators”,
2003 Journal of Career and Technical Education Volume 20, Number 1

[28]
Ernest Brewer, Jama McMahan, Landers, University of Tennessee “Job
Satisfaction of the Librarians in the Developing Countries”, 61st IFLA General
Conference - Conference Proceedings - August 20-25,

Al-Aameri A.S., 2003. “Source of job stress for nurses in public hospitals”,
Saudi Medical Journal, 24(11), pp.1183-1187.

Alexandros-Stamatios G. A., Matilyn J.D., and Cary L.C., 2003. “Occupational

Stress, Job satisfaction, and health state in male and female junior hospital
doctors in Greece”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(6), pp. 592-621.

Beehr, Terry A. (1995), Psychological Stress in the Workplace, London and

New York.

Beehr, T.A. & Newman, J.E.,1978. “Job Stress, Employee Health and
Organizational Effectiveness: A Facet Analysis, Model and Literature Review”,
Personnel Psychology, 31, pp.665-669.

Beehr, T.A., Walsh, J.T., & Taber, T.D. 1976. “Perceived situational
moderators of the relationship between subjective role ambiguity and role
strain‟, Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, pp.35-40.

Caplan, R.D., Cobb, S., French, J.R.P., Jr., Harrison, R.V., and Pinneau, S.R.,
1975. “Job Demands and Worker Health”, HEW Publication No. (NIOSH), pp.
75-160.

Cascio, W.F., 1995. “Wither industrial and organizational psychology in a

Changing world”? American Psychologist, 50, pp.928-939.

Chan, K.B., Lai, G., Ko, Y.C. & Boey K.W., 2000. “Work stress among six
professional groups: the Singapore experience”, Social Science Medicine,
50(10), pp.1415-1432.

[29]
Coleman J.C. 1976. Abnormal Psychology and Modern Life (Indian reprint),
Taraporewalla, Bombay. Cooper, C.L., 1991. Stress in organizations. In M.
Smith (Ed.). Analysing Organisational Behaviour. London: MacMillan.

Cooper, C., U. Rout and B. Faragher. 1989. “Mental Health, Job Satisfaction,
and Job Stress Among General Practitioners”, B Medical Journal, 298, pp366-
370.

Cordes, C.L., and Dougherty, T.W. 1993. “A review and integration of

research on job burnout”, Academy of Management Review, 18, pp.621-656.
Cummins R.C. 1990. “Job stress and the buffering effort of supervisory
support”, Group and Organizational Studies, 15(1), pp.92-104.

Dyer, S., & Quine, L. 1998. “Predictors of job satisfaction and burnout among
the direct care staff of a community learning disability service”, Journal of
Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 11 (4), pp.320-332.

Dyer, S., & Quine, L. 1998. “The effects of job demands and control on
employee attendance and satisfaction”, Journal of Organisational Behaviour,
12, pp.596-608.

Fisher, C.D., & Gitelson, R. 1983. “A meta-analysis of the correlated of the

role conflict and ambiguity”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, pp.320-333.

[30]