RESEARCH STUDY ON THE CORRELATION

BETWEEN EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION AND

EMPLOYEE MOTIVATION

Teoh Teik Toe

(James Cook University Australia Singapore Campus)
Werner R. Murhadi
(Universitas Surabaya, Indonesia)
Wang Lin
(Anglia Ruskin University, UK)

ABSTRACT
In most companies in today's world, motivating employees to perform to
their maximum potential in their jobs is one of the key elements in modem
Human Resource Management.
It is believed that when an employee is
motivated, he will be generally satisfied with his job and because that he is
happy, he will be able to give his best efforts and contribution to the job
assign to him. However, there are various types of motivation to everyone,
and usually it may not be the same for each employee in the company or in
that particular department. Employee motivation can be varied due to a
number of dependent variables like personal needs, external rewards,
recognition, self-actualization
and self-esteem. This can be found in many
previous studies and literatures. In this research study, the researcher reviewed
the various motivation factors and examined various employees' demographics
like age, gender, education level and job tenure that may link to their level of
job satisfaction and as a result achieves better performance in their work.
Descriptive analysis using quantitative approach was employed through a
survey questionnaire posted to 120 employees in the company chosen. Factors
like remuneration, job security, teamwork, relations with clients and bosses,
recognition, sense of given authority and autonomy, promotion and fringe
benefits,
challenging
activities and fear of failures are asked in the
questionnaire
and the results were analyzed to observe the correlation
between motivation factors with job satisfaction.
Keywords: Motivation, Job Satisfaction, Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Motivation,
Synergy

1. Introduction
With the fast changing world, especially in the last few decades, in
modern industries that require higher skill sets and knowledge based industries,
employers can hardly continue to exploit workers for maximum output while
not offering the appropriate and competitive commensuration
accordingly.
With improved literacy and the easy access to internet, tapping into unlimited
and enormous information through the world almost without boundaries,
people can now see and hear for themselves and compare what they are
currently working as, the job scope and exposure for advancement and the
salary that they are drawing versus what the outside world or other companies
may be able to offer. This new globalization reality need to be understood by
the employer and in order to maintain competitiveness,
attracting and
retaining key talents in this highly competitive global markets, the company
requires to model and develop the right workforce to excel in their businesses.
Few people in this world now will just work contentedly for one company for
life if they feel that they can get more elsewhere, whether if it is in terms of
money, exposure, job scope enlargement and career advancement.
Beck (1983) identified that happy employees tend to be more motivated
and will be faithful to a company. They will conduct themselves and work on
the assignments assigned to them more enthusiastically and passionately and
consequently yielding higher quality output. Field (2008) also observed that
company business success is usually tied to having a team of employees who
are greatly satisfied with what they are doing and the conditions
and
environment that the company offers them in their workspace. There were
many other studies in the past on this related topic in finding the correlation
between employees job satisfaction versus employees motivation and linking
that to the impact to company's businesses.
According to Beck (1983), there were four basic perspectives
that can
ignite motivation at a workplace. They were the economic condition of that
person, the social relationship he has or desire to have, self-actualization of
his aspirations and get recognition and lastly a combination of all the above
elements. A rational economic employee placed economic returns above other
aspects of the job and his behavior and vigor on the job came from the
monetary rewards he gets from his employer for the job. Some organizations
who believed that man was rational and economic will emphasize on dishing
out aggressive monetary rewards like raising salary and fringe benefits to
motivate the employees. The Second theory assumed that the elementary
need of a man is the social relationship he desire to have in the society or his
circle of friends and colleagues. This kind of man will weigh interpersonal
relationships with colleagues, supervisors, customers, suppliers or whoever
they he has to interact with in his job as one of the key motivating factor for
him. As long as the company create that happy environment for him and he

get together well with others, he is happy and motivated. The third theory was
man's self-actualization. He wants to get recognize by his supervisor or the
community whenever he contributed to the success of an assignment or
project. He aspires to get full credit and recognition in the forms of praises or
compliments through non-monetary awards. Organization that believes in this
will create a system to reward high performers and celebrate the success of
each project no matter how big or small the project is. The last perspective
was on a complex person. This person has the emotions, abilities, motives and
desires of all above mentioned elements. His emphasis will change from time to time
and place to place and is also dependent on the kind of assignment he is put
on. He exhibits the behavior of almost wanting everything to come his way
and sometimes over estimated his own capabilities.
Intrinsic conditions are sometimes more powerful than work related
characteristics of a person . Spector (2003) has defined motivation as an inner
state of mind of a person that influences him to display s specific type of
behavior. There were two types of motivation according to Spector (2003).
One kind that motivates a person in the direction of a type of behavior
amongst all other behaviors while the second type was that the individual
achieves motivation with the strong desire to achieve certain goal. The second
type was derived from a person's individual needs and desires. Petri (1996)
described that motivation was a force that exerts on an individual to initiate a
special behavior and sometimes this behavior can be more intense than others
and varies depending on the situation. Under the context of a workplace in an
organization, Pinder (1998) regarded work motivation as a set of internal and
external forces that triggers behaviors that were work related. He defined
work motivation was invisible and created within a person's inner self.
Gouws (1995) also established that consciously or unconsciously, motivation
originates within an individual self. This kind of intrinsic self-motivation
often drives the person to accomplish a particular job with success in mind
and any external rewards or awards are not important to him. Sense of selffulfilling and self-accomplishment is all it takes. Niekerk (1987) also stated
that the creation of a motivated workplace environment and conditions can
exert a strong influence on a person to perform on his own wish, whereby he
can attain certain personal goal that satisfies his own needs. Beach (1980)
defined motivation as the readiness to use up the energy to attain a target or
incentive. These behaviors can be repeated on different assignments or jobs
easily with the right incentive but however if the behavior is not duly
rewarded or worse still gets punished for the wrong reason, this behavior will
diminish over time. Eventually this will be linked to whether a person feels
satisfied by performing an activity or just wanting to get involved in the
activity.
In this study, the researcher regarded employee motivation as an

instinctive force that was molded by a set of personal

and workplace
characteristics that drive the particular need and motives of the workers. The
concept of motivation has great influence on personnel desire to work whole
heartedly for the organization and can make significant impact in determining
the effectiveness of an organization and company's business success. Thus, it
was critical for an organization to focus on the factors that will result in job
satisfaction
and employee motivation. Managers need to have a good
knowledge about different motivational theories and effectively uncover the
real desire in each employee or team and adopt the right theory on the person
or team to get optimal results. This is a vicious cycle, the more motivated
employee will be, the more he / she will be satisfied, and the better he
performs, and because he performs well and is a happy employee, the others
who work around him will be infected and will also be self-motivated to
perform as well and remain happy and satisfied. The morale of the individual,
the team and the company will also improve.
Motivating employees is considered as one key factor that can create the
power in making workers feel satisfied with their jobs. Employer can only
motivate workers in the form by creating the conditions and environment that
make people feel happy and satisfied t o give their heart and soul to the job and
the company. The contributions from the employees are key determinants of
any organizational success and it is closely linked to creating highly motivated
workforce that encompassing great job satisfaction among the employees. So is
this just a perception or is employee job satisfaction really linked to employee
motivation whereby employee will be more devoted and intellectually more
active in working on his job assignment? In this study, we used statistical
measurements to validate this correlation between employee satisfaction and
employee motivation. The question for this research was to validate if there
was any significant correlation between employee job satisfactions with
employee level of motivation. In this study, we was to identify motivation
techniques that will enhance job satisfaction and their significance and the
impact of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, social relations and employee inner
desire have on job satisfaction. This study also extended to look at the possible
influence of employee job satisfaction with varying demographics.
2. Literature Review
2.1.Employee Motivation
The term motivation is defined as the energy that enables a person in
advancing towards in achieving certain goal. Dunnette, Hough and Triandis
(1990) stated that motivation is a label for determinants of choice to begin
effort on a certain task, the choice to expand a certain amount of effort, and
the choice to persist in the efforts over a period of time." Motivation is therefore
classified as an individual's behaviour which is the result of some inter-related
factors where some of them have to be maintained as constants suck as skills,

abilities and knowledge. Motivation can also be linked to physical and

psychological needs of human beings. Examples of physical needs are hunger
and safety while psychological needs include the aspiration in attaining a
specific goal that may appear to be ideal. Pinder (1998) regarded motivation as
"a set of internal and external forces that triggers work related behaviours that
determine its form, intensity, direction and duration." This relates to both the
influence of environmental forces and personal inherent thoughts on his work
behaviour.
2.2.Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction can be defined as the overall effect that one person has
towards his job (Arnold and Feldman, 1986) or was a summary of employee
attitudes towards a multi-faceted job (Beck, 1983). Sempane, Rieger and Roodt
(2002) describes job satisfaction as a relation on one person's own assessment
on his job against the matters and concerns that matter to them, and these
sentiments and emotions involved will considerably have an influence on this
person's work attitude.
2.3.Motivation & Job Satisfaction
It was believed that's there was a fundamental correlation between
employee motivation that led to employee job satisfaction, resulting higher
quality and committed workforce which then led to improved companies
performance and profitability. Maslow (1968) stated that the key foundation in
building this relationship was largely due on the individual's insight and
attitude at the workplace depending on their personal needs and their
respective discernment of several aspects that might be related to the job in
the organization. In Vroom's (1964) expectancy theory, he suggested that
each employee possessed his individual needs, and with the right motivation
satisfying his needs, he was able to alter his behaviour and work attitude
towards the job or task assigned to him based on his expectancy of a certain
outcome.
Thus it was important that a company needed to examine this
fundamental relationship between motivation and job satisfaction as the
empirical study (Herzberg, 1966) that different aspects on individual personal
lives ofthe employee could exert a tremendous force to motivate or demotivate an employee towards their work performance, and undoubtedly
could be related to the success or failure of the organization. Individual
personal motivation should not be seen as the only justification of work
behaviours of an employee in isolation, but rather should encompass the
combination on company's intervening processes
and the surrounding
environment (Luthan, 1977). He argued that motivation is a cognitive process
and can be determined by the behaviours ofthe individual but could not be
associated with the causes of the behaviours.

Many studies had been made in this area of finding a correlation between
employee motivation and employee job satisfaction, and how that could be
linked to work performance under different workplace environment and
culture and also how that could link to the individual personal life (Fried and
Ferris, 1987). Olbert and Moen (1998) had tried to explain the linkage between
motivation and job satisfaction and performance of an individual and if only
the management team understood that intricate relationships, they could then
place the right motivations on specific individuals to enhance their love for
the job and would have better results on their performance. Carnige (1985)
suggested that human resource was one of the most important aspects to
determine the success or failure of a company. As such, the studies on human
psychology and characteristics could not be neglected in motivating the
employees to achieve the right behaviour for the right results. Lawler (2003)
echoed the same and he believed that the employees would eventually be the
deciding factor on whether the company would prosper in the long run.
Roberts (2005) and Rutherford (2002) also stated independently
that
organizations that could have a systematic process build into the company's
policies or practices, and by creating the environment that constantly promote
and apply the right motivational catalyst on the employees, would certainly
yield the desired effect on having higher productivity and creativity from the
employees.
2.3.1. Effect of Intrinsic Motivation Factors on Job Satisfaction
Kalleberg (1977) stated that one single greatest effect on employee job
satisfaction was he achieved intrinsic satisfaction. Employee that had greater
job satisfaction was linked to less employee absence and lower turnover rates
which were important to an organization success. Job enlargement, job rotation
and job enrichment were also some techniques that a company used to raise
employees' intrinsic motivation factors. Job enlargement referred to the
designing of the job to increase the work activities and responsibilities to
overcome employees being bored at the job or felt overspecialized in his field
of work. Job rotation on the other hand offered the employee the opportunity to
be exposed to different work areas and responsibilities within an organization
to allow them to have a broader perspective of the company (Einhorn &
Gallegher, 1976). Job enrichment was defined as fostering the intrinsic
motivation through giving the employee higher responsibility tasks in the work
situation. Employees usually saw that as an endorsement of their job capability
in the eyes of their bosses.
Receiving due recognition for the work one
individual or team had done was also a key element in intrinsic motivation
(Stoner, 1989). Only if the employee felt that he was being recognized and
appreciated for the success of the job, he would then be more motivated to
quickly wanting to work on the next assignment with great enthusiasm and

energy. Human beings were generally active, inquisitive and curious creatures
who usually liked to explore and learn. That natural motivational tendency was
an important element in cognitive, social and physical development as it was in
ones' interest to grow in knowledge and skills (Ryan & Grolnick, 1986).
Intrinsic motivation had been judged whether employees enjoy the selfrated task or volunteer to do job without extrinsic reasons, such like higher pay,
incentive or promotion persist. Deci & R y a n ( 1 9 8 5 ) stated that intrinsic
motivation relied on employee's self-determination and self-competence. Locke
(1976) indicated job satisfaction as "a pleasurable or positive emotional state
resulting from an appraisal of one's job or job experiences". Spreitzer, et.al
(2005) thriving at work concept combined the emotions of vigor and enthusiasm
with beliefs that individual is studying, developing towards self-value. Bakker
and Demerouti (2008) also defined it as: "a positive, Fulfilling, work-related
state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and Absorption", and
"Vigor is characterized by high levels of energy and mental resilience while
working. Dedication referred to being strongly involved in one's work and
experiencing a sense of significance, enthusiasm, and challenge. Absorption was
characterized by being fully concentrated and happily engrossed in one's work,
whereby time passes quickly and one had difficulties with detaching oneself
from work." Shirom (2003) defined vigor at work as positive emotional
experience combined energetic factors like physical strength, positive mental
energy and cognitive activeness. Individuals could be characterized by their vigor
level since it was a stable person level variable. However, a person's vigor at
work may fluctuate due to any reason or anytime, so it should be studied at a
transient scenario also.

2.3.2. Effect of Extrinsic Motivation Factors on Job Satisfaction

Generally extrinsic motivation was defined as when one person was
performing a job under the feeling of pressured, tension or anxiety as he wanted
to achieve certain desired results (Lindenberg, 2001). Extrinsic motivation
would include components like remuneration, working conditions, autonomy,
job security, fringe benefits, bonuses and promotion in position (Ryan and Deci,
2000). Extrinsic aspects also referred to as tangible rewards that were given out
to employees which were generally materialistic or observable by others (Bellenger et
al, 1984). According to those theories, extrinsic motivation played a vital role in
harnessing employee job satisfaction.
The workplace condition was one key factor affecting employee behaviour
or attitude towards the job. The amount of stress level in the job, the leadership
and climatic changes surrounding the workplace could affect the mood and
energy level of the employee. Employee generally performed better if he was
under a more conducive environment with favorable work conditions (Busch and

Bush, 1978). Ritter and Anker (2002) also iterated that job security was one of
the other important extrinsic factor that has a direct relationship to job
satisfaction. When an employee felt that there were risks in losing his job
because of the tasks that he was doing were not adding value to the company, or
not being recognized by his boss, he would always be in the worried mode and
having that constant concern in his mind, he would not be satisfied with his job
and hence had negative impact on his job performance. Promotion and pay also
had direct impact on employee job satisfaction. If the employee felt that he was
underpay or not getting the appropriate salary, bonuses or fringe benefits
compared to others either in the same company of similar job functions or
outside of the company, he would not be motivated and satisfied with his job
(Rehman et al, 2007).
2.3.3. Synergy or Social Relations on Job Satisfaction
There were many researches usually focused on the relationship between
job satisfaction with self-autonomy, promotion or incentive system or other
external factors. However some of the studies also found that the social factors
such like the relationship with customer, colleague or management and
surrounding environment also played an important role towards job satisfactions.
More frequent communication with other people would have stronger effect on
job satisfaction.
Employees might not get satisfaction through working
autonomy, promotion or other external factors, but through the good social
relationship and interaction with surrounding people, the satisfaction level might
recover .. "Social support not only predicted satisfaction beyond the task and
knowledge characteristics, but it was also unrelated to training and compensation
requirements, so it is kind of a no-cost improvement," (Meyers, 2007). Jex
(2002) indicated when an individual works with team, a positive attitude
towards their job would be generated, especially when his I her work was
satisfied by surrounding people, he I her job satisfaction level would be raised.
But once the job has been denied by team members, the job satisfaction level
would be dropped. Thus a company needed to train its employees to face the
social situation positively. In general, all the researchers were in agreement that
social factors / environment have strong influence on employee's attitudes and
behaviors. There was a Germany company even stated a rules on its
employments contract that employees who work for the company could not
complain with their job in any reason, they even fired employees who made to many
complains (Brian, 2011).
2.3.4. Effects of Challenges in the Job Requirements on Job Satisfaction
Locke (1976) argued that employee' value would determine by what able
to satisfy them on the job, only the unfulfilled job values that was important to
make them unsatisfied. The relationship between job characteristics
and

satisfaction was based on individual's growth need strength (GNS). GNS means
the degree of individual desire for self-development on their career. High level
GNS employees were willing to contribute their ideas to the job, and performing
challenging and rewarding activities. Another way to measure a person's GNS
was by choosing whether "good pay" or "good opportunity to be creative and
challenge". High GNS people prefer a job is interesting and innovative which
allowed them to develop themselves by achieve goals. The researches
established that high GNS employees had higher job satisfaction rate than low
GNS employees. But one exception was that for those employees did not want
to take any responsibly and only preferred a routine job, if giving them a
challenging job, it might decrease their satisfaction(Frye, 1996). The job
characteristics
model mentioned that the major factor affects employee
satisfaction was the intrinsic nature of work. Timothy and Ryan (2003) as cited
in Hackman and Oldham (1980) identified that the five major characteristics
contribute to employees' challenging and fulfilling their job: (1) Task Identity Enabled employee to perform a job from beginning to the end. (2) Skill Variety
- Increased skills for employee to performing better job. (3) Task Significance
- Provided work that was important and significant. (4) Autonomy - Increased
the degree of decision making, and authority to decide how to conduct own
work. (5) FeedbackIncreased the degree of recognition of job performing,
and giving feedback. According to above theory, jobs that were enriched by
addressing these factors were likely to meet employees' needs for challenging
and fulfilling in their job, hence employees might feel more satisfied and
motivated.
3. Research Methodology
The research approach employed for this study was the deductive approach.
This descriptive research design was then selected for this specific
research study to understand the ways how employee motivation would relate
to job satisfaction using quantitative research and analysis through a survey.
IBM was chosen to be the company for this study. This company has a workforce
of 40,000 employees, and it is a multi-faceted company that offers a wide range
of dynamic hardware and software products. A 120 employees working in this
company sample size was decided on this survey. It comprised of employees
from top management team, middle management team as well as general staff
workers. The 120 employees selected from IBM were distributed across the
demographic variables as shown in the table below:

Table 1. Demographic Composition

Range
Number of Sample
Below 30
42
30 45
34
Above 45
24
Gender
Male
84
Female
36
Years of Service
Fresh Graduate/below 5yr
48
experience
5 10 years experience
35
Above 10 years
37
Educational level
Below College
17
Degree
45
Master
24
Higher than Master
14
A survey was used as the vehicle in collecting this data. The 34 items survey
was carefully designed on Motivation and Job Satisfaction. Four questions were
targeted to have the variable on demographics (age, gender, working experience &
educational level) while 30 questions were on motivating factors that include job
requirement, synergy, intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation, which might
the relationship
have effect on job satisfaction. To understand
between
variables use of bivariate analysis is done, where the use of contingency
tables, cross tabulations,
regression & correlation
analysis tests the
relationship between two variable. Data analysis in this study would be done using
SPSS.
Demographic Criteria
Age

4. Results, Analysis & Discussion

Table 2 show Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient table for all the data
range was from 0.54 to 0.851 across all the items. These data were showed
that motivation extrinsic & intrinsic factors were much closed with Job
satisfaction.
Table 2. Motivation Factors Reliability
Indicators
Cronbach Alpha
Job Requirement
Activities
0.763
Achievement
0.661
Competition
0.739
Fear of failure
0.851
Synergy
Teamwork
0.733

Relationship with managers

Ease and security
Intrinsic Factors
Creativity
Work Autonomy
Extrinsic Factor
Increment
Promotion
position

0.552
0.693
0.542
0.723
0.669
0.685
0.734

Table 3 was overviewed the raw data have been corrected from the survey and
present in deeply that variance samples on the various factors of employee
motivation and job satisfaction relationship.
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Motivation Factors
Descriptive
Statistic
(n=118)
Activities
Achievement
Competition
Fear of
failure

Min.
Raw Score

Max
Raw Score

Mean
Raw
Score
Job Requirement

Mean
Sten

Std.Deviation
Raw Score

36

23.37

3.9

5.291

20

40

32.81

5.1

3.576

14

38

29.71

5.89

4.143

36

17.11

3.97

6.615

Synergy
Teamwork
Relationship
with
managers
Ease and
security

18
26

40
40

31.11
35.03

5.52
6.58

4.250
3.586

25

39

33.12

6.1

3.122

Intrinsic Factors
Creativity

22

39

32.58

4.8

3.465

Work
Autonomy

10

27

19.94

5.1

3.779

Increment
Promotion

27

8.65

3.260

position

Extrinsic Factor
40
36.36

24

40

34.86

6.61

3.494

23

39

32.22

6.38

3.794

The raw score scales range was from 8 to 40. Higher score, higher
motivational value will be attached to the particular scale represented construct.
The mean sten scores in the Job requirement dimension range were from 3.9 to
5.89; those data in the Synergy was from 5.54 to 6.1; intrinsic range was from
4.80 to 5.1; extrinsic dimension was from 4.8 to 8.65. Data showed the lowest
score was injob requirement dimension, From the standard deviations
indicated for each scale was proved that the variance of scores within the
different scales was relatively small. These ranged from 3.122 to 6.615. The
variance between the different scales was also low.
Regarding the relationship between job satisfaction and motivation and
the impact of demographic variable on their relationship, the analysis of
variance test (ANOVA) was used on the below raw scores. The impacts of
demographic variables on the determination of job satisfaction for each level of
employees were related to the findings as discussed in above section. Age,
educational background, gender and years of working are factors that would
have direct influence on the level of job satisfaction.
Table 4. Demografic Factor (Age) and Job Satisfaction
Scales:
(Age Group Mean)

Competition
Position
Relationship with
manager
Company
Profitability

Below 30
(n=64)
Raw Score
(Sten)
30.761
(6.145)
32.917
(6.718)
12.139
(7.86)
10.812
(6.87)

30 - 45
(n=31)
Raw Score
(Sten)
27.436
(5.313)
31.531
(6.305)
13.033
(8.29)
11.823
(7.12)

45 & older
(n=13)
Raw Score
(Sten)
29.512
(5.540)
30.122
(5.174)
13.816
(8.79)
11.547
(7.69)

F-value

p value

3.461

0.044

3.931

0.020

4.069

0.025

3.081

0.047

Table 5. Demografic Factor (Gender) and Job Satisfaction

Scales:
(Gender = Mean)

Fear of Failure
Task Characteristics
Working environment
Creativity
Relationship with
manager

Female
(n=62)
Raw Score
(Sten)
15.846
(3.612)
43.79
25.512
11.051
(7.436)
13.113
(8.225)

Male
(n=54)
Raw Score
(Sten)
18.419
(4.238)
48.417
27.619
12.211
(8.315)
12.363
(7.691)

F-value

p value

-2.16

0.01

-2.57
-2.05
-2.38

0.01
0.03
0.02

2.238

0.02

Company
Profitability
Promotion System
Work Autonomy
Job Security
Teamwork

11.465
(7.168)
8.658
(6.365)
8.131
(5.519)
10.776
(4.414)
8.625
(5.603)

10.667
(6.830)
9.217
(7.247)
9.158
(6.328)
12.032
(4.807)
9.649
(6.386)

2.532

0.01

-2.55

0.01

-2.14

0.04

-2.42

0.01

-2.1

0.04

Table 6. Demografic Factor (Working Experience) and Job Satisfaction

Scales:
(Working Exp. =
Mean)

Fear of Failure
Creativity
Work Autonomy
Job Security

Fresh
Graduate
(n=29)
Raw Score
(Sten)
20.10
11.59
(7.55)
10.14
(6.72)
10.28
(6.86)

2-5 yr
(n=36)
Raw Score
(Sten)
20.33
11.03
(7.06)
9.17
(6.00)
9.50
(6.39)

5-10 yr
(n=22)

23.14
10.36
(6.45)
8.68
(5.68)
8.68
(5.86)

10+ yr
(n=10)

26.60
10.60
(6.60)
9.80
(6.30)
8.60
(5.60)

F-value

p value

3.43
3.18

0.011
0.016

2.68

0.035

2.58

0.041

Table 7. Demografic Factor (Educational Level) and Job Satisfaction

Scales:
(Working Exp. =
Mean)

Competition
Adaptability
Quantity Work
Equal Opportunity

Bellow
College
(n=24)

Degree
(n=43)

Raw Score
(Sten)
30.58
(6.42)
32.04
(4.42)
11.88
(7.04)
10.88
(6.42)

Raw Score
(Sten)
30.40
(6.33)
31.79
(4.00)
12.63
(7.51)
10.53
(6.23)

Master
(n=21)

Raw
Score
27.43
(4.90)
33.76
(5.52)
13.05
(7.90)
12.48
(7.57)

Higher
than
Master
(n=28)
Raw
Score
29.64
(5.86)
33.64
(5.29)
13.54
(8.18)
12.29
(7.36)

F-value

p value

2.97

0.035

2.74

0.047

3.04

0.03

4.27

0.01

From above analyze, the researcher found that strong impact on job satisfaction
were the age of employees as young aged employees were observed to be more
highly satisfied with their jobs than those at old age. Employee with higher
educational level such as degree holders would have different view in terms of

job satisfaction. Motivation factors such as level of commitment, competition

and challenges connected with their tasks had shown a trend of high job
satisfaction for the more educated employees. Different results were also displayed
with the two scales of gender. Male employees were observed to be more
satisfied than their female colleagues in term of job satisfaction from different
motivation factors. The last demographic variable was years of working. From
the data, it was seen that employees who had a longer number of years
working with the company are gaining more job satisfaction that those who had
less years of working.
In this section, the researcher will use SPSS to input the various
Motivation Factors affecting employee Job satisfaction that were designed in the
survey questionnaire to analyse the key hypothesis of each motivating factor
whether they had any effect on employee job satisfaction.
1. Effect of Intrinsic Motivation Factors on Job Satisfaction
Psychological rewards such as giving a recognized status, authorization in
decision making and recognition of ones effort would generate high job
satisfaction. According to SPSS analysis, we found that T test = 7.496 and F test
6.936 showed that we can accept the alternate hypothesis, that is there is a
correlation between employee recognition and employee job satisfaction.
2. Effect of Extrinsic Motivation Factors on Job Satisfaction
In the literature review section, we propose that extrinsic motivation such as
employee salary, job security, and employee benefit p ackage that would
contribute to job satisfaction. According to SPSS analysis, we found that T test =
1.753 and F test = 2.1478 showed that we cant reject the null hypothesis, that is
there is no a correlation between employee salary and employee job satisfaction.
But we found there is positive correlation between employee benefit package and
employee job satisfaction with T test value 5.389 and F Test 6.246. For the job
security, we found that T test = 5.384 and F test 6.891 showed that we can accept
the alternate hypothesis, that is there is a correlation between job security and
employee job satisfaction.
3. Synergy or Social Relations on Job Satisfaction
The relationship with management level and team work were also another
influencing factors on job satisfaction extracted from the aspect of synergy.
According to SPSS analysis, we found that T test = 5.762 and F test 6.178
showed that we can accept the alternate hypothesis, that is there is a correlation
between employee relationship with Manager and employee job satisfaction.
4. Effects of Challenges in the Job Requirements on Job Satisfaction
From the aspect of working environment such as enthusiasm, vigor, & fear of
failure; and achievements were factors would determine the job satisfaction level
of an employee. According to SPSS analysis, we found that T test = 4.762 and F
test 5.178 showed that we can accept the alternate hypothesis, that is there is a
correlation between working environment and employee job satisfaction. For self

achievement, we found that T test = 8.846 and F test 8.284 showed that we can
accept the alternate hypothesis, that is there is a correlation between employee slef
achievement and employee job satisfaction.
The theories from the existing literature had obviously stated that the key
influencing factor that affected the employees' performance is their job
satisfaction level. What type of employee will be beneficial to an organization?
Organization
wanted loyal employees who were committed and able to
contribute to the growth and what was deemed as loyal are employees who had
great satisfaction with their jobs. Usually, the resulting factor that mainly why
an employee quitted was because he/she was not satisfied with the jobs. As
such, job satisfaction was an essential factor and to keep a low turnover rate,
employees must be satisfied with their jobs. Not only that, a continuing
energetic and devoted workforce was also preserved. To recruit employees with
great competence level and the basis to retain them for a long term became an
argument factor. Employers should possess the knowledge of employees'
motivation factors and job satisfaction level based on individual characteristic
and capability as empirical data revealed that work commitment and challenges
are easily achieved with high level of motivation and job satisfaction.
Upon comparing the empirical data in review with the existing literature,
the findings had mostly matched with the secondary data that validate with the
study of this research.
Motivation was a complicated matter and is viewed as an individual thing
influenced by many factors. There were many changes in individuals and are
conflicting in terms of expectations and needs which involve in many different
ways for them to be satisfied. The factors extracted from the aspect of extrinsic
motivation were job security, promotions and remunerations that would
contribute to job satisfaction.
Another influential factor in determining job satisfaction was intrinsic
motivation. Psychological
rewards such as giving a recognized status,
authorization in decision making and recognition of one's effort would generate
high job satisfaction. Management should introduce intrinsic motivation as
many employees were found to be highly satisfied through the recognition for
what they do and this will just enhance an employee to perform even better.
Nobody wanted to take challenges and usually the worry from the
employee was because of not able to accomplish unattainable goals. Employees
should be assigned with challenging tasks which were attainable with the
opportunity to progress further.
In general, employees were satisfied with their jobs unless they can
foresee that there was progression. What you sowed determines what you
reaped. An opportunity to progress further will result in high job satisfaction.

The relationship with management level and teamwork were also another
influencing factors on job satisfaction extracted from the aspect of synergy.
With regards to that, it did not derive that people were very much satisfied by
having connection with the big names in an organization. However, the result
from empirical data showed that people were highly motivated if they have
connection with those big names at their workplace and that contradicted from
the findings.
From the aspect of enthusiasm and vigor, achievements and fear of failure
were factors that would determine the job satisfaction level of an employee.
However, working in a competitive environment was something that many
people would like to avoid and this has something to do with age. Old age
people were the majority among those who dislike competition. It was thus
suggested that old age employees should avoid working in a competitive level
and employees with younger age should be assigned with more aggressive tasks
and higher competitive level.
5. Conclusion & Recommendations
The conclusions driven by the results of this research that demographic
variables did play a significant role on impacting the level of job satisfaction
for each individual. From the research, it was observed that age has contributed
a big impact on the job satisfaction level of an employee. The trend had shown
that old age employees are less satisfied with their jobs. Factor such as
competitive jobs did not favor the older age employees and would not enhance
their job satisfaction level. In addition, motivation factor such as commitment
and having connection with the organization would have an influencing role on
job satisfaction level for old age employees. As such, organization should
consider such factors in old age employees. A great level of commitment should
be introduced to this scope of employees because that would boost their job
satisfaction level so that the assigned tasks will be accomplished.
Another factor extracted from the demographic variable was the academic
background which also related to the employees job satisfaction level. A
comparison with staff that had lower qualification in terms educational level, the
results displayed that staff with high educational level were less satisfied with
their jobs. This was derived from motivation factor such as competition,
challenges and level of activity being assigned to them. Highly educated
employees would rather prefer tasks with greater responsibility. It was a fact
from the results that this scope of employees was more satisfied with tasks that
were challenging and competitive which will became a motivation factor.
Employers should then plan and consider when assigning task to the various
level of employees with different educational background.
The other significant factor exhibit from the demographic variable that
has impact on the level of job satisfaction was gender. In terms of satisfactory
level, male staffs were seems to be less satisfied as compared to their female

counterparts. Mainly, female have more concern regarding job security, develop
better relationship among colleagues and bosses, high sense on fear of failure
and higher authority in an organization which were factors that was suggesting
why female employees were more satisfied. Women usually disliked challenges
and do not wish to assign with jobs which require high commitment and these
were factors which tell why female employees were unsatisfied. As mentioned,
due to the high sense on fear of failure from male employees, they should be
assigned with more challenging task as that could motivate them to put extra
effort because they would not want to fail their mission and besides, when the
task was accomplished,
a sense of achievement will increase their job
satisfaction level.
As shown from the data of this research, different number of working
years also had an impact on employees' job satisfaction level. Usually at start,
employees tended to have higher level of job satisfaction and that was always
at the very first year. With the increased in years of working with an
organization, that level started to decrease. To keep staff from quitting and to
preserve their job satisfaction level, especially staff who had worked after the
first or second years, employers should keep a lookout on these staff behavior
and ample attention should be provided in terms of their needs and necessities.
Motivation factor like creating a more competitive working environment which
would give the employees a sense of achievement and at the same time they
could also assess and understand their level of performance. The job satisfaction
level for this scope of employees would be raised through a competitive and
achievement based environment.
The research work has the following constraints and was described as
follows: the sample taken or used for this research study was only from one
organization and on top of that, sample size was very limited if compared to the
population of a company. If there were more samples taken in terms of sample
size and from more than one organization, then the results attained will be more
specific.
This study can be further researched
to extend the findings in the
following areas: 1) Extend the research to other companies in other companies
of different size and different global presence. This was to test if the hypothesis
that employee motivation factors do indeed affect job satisfaction. And 2) This
study can also be extended to include the correlation of motivation factors to
employee job satisfaction and how this will vary in different corporate cultures.
REFERENCES
Arnold, H.J. & Feldman, D.C. (1986). Organizational Behavior. New York:
McGrawHill
Baron, H., Henley, S., McGibbon, A. & McCarthy, T. (2002).Motivation
Questionnaire Manual and Users Guide. Sussex: Saville and Holdsworth
Limited.

Bickman, L., & Rog, D. (2009).The SAGE Handbook of Applied Social

Research Methods (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.
Beach, D. (1975). Personnel: The Management of People at Work (3d ed.).
New York: Macmillan.
Beck, R. (1983).Motivation:
Theories and Principles (2nded.). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Bellenger, D., Wilcox, J. & Ingram, T. (1984).An Examination of Reward
Preferences for Sales Managers. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales
Management, 4(2), 1-6.
Balsley, H., (2006). Research for Business Decisions: Business Research
Methods (4th Edition). Gordon & Breach: Bristol.
Bechhofer, F., (2007). Principles of research design in the social sciences (5th
Ed.). Routledge: London
Brian,
F., (2011). Work Attitudes
and Job Motivation.
Pennstate.
<https:llwikispaces.psu.eduJdisplayIPSYCH484>
[Accessed 30, April
2012]
Bainbridge, C., (2012). Definition of Intrinsic Motivation: What is Intrinsic
Motivation?
Gifted Children.
<http://giftedkids.about.comlodlglossary>
[Accessed 26, April 2012]
Busch, P. & Bush, R., (1978). Women Contrasted To Men In The Industrial
Sales Force: Job Satisfaction, Values, Role Clarity, Performance and
Propensity To Leave. Journal of Marketing Research, 15(3),438 - 448.
Dunnette, M., Hough, L., & Triandis, H., (1990).Handbook of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology
(2nded.).
Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Cohen-Rosenthal, E., & Cairnes, L., (1991).Doing the Best Job. Journal for
Quality and Participation, 14(3),48 - 53.
Coster, E., (1992).The Perceived Quality of Working Life and Job Facet
Satisfaction. Journal of Industrial Psychology, 18, 6-9.
Clark, A. (1997). Why Are Women So Happy at Work? Labor Economics,
4,341-72.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R., (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in
Human Behavior. New York: Plenum.
Doering, M., Rhodes, S.,& Schuster, M., (1983). The Aging Worker. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Du Plessis, S. (2003). Purpose is Alive and Well and Living Inside You Key
Feature. Career Success, 3(1), 1 - 2.
Einhorn, H., & Gallagher, W., (1976).Motivation Theory and Job Design. The
Journal of Business, 49(3),358-373.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Lowe, A., (2007).Management Research:
An Introduction (4thed). Sage Publication: London.

Fried, Y. & Ferris, G., (1987). The Validity of the Job Characteristics Model: A
Review and Meta-Analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287 ~322.
Field, J. (2008). Job Satisfaction
Model
for Retention. TalentedApps.
<http://talentedapps. wordpress. coml2008/041 11Ijo b-satisfaction-model ~
for-retention.>[Accessed 26, April 2012]
Gouws, A.(1995). The Relationship Between Motivation and Job Satisfaction
of a Group of Information Specialists. Rand Afrikaans University,
Johannesburg.
Hair, J., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet.
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19 (2),139-151.
Hackman, J., & Oldham, G., (1980). Work Redesign. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley.
Hadebe, T., (2001). Relationship Between Motivation and Job Satisfaction of
Employees at Vista Information Services. M. A. dissertation, Rand
Afrikaans University, Johannesburg.
Herzberg, F., (1966).Work and the Nature of Man. Cleveland: World Pub, Co.
Hoole ,C. & Vermeulen, P. (2003). Job Satisfaction Among South African
Pilots. South African Journal ofIndustrial Psychology, 29 (1),52 -57.
Hinton, M., &Biderman, M. (1995). Empirically Derived Job Characteristics
Measures and The Motivating Potential Score. Journal of Business
Psychology, 9, 355-364.
Hull, C., (1943). Principles of Behavior, an Introduction to Behavior Theory.
New York: D. Appleton-Century
Co.
Ishikawa, K., (1976). Guide to Quality Control. Tokyo: Asian Productivity
Organization. Jernigan, 1., Beggs, J., & Kohut, G., (2002). Dimensions of
Work Satisfaction as Predictors of Commitment Type. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 17(7),564 - 579.
John, W., & Peter, N., (1975).The Relationship of Age, Tenure, and Job
Satisfaction in Males and Females. The Academy of Management Journal,
18,690-702.
Jex, S., (2002). Organizational Psychology: A Scientist-Practitioner Approach.
New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Kalleberg, A., (1977). Work Values and Job Rewards: A Theory of Job
Satisfaction. American Sociological Review, 42, 124-143.
Ketchen, D., & Bergh, D., (2004). Research Methodology in Strategy and
Management. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Lawler, E., (2003). Reward Practices
and Performance Management
System Effectiveness. Organizational
Dynamics,32(4), 396.
Locke, E., (1976). The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction. Chicago: Rand
Mcnally.
Luthans, F., (1977). Organizational Behavior (2nded.). New York: McGraw
Hill.
Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A.,(2009). Research Methods for Business Students

(stiIed.). Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.

Locke, E., & Henne, D., (1986). International Review of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology. Chichester: Wiley.
Maslow, A., (1968). Toward a Psychology of Being. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold Company.
Marczyk, G., (2010). Essential of Research Design and Methodology. London:
David Fulton.
Myers, J., and Well, A., (2006).Research Design and Statistical Analysis (6th
Ed.).Bolton: Mosby Yearbook.
McClelland, D.,(1987). Human Motivation. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
McGregor, D., (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGrawHill.
Meyer, J., (2002). A Comparison between the Performance Motivation Levels
of Different Population and Gender Groups. South African Journal of
Industrial Psychology, 28 (3) 8 -14.
Meyers, L., (2007). Social Relationships Matter in Job Satisfaction. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 38(4), 14.
Newstrom, J., (2011). Organizational Behavior: Human Behavior at Work
(13thed.). Boston: McGfaw -Hill/Irwin.
Olbert, P.,& Moen, P., (1998). Men's and Women's Definitions of 'good' Jobs:
Similarities
and Differences by Age and Across Time.Work
and
Occupations, 25 (2), 169-194.
Peti ,R., (1996). Motivation: Theory, Research and Applications (4thed.). New
York: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
Pinder ,C., (1998). Work Motivation in Organizational Behavior. Upper Saddle
River, N J: Pretice - Hall.
Porter, L., Lawler, E., & Hackman, J., (1975). Behavior in Organizations. New
York: McGraw- Hill.
Priti, L, (1999). On-the-Job Training: A key to Human Resource Development.
Library Management, 20(5), 283-294.
Price, J., & Mueller, C., (l986).Absenteeism
and Turnover of Hospital
Employees. Greenwich, COIUl.Johnson Associates Inc. Press.
Ryan, R., & Grolnick, W., (1986). Origins and Pawns in the Classroom: SelfReport and Projective Assessments of Individual Differences in Children's
Perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 550-558.
Roberts, R., (2005). The Relationship Between Rewards, Recognition and
Motivation at an Insurance Company in the Western Cape. South Africa:
University of the Western Cape.
Rutherford, D., (2002). Hotel Management and Operations (3rded.). New York:
Wiley.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A (2009). Research Methods for
Business Students (Srded.). Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall
Schultz, D., & Schultz, S., (1998). Psychology and Work Today: an
Introduction to industrial and organizational psychology (7thed.). Upper
Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Shirom, A, (2003). Feeling Vigorous at Work? The Construct of Vigor and the
Study of Positive Affect in Organizations. Research in Organizational
Stress and Well-Being, 3,135-165.
Spector, P., (2003). Industrial and Organizational Psychology - Research and
Practice (3rded.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Stoner, C. R. (1989). The foundations of Business Ethics: Exploring the
Relationship Between Organizational Culture, Moral Values and Actions
Advanced Management Journal, 54,38 - 43. Spreitzer, G., Sutcliffe, K.,
Dutton, J., Sonenshein, S. and Grant, AM. (2005). A Socially Embedded
Model of Thriving at Work. Organization Science, 16, 537-549.
Sempane, M., Rieger, H., & Roodt, G. (2002).Job Satisfaction In Relation To
Organizational Culture. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 28, 2.
Schultz, D. & Schultz, S" (1998). Psychology and Work Today: An Introduction
to Industrial and Organizational Psychology (ihed.). New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.
Sing, Y., (2007). Research Methodology: Techniques and Trends (ih Edition).
USA: The MIT Press.
Sloane, P., & Williams, H. (1994).Job Satisfaction, Comparison Income and
Gender Differences in Earnings. Aberdeen: University of Aberdeen, Dept.
of Economics.
Timothy A., & Ryan, K. (2003).The Blackwell Handbook of Principles of
Organizational
Behaviour.Blackwell
Reference
Online.
<http://www.blackwellreference.comlpubliclbook?id=g97
80631215 066>
[Accessed 26, April 2012]
The Pennsylvania State University. (2010). Job Satisfaction: Do I Like My Job?
Work Attitudes and Motivation. The Pennsylvania State University; World
Campus.
Visser ,P., Thierry, H., Breed, M.,& Van Breda, R., (1997). Employee
Satisfaction: A Triangular Approach. Journal ofIndustrial Psychology, 23
(2),19 - 24.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York: John Wiley.
Wright, B., and Davis, R,(2003).

Job Satisfaction in the Public Sector - the

Role ofthe Work Environment American Review of Public Administration,

33(1), 70-90
White, R.,(1959).

Motivation

Reconsidered:

The Concept

of Competence.

Psychological Review, 66,297-333.

Zikmund, W., (2010).Business Research Methods (sthed.). Mason, OR: SouthWestern Cengage Learning.