The Impact of Job Satisfaction on Organizational Committment and Citizenship Behaviour at Cmi

Introduction (you will tell about problem statement in the introduction)

Part I Strategic Audit of the Company

1. Company Background
2. Current situation
3. Corporate governance
4. PESTEL
5. SWOT
6. Conclusion and recommendations

Part II The empirical research on impact of job satisfaction on organizational commitment and organizational citizenship at A Company

1. Literature review

1. Job satisfaction
2. Organizational commitment
3. Organizational citizenship
4. Relationship among Job satisfaction, Organizational commitment, Organizational citizenship

1. Methodology
2. Analysis and Findings:

1. Preliminary analysis
2. Descriptive statistics
3. Measurement model & calculations

1. Conclusion and recommendations

Reference list

Introduction

Although the job satisfaction and organizational commitment are probably the most studied topics in the history of industrial psychology and organizational behavior there is little empirical research actually being conducted in Kazakhstan.

This research aims to highlight the relevant impact of job satisfaction level on organizational commitment and citizenship behavior amongst a sample of employees of XYZ Company based in Almaty city. The additional factor examined is demographics which include age and working experience.

As the country has been moving towards market economy the people’s lives changed dramatically. In result, the employee attitude towards their job has also gone through major transformation. After the collapse of USSR many citizens of Kazakhstan have left themselves economically depressed due to changes in the relationships between the employer and employee. An employer has become more demanding and less protecting due to the need for economic survival. From one side some people have been forced to change their preferred jobs for the jobs that are more economically viable (for example, many artists have become accountants or entrepreneurs). From the other side, many people had to change their attitude towards their job due to the increased labor market competition and the loss of protection from the government. For example, in cases of employees were not meeting the standards of professionalism and productivity. These factors have forced many people to improve their standards of performance to save their jobs and financial stability.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how employees job satisfaction influence employees’ workplace behavior, such as organizational commitment and citizenship as well as demographics.

The objectives of the paper are the following:

• To measure job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior level at A Company
• To find out the impact level of employee commitment to organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior level at A Company
• To identify the impact of demographic and other related variables on employee satisfaction
• To develop recommendations for practicing managers on improvement of employees’ job satisfaction levels

Literature review

Job Satisfaction

THEORIES OF JOB SATISFACTION

• Two Factor Theory (motivator-hygiene theory)

Frederick Herzberg’s two-factor theory attempts to explain satisfaction and motivation in the workplace. (Hackman & Oldham , 1976) This theory states that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are driven by different factors – motivation and hygiene factors, respectively. An employee’s motivation to work is continually related to job satisfaction of a subordinate. Motivation can be seen as an inner force that drives individuals to attain personal and organizational goals (Hoskinson, Porter, & Wrench, p. 133). Motivating factors are those aspects of the job that make people want to perform, and provide people with satisfaction, for example achievement in work, recognition, promotion opportunities.[26] These motivating factors are considered to be intrinsic to the job, or the work carried out.[25] Hygiene factors include aspects of the working environment such as pay, company policies, supervisory practices, and other working conditions.[25]

Herzberg's model has stimulated much research. In the 1970s, researchers were unable to reliably empirically prove the model however, with Hackman & Oldham suggesting that Herzberg's original formulation of the model may have been a methodological artifact.[25]. However, emerging studies have a new-found interest in the theory, particularly among employees in the public sector and among certain professions such as nurses (Holmberg., 2016).[27]

The theory has been criticized because it does not consider individual differences, conversely predicting all employees will react in an identical manner to changes in motivating/hygiene factors.[25] The model has also been criticised in that it does not specify how motivating/hygiene factors are to be measured.[25] Most studies use a quantitative approach by for example using validated instruments such as the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (Weiss et al., 1967)[28] There are also studies that have utilized a qualitative methodology such as by means of individual interviews (Holmberg et al., 2017).[29]

• Affect theory

Edwin A. Locke’s Range of Affect Theory (1976) is arguably the most famous job satisfaction model. The main premise of this theory is that satisfaction is determined by a discrepancy between what one wants in a job and what one has in a job. Further, the theory states that how much one values a given facet of work (e.g. the degree of autonomy in a position) moderates how satisfied/dissatisfied one becomes when expectations are/aren’t met. When a person values a particular facet of a job, his satisfaction is more greatly impacted both positively (when expectations are met) and negatively (when expectations are not met), compared to one who doesn’t value that facet. To illustrate, if Employee A values autonomy in the workplace and Employee B is indifferent about autonomy, then Employee A would be more satisfied in a position that offers a high degree of autonomy and less satisfied in a position with little or no autonomy compared to Employee B. This theory also states that too much of a particular facet will produce stronger feelings of dissatisfaction the more a worker values that facet

• Equity theory

Equity Theory shows how a person views fairness in regard to social relationships such as with an employer. A person identifies the amount of input (things gained) from a relationship compared to the output (things given) to produce an input/output ratio. They then compare this ratio to the ratio of other people in deciding whether or not they have an equitable relationship.[18][19] Equity Theory suggests that if an individual thinks there is an inequality between two social groups or individuals, the person is likely to be distressed because the ratio between the input and the output are not equal.[20]

For example, consider two employees who work the same job and receive the same pay and benefits. If one individual gets a pay raise for doing the same work as the other, then the less benefited individual will become distressed in his workplace. If, on the other hand, both individuals get pay raises and new responsibilities, then the feeling of equity will be maintained.[20]

Other psychologists have extended the equity theory, suggesting three behavioral response patterns to situations of perceived equity or inequity (Huseman, Hatfield, & Mile, 1987; O'Neil & Mone 1998). These three types are benevolent, equity sensitive, and entitled. The level by each type affects motivation, job satisfaction, and job performance.

1. Benevolent-Satisfied when they are under-rewarded compared with co-workers
2. Equity sensitive-Believe everyone should be fairly rewarded
3. Entitled-People believe that everything they receive is their just due[21]

Discrepancy theory

The concept of discrepancy theory is to explain the ultimate source of anxiety and dejection.[22] An individual who has not fulfilled his responsibility feels the sense of anxiety and regret for not performing well. They will also feel dejection due to not being able to achieve their hopes and aspirations. According to this theory, all individuals will learn what their obligations and responsibilities are for a particular function, and if they fail to fulfill those obligations then they are punished. Over time, these duties and obligations consolidate to form an abstracted set of principles, designated as a self-guide.[23] Agitation and anxiety are the main responses when an individual fails to achieve the obligation or responsibility.[24] This theory also explains that if achievement of the obligations is obtained then the reward can be praise, approval, or love. These achievements and aspirations also form an abstracted set of principles, referred to as the ideal self guide.[23] When the individual fails to obtain these rewards, they begin to have feelings of dejection, disappointment, or even depression.[24]