Investigate The Factors That Influence Job Satisfaction Education Essay

Published: Last Edited:

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

Descriptive research method is adopted in the collection and analysis of data in this study. This method is used because the study was to investigate the factors that influence job satisfaction among city based young employees. The method will also make it easy for the researcher to describe the characteristic, attitude and preferences of the population and ability to generalise the results/findings. Apart from this, job satisfaction is a construct and cannot be directly observed.

The study is also to analyse the possible correlation between: job satisfaction and the city life among the young city based employees; job satisfaction and the managerial/supervisors supports among the young city based employees; job satisfaction and opportunity gained at work among the young city based employees. In order to determine whether a relationship exists between these variable or to establish the above statements and also to investigate to what degree such a relationship exist, the descriptive method is adopted.

Descriptive method is preferred because the collection of data under this method is easy. This is usually done using questionnaire to collect data from the research respondents in order to describe their characteristics and also to establish and explain the relationship between the variables considered in this study.

The use of questionnaire also made it easy for the researcher because all of the respondents use in this study live and work in London (city choice for this study). This makes contact easy. Apart from this, they can all write and speak English which is the medium for communication in this study. This will make it easy for them to complete the questionnaires themselves with little or no assistance.

The major weakness of this methodology is the analysis of data collected and also the difficulty in the discussions of the results/findings. The time frame for the data collection is also a barrier. While the majority of the respondents return the completed questionnaires within the allowed time, few took extra time to complete the same tests. This causes a delay to the analysis of data.



The samples used for this study are purely young employees who are based in the city of London. Young employees in this study indicate those who are entering the world of work for the first time. They are the secondary school leavers or the newly graduated students from the colleges, further education or the university and entering their professional for the first time.

The young employees also include the young adults ranging in ages of 16 - 35.

The samples comprise of the young employees from different field of work or professional such as nursing, doctors, domestic work, sales assistance, kitchen work, teaching, care work, pharmacy, banking etc.

The participants consist of over 100 young city based employees from different professionals. Fifteen participants are nurses while five are doctors from two different hospitals, ten participants are bank workers from two different banks, and twenty of them are sales attendants from five notable shops. The shops are picked at random from three different shopping centres in the city. Five of the participants are lawyers. Fifteen are teachers. They are randomly selected from two different schools. Five of them are pharmacists, ten are care workers, five young managers while ten are workers from offices, school, factory etc.


Ethical issue

The following ethical issues were observed before, during and after the collection of data.

Access was given by the managers/HODs of the respondents/participants used before the distribution and administration of the test. Apart from this, the respondents' consents were taken into consideration and they were told they can withdraw at anytime of the data collection process.

The issue of confidentiality of the responses was discussed with both the employers and the employees/respondents used for this study. In order to lay more emphasis on the issue of confidentiality, respondents were told not to write their names and their employers' names on the tests.



Two different types of research instruments were used for the collection of data in this study. They are Job Descriptive Index (JDI) and a self- developed questionnaire titled City Job Satisfaction (CJS). The two questionnaires are described below.



Skibba (2002) gave a description of The Job Descriptive Index as an instrument that is used to assess job satisfaction more than any other inventory (Kinicki, McKee-Ryan, Schriesheim, & Carson, 2002). Spector (1997) also states that it may also be the "most carefully developed and validated" job satisfaction measure (p. 12). It is designed to measure job satisfaction on the basis of five facets, including an overall job satisfaction facet, the Job in General (JIG) scale (Kinicki et al., 2002). Kinicki et al. (2002) found that the JDI was correlated with performance evaluation scores (r = .19).

The Job Descriptive Index manual (Balzer et al., 1997) describes the purpose of the JDI as well as the validity and reliability conducted. The basis for the Job Descriptive Index is that job satisfaction is important for three different reasons: humanitarian concerns, economic concerns, and theoretical concerns.

Humanitarian concerns are important because employers will like all their employees to be job satisfied. Job satisfaction has been associated to a range of factors, such as physical and mental health.

Economic concerns are again important to employers because they always look forward to getting the most from their employees. If happier employees lead to increased productivity, then it is worth the employers' time to make the employees satisfied. Job satisfaction can also lead to various factors like decreased absenteeism, reduced turnover, and fewer on the job injuries (Balzer et al., 1997).

Theoretical concerns are of interest because many people view satisfaction as the cause of work-related behaviours, such as maintaining good working relationships, coming to work regularly, and doing the job as expected (Balzer et al., 1997).

The facets of the Job Descriptive Index

The facets of the Job Descriptive Index are derived from the definition of job satisfaction put forth by Smith, Kendall, and Hulin (1969). Smith et al. (1969) defined job satisfaction as "feelings or affective responses to facets of the situation" (p. 6). Because of this definition, the JDI viewed satisfaction as the combination of five facets: work on present job, present pay, opportunities for promotion, supervision, and people on your present job (co-workers). For each facet, validity and reliability data has been collected.

The validation studies for Job Descriptive Index scale were conducted over a period of five years. The validation studies started in 1959. The results of the studies were compared, and later found that the results were alike. Based on these results, conclusions were drawn about the JDI. (Balzer et al., 1997). The JDI measures had very high levels of discriminant and convergent validity. Balzer et al. (1997) found evidence for convergent validity when the JDI was found to correlate highly with other measures of job satisfaction, such as the "Faces" scale (Kunan, 1955), and a numerical rating scale (-100 to +100). Smith et al. (1969) that the scoring format of the JDI (Y, ?, or N) was the best scoring procedure. Personality and Job 10.

Internal reliability was conducted on the 1997 version of the JDI with the JIG from over 1600 cases and was found to be very high. The coefficient alphas of reliability were ranged from .86 to .92 (Balzer et al., 1997). Work on present job had a coefficient of .90. Present pay had a coefficient of .86. Opportunities for promotion had a coefficient of .87. Supervision had a coefficient of .91; the co-workers scale had the same coefficient (.91). The Job in General had the highest coefficient which was .92 (Balzer et al., 1997).

The following is a short explanation of each of the five areas/sections of Job Descriptive Index.

Work on Present Job

The scale is planned in order to measure how the employees feel about the job they are doing at the moment. It measures how satisfied/unsatisfied an employee is with the work. The questions related to this area are designed to measure the different facets of a job including: "opportunities for creativity and task variety, allowing an individual to increase his or her knowledge, and changes in responsibility, amount of work, autonomy, job enrichment and job complexity." One of the questions also asked is to know "if the present job is dull, uninteresting or boring to the employee".

Present Pay

This scale measures how people feel with their pay and the difference between what they are actually getting as a pay and what they believe they should be getting with respect to everything they have put in. This area is influenced by various factors: the pay of employees doing the same job i.e. comparing your pay to those doing the same job as you do. The financial situation of the employee: the pay the employee received on previous jobs, and the economy. The facet has only nine items.

Opportunities for Promotion

This scale measures how the employees feel about the procedures that the administration follows in accordance with giving promotions. The facet allows the respondents/employees to think about the opportunity for promotion, opportunity for career development they get on their present job. Having an opportunity for promotion is one of the factors that may give employees job satisfaction and the grace to stay longer in the job.

The section has eighteen items and some of them asked the respondents/employees if his/her present job has good opportunities for promotion; if the opportunities are limited; also asked if the opportunities are fair, infrequent or regular.


Employers' support to the employees is very important at work. This section of Job Descriptive Index (JDI) asked the respondents about the kind of supervision they get on their job.

The section has eighteen items. The items were designed to elicit responds from the employees if their supervisors are supportive; hard to please; give praises for well done job/work. Questions on the nature of their supervisors were also asked. Such questions include how tactful and intelligent they are and whether they are always around when needed or lazy.

People on your present job

The questions on this facet are related to the majority of people (co-workers) that an employees work with or that he/she meets in relation to the job. The section contains eighteen items which are either positive or negative. The items help to elicit response from the respondents/employees on the best way they can describe these people and also to show whether he/she is satisfied with them in relation with the job they do together. Some of the questions were "are they intelligent; stimulating; supportive; stupid or lazy".

Job In General (JIG)

This is a separate section of Job Descriptive Index (JDI). It consists of eighteen items which deal with how the respondents/employees view his/her job. Consideration is based on overall assessment of the job by the employees.

Some of the items are designed in order to know how "great the job is to the employee; is it inadequate or does it make him/her to be content".


City Job Satisfaction (CJS) questionnaire

City Job Satisfaction is a self - developed questionnaire. This is designed to gather data from the respondent on the effect of city life on their job satisfaction and also to know if working in the city is one of the factors that make them job satisfied/dissatisfied. The questionnaire has ten items and it is on five Likert -scale which are

Very much agreed



Not agree

Not very much agreed

The following are some of the items on the questionnaire; I am job satisfied because I worked in the city where there are many companies; I have the opportunity to switch to another job: The cities' higher pay and other benefits packages.

In order to ensure the reliability of the scale, the test was administered on fourteen city based young employees. Guttman Split-Half coefficient was calculated using the SPSS statistics 17.0. The result was 0.70



The data collection took place in the city of London. The city was chosen because of the different people from diverse backgrounds that present???? and also because it is one of the big cities. The data collection took place in different settings based on the professionals of the respondents. The respondents were randomly selected. The distribution and administration of the questionnaires were done by friends, managers and by the researcher personally.

A group of people (mainly friends) who volunteered to assist in the distribution and administration of the scale were assembled in a library. They were given full explanations on the purpose of the study. They were also lectured on the proper administration of the tests/scales before the scales were released to them and also before they were allowed to administer them. The researcher also explained the ethical issues associated with administration of the test with them. They were also reminded to select their respondents randomly. They were later given the tests/scales which they took to their different places of work for the administration.

The tests were distributed and administered to the care workers at two different care agencies' office personally. Permission was taken from the manager of each of the agency and a day was chosen by them for the administration of the tests. A total of ten care workers were selected by each of the managers who also assisted in the administration of the tests.

The administration took place on the same day but different time and settings. The researcher used the first ten minutes to explain the purpose of the test and study to the assembled workers. They were made to know that it will not have any effect on their job/work and that they should be truthful in completing the questionnaires.

The ethical issues were also explained to them. The respondents' total consents were taken into consideration before the administration took place. The respondents were given a total of twenty minutes to complete the test. All of them completed the questionnaires and returned them to the researcher within the stipulated time.

The tests were also distributed and administer to a group of ten young teachers in a private college by the researcher. Permission was also taken from the teachers' line managers who were very happy to participate in the administration of the tests.

The researcher prepared the selected participants for the tests by explaining the purpose of the study, the ethical issues in connection with the test and the time limit to them. The tests took place in the teachers' staff room immediately after the school' break period.

Most of the respondents completed the test before the twenty minutes stipulated time. They all returned the questionnaires to the researcher. Apart from the teachers that were randomly selected for the tests, the tests were also administered to two of the school's domestic workers and five of the kitchen's staff who were young in age and employment period. Seven questionnaires were distributed to them but only five were returned to the researcher.

The tests were also distributed and administered to five young pharmacists. Two of the pharmacists were working with the public hospital while the remaining three were working with the private pharmacy shops that were approved by the government and the NHS.

The two of the pharmacists that work in the hospitals were invited by their colleague who was one of those volunteered for the administration of the tests. The test took place in one of the pharmacy shop. The researcher was there personally to overseer the process. The two pharmacists from the hospital were ready for the tests immediately the purpose of the study was explained to them. They were able to complete the test within the time allowed and returned the questionnaires immediately after the completion.

The other three pharmacists were unable to complete the questionnaires due to time constraint and also because they have many customers to attend to. The researcher went back the next day for the administration of the tests but only two of the pharmacists were present to complete the questionnaires.

Data were collected from two different banks. A volunteer who was also a banker and colleague of the respondents assisted in the explanations of the questionnaires as well as the purpose of the tests. The tests were later distributed and administered after seeking the consents of the respondents. All the twenty five questionnaires were completed and returned back to the researcher.

A nurse, who was one of those lectured on the administration and administration of the tests administered them on fifteen nurses and five doctors in the volunteer's place of work (public hospital).<= Please check this sentence and correct it. Explanations were given to the respondents on the ethical issues and purpose of the study. All the respondents completed and returned the questionnaires.

The questionnaires were taken to two churches of different denominations in the city. Permission was taken from the pastors and the reverend clergies of the churches to allow their youths who are having jobs at the moment to take part in the tests. The researcher explained the rationale behind the study to the pastors. The researcher was told to come back the following Sunday for the administration of the tests.

A group of five young employees from the first church were assembled for the tests. The church's youth teachers assisted in the distribution and administration of the tests. The researcher explained the purpose of the tests, the time limit, and the study's ethical issues to the youths. Consents of the respondents were also taken before the distribution and the administration of the tests.

They all completed and returned the questionnaires to the researchers. The researcher was unable to go to the second church as promised due to time constraints.

The questionnaires were also taken to the food processing industry by one of the volunteers. The volunteer distributed fifteen questionnaires to some of the young factory workers. Explanations were given to those respondents by the volunteer before the administration of the tests. Only ten of the fifteen questionnaires were completed and returned to the researcher.



All the data collected were manually checked to know how valid they were. This was also done to check for the appropriateness of the data before the analysis. The statistical package for social sciences (SPPS) software window version 17.0 will be used for data analysis.

Both the descriptive and inferential statistics will be carried out. The descriptive statistics will be computed in order to investigate the job satisfaction level of city based young employees. Means and the Frequencies will be determined. The Pearson's correlation will also be computed to investigate possible correlation between:

job satisfaction and the city life among the young city based employees;

job satisfaction and the managerial/supervisory supports among the young city based employees;

job satisfaction and opportunity gained at work among the young city based employees between job satisfaction and city life.

The next chapter of this study will discuss the data presentation and analysis. Brief explanation will be made on how the data for the study was collected, sampling procedure, administration of questionnaires and the response rate for the study. The results of findings will be fully explained in this chapter using charts, tables etc. The summary on the findings will then be related to the literature review for easy understanding of the study. Interpretation of the findings will also be made in this chapter