Impact of Age and Length of Service on Job

Satisfaction of Electrical and Mechanical

Engineers of Public Sector Automotive
Manufacturing Industry of Pakistan: An
Empirical Study
INTRODUCTION
WHY JOB SATISFACTION ?
 Received an intensive study in both private and public
sectors specially in western countries.
 stronger predictor of productivity and enhanced job
performance which ultimately leads to high employee
retention (Theodossiou & Zangelidis, 2006)
 Job Satisfaction has been found to be positively related to
productivity and negatively related to turnover (Akerlof et
al., 1988) and absenteeism (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993).
WHY JOB SATISFACTION ?
 To prevent job withdrawal and boost productive
performance, organizations need to promote job
satisfaction in their employees.
 Therefore it has been the most debatable topic in the field
of industrial psychology, social sciences, business
management sciences, engineering management and
anthropology all over the world.
Inconsistent findings: Relationship of Job
satisfaction with demographic variables
 lack of consistency of findings regarding the relationship
between Job satisfaction and demographic variables e.g.,
age, gender, length of service, years of experience etc.
urged many researchers to carry out in depth
investigation on the subject.
Gap in the body of knowledge
A very interesting reality…Job Satisfaction Researchers
have conducted research on one type of organization and
have tried to generalize it on the whole.

There is a need to understand this gap in body of knowledge

that type of organization, may it be manufacturing or
services, public or private, pharmaceutical or automotive
manufacturing, gives different results.

A need to investigate how these variables affect job

satisfaction level of the workforce in different types of
organizations.
Gap in the body of knowledge

Job satisfaction due to intrinsic motivational factors is found to

be higher in individualistic countries; whereas, extrinsic
factors provoke higher satisfaction level in collectivistic
cultures (Huang & Vliert, 2003).

While interpreting the findings, cultural differences should be

taken into account because the results of western world do
not necessarily hold good for the eastern world (Derwaish,
A.Y., 1999).
Gap in the body of knowledge

The extent of research exploring the relationship of Age and

Length of service with Job Satisfaction is limited in Public
Sector of Pakistan and rather very rare in Automotive
Manufacturing Public Sector, not only in Pakistan but also in
the whole world.
Gap in the body of knowledge

The present study explores the relationship of Age and length

of service with Job Satisfaction level of Electrical and
Mechanical Engineers of Automotive industry of Pakistan.
LITERATURE REVIEW
 Job Satisfaction is the sense of achievement,
accomplishment and pride felt by employees/workers in
their respective job settings. It is believed to be ‘‘an
attitude toward one’s job’’ (Brief, 1998).
 Relationship of Age with JS

 U shape relationship (Herzberg et al. 1959, ; Clark et al.,

1996; Crossman & Harris, 2006)
 Curvilinear relationship (Ang et al. 1993, )
 Nonlinear relationship (M. Igbaria, S. Parasuraman and
M.K. Badawy 1994)
 Linear negative relationship ( Hickson and
Oshagbemi 1999)
 Linear positive relationship (S. J. Sarker,
A.Crossman and P.Chinmeteepituck 2003)
 Linear positive relationship (J. John and M. John 2008)
 Relationship of Length of Service with JS

 U shape relationship (Herzberg et al. 1959)

 Linear negative relationship (Gibson and Klien 1970)
 Curvilinear relationship ( G. S. Gryski and A.R. DeCotiis
1983)
 Positive relationship (Oshagbemi 2000)
 Linear positive relationship (S. J. Sarker, A.Crossman
and P.Chinmeteepituck 2003)
MEASURING JOB SATISFACTION
 Measuring JS

 Conflicting views have been found among the researchers

regarding the measurement of job satisfaction as well.

 There are basically two methods to measure job

satisfaction (M. Nagy, 1996):
• Global Scales
• Facet Scales
 Measuring JS

Global Scales: Job satisfaction measures containing

items which directly ask an employee about the overall
feelings about his or her job, the measure is believed to
be a global measuring scale of the construct. Examples of
these types of scales include the single- item Faces Scale
(Kunin, 1955) or single-item scales (Quinn & Shepard,
1974; Scarpello & Combell, 1983).
 Measuring JS

Facet Scales: involves scales to measure specific or

separate areas/dimensions of a job, such as, satisfaction
with supervision, pay, promotion etc.
 Measuring JS

• Multi-item, multi-faceted scales include:

•MSQ - Minnesota questionnaire (Weiss et al., 1967),
which evaluates satisfaction with 20 facets.
•JDI - Job Descriptive Index (Smith et al., 1969);
facets include: the nature of the work itself, pay,
supervision, relations with co-workers and
opportunities for promotion.
 Measuring JS

• However, JDI authors admit themselves that these five

facets do contribute significantly to assess job satisfaction
but they are not the only facets of considerable importance,
and other researchers have added various other facets to the
list, including fringe benefits, rewards, operating
procedures/conditions and communication in another
measuring scale which is named as JSS- Job Satisfaction
Survey (Spector, 1985).
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
 Q 19 Q1 Q 10

Q 28

Q2

Q 11

Q 20

Pay
Q 33

Q3

Q 12

Q 21
Promotion
Q 30

Q4

Q 13

Q 22 Supervision
Q 29

Age Q5

Q 14 Fringe Benefits
Q 23

Q 32

Q6
Contingent Rewards Job Satisfaction
Length of Service Q 15

Q 24

Q 31
Operating Conditions
Q7

Q 16

Q 25

Q 34 Co-Workers
Q8

Q 17

Q 27
Nature of Work
Q 35

Q9

Q 18

Communication
Q 26

Q 36
HYPOTHESES

H1: Nine dimensions i.e., pay, promotion, supervision,

fringe benefits, contingent rewards, operating conditions,
coworkers, nature of work and communication are directly
and positively related to job satisfaction.
H 2 : There is a negative relationship of length of
service with job satisfaction

H3 : There is a negative relationship of age with job

satisfaction
OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS

• EME Officers : Education level, grades, policy makers, males

• Job Satisfaction : An emotional effective response to a job or
specific aspects of a job ( Smith et al. 1969)
• Pay : Basic pay, allowances, increments, education pay
• Promotion : Promotion opportunities, grade 17-18, grade 19 and
above
• Supervision : Immediate supervisor, reporting officer
• Fringe Benefits : Monetary and nonmonatary benefits, free
medical, plots, house
• Contingent Rewards : Appreciation and recognition, medals,
extra plots, commendation cards
• Operating Conditions : Operating policies and procedures, SOPs
• Coworkers : People one works with
• Nature of Work : Job tasks
• Communication : Communication within the organization
• Length of Service : Tenure in the organization
• Age : Age of the respondent
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

 JSS Questionnaire (with additional information of age and

tenure)
• 9 dimensions
• 4 questions per dimension
• Total 36 items plus one item for age and one for tenure
• Likert Scale : 6 point (1 strongly disagree, 6 strongly agree)

 Administered in 225 individuals

 Informal interviews of 150 respondents
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

 209 received (93%) and 168 were utilized (75%)

 Data was entered into SPSS 17
 Validity (Factor Analysis)
 Reliability (Cronbach’s α)
 Bivariate correlation between scale variables
 Scatter Plot
 Loess Curve
 Quadratic Estimation
RESULTS
Physiometric Tests

Reliability (α) 0.902

CFA 9 dimensions were

confirmed with
significant factor
loadings
 EIGEN VALUES
Total Variance Explained Principal Component Analysis
Initial Eigenv alues

Component Total % of Variance Cumulative %

1 8.736 24.268 24.268

2 2.538 7.049 31.317

3 2.097 5.826 37.143

4 1.942 5.395 42.538

5 1.710 4.751 47.289

6 1.412 3.921 51.210

7 1.197 3.326 54.536

8 1.177 3.269 57.805

9 1.151 3.196 61.001

10 1.042 Job Satisfaction

2.893 63.894

11 .961 2.669 66.563

 Initial Eigenvalues

Component Total % of Variance Cumulative %

1 1.654 41.360 41.360

2 1.042 26.057 67.417

3 .718 17.957 85.374

4 .585 14.626 100.000

Component Matrixa
Component
1 2
I have too much paper work .766
Many of our rules make job difficult .696 .306
I have too much to do at work .676 -.432
My efforts are seldom blocked by red tape .357 .826
 EIGEN VALUES
Total Variance Explained Principal Component Analysi
Initial Eigenvalues

Component Total % of Variance % Cumulative

1 8.688 25.552 25.552  

2 2.482 7.300 32.852  

3 2.095 6.163 39.015  

4 1.917 5.638 44.652  

5 1.580 4.646 49.298  

6 1.356 3.989 53.288  

7 1.187 3.491 56.778  

8 1.165 3.428 60.206  

9 1.024
Job Satisfaction
3.011 63.217  

10 .984 2.894 66.110  

Dimensions Item No Factor Loadings Reliability
( α)
Pay 28 0.809 0.722
19 0.802

01 0.747

10 0.579

Promotion 33 0.828 0.639

11 0.769

02 0.655

20 0.516

Supervision 21 0.738 0.506

12 0.683

03 0.611

30 0.575
Dimensions Item No Factor Loadings Reliability

Fringe Benefits 13 0.733 0.661

29 0.714
22 0.705
04 0.669

Contingent Rewards 32 0.861 0.636

5 0.804
23 0.601

Operating Conditions 31 0.803 0.558

24 0.725
06 0.658

Coworkers 25 0.771 0.541

16 0.678
34 0.642
Dimensions ItemNo Factor Loadings Reliability

Nature of work 35 0.829 0.781

27 0.777
17 0.769
8 0.74
Communication 26 0.815 0.735
36 0.763
18 0.745
9 0.657
Job Satisfaction 0.902
Coworkers 0.775

Nature of work 0.772

Communication 0.765

Promotion 0.708
Pay 0.696

Supervision 0.656

Fringe Benefits 0.62

Contingent Rewards 0.62

Discriminant Validity

The items of the instrument correlated higher with

each other (0.213 to 0.642 at p < 0.05) than with
other variables in the model so adequate
discriminant validity was established (Fornell,et
al., 1982; Grant,1989).
 Supervi Fringe Contingent Operating Communi Job Length of
Pay Promotion sion Benefits Reward Condition Coworkers Work cation Satisfaction Service Age
Pay

Promotion .521**

Supervision .360** .269**

Fringe Benefits .642** .490** .213**

Contingent
.301** .343** .345** .316**
Rewards

Operating
.217** .
263** .143 .255** .321**
Conditions

Coworkers .398** .427** .608** .302** .427** .377**

Work .414** .473** .480** .312** .431** .287** .595**

Communicatio
.395** .504** .519** .335** .377** .301** .531** .614**
n

Job Satisfation .701** .702** .664** .629** .605** .485** .773** .766** .765**

Length of
-.156* -.187* -.052 -.088 -.192 * -.207** -.060 -.056 -.082 -.165 *
Service

Age -.197* -.224** -.065 -.116 -.247 ** -.275** -.135 -.118 -.117 -.231 ** .961**
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Convergence Validity

Average variance extracted for all items

exceeded 0.5 hence confirmed the
convergent validity of the instrument as
suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981)
 Communalities

Initial Extraction

I am paid fair amount for the work I do 1.000 .664

There is too little chance for promotion 1.000 .626
My supervisor is competent 1.000 .554
I am not satisfied with benefits 1.000 .535
I recieve recognition for good job 1.000 .752
Many of our rules make job difficult 1.000 .643
I like people I work with 1.000 .859
I sometimes feel my job meaningless 1.000 .582
Communication seem good in organization 1.000 .592
Raises are too few and far between 1.000 .548
Who do well stand fair chance of promotion 1.000 .615
My supervisor is unfair to me 1.000 .561
Benefits we recieve are as good as other organizations 1.000 .580
I work harder because of incompetence of people I work with 1.000 .532
I like doing things I do at work 1.000 .590
Goals of organization are not clear to me 1.000 .657
I feel unappreciated by thinking about the pay 1.000 .689
People get ahead as fast as other places 1.000 .644
My supervisor shows little interest in feelings of subordinates 1.000 .654
Benefit package is equitable 1.000 .597
There are few rewards for those who work here 1.000 .516
I have too much to do at work 1.000 .668
I enjoy my coworkers 1.000 .502
I often feel I do not know what is going on with organizatin 1.000 .677
I feel sense of pride in doing my job 1.000 .738
I feel satisfied with chances of salary increases 1.000 .685
There are benefits we do not have which we should have 1.000 .536
I like my supervisor 1.000 .868
I have too much paper work 1.000 .625
 Descriptive Statistics
JSS Norm Public
Mean Std. Deviation Summation Mean Sector (USA)
Pay 3.4554 1.11075 13.82 11.8

Promotion 3.6815 1.04634 14.73 11.8

Supervision 4.2604 1.16824 17.04 19.1

Fringe Benefits 3.4137 1.08611 13.65 14.3

Contingent Rewards 3.5099 1.11120 14.08 13.4

Operating Conditions 2.7659 1.11516 11.86 13

Coworkers 4.0521 1.17288 16.21 17.9

Work 4.2292 1.17369 16.92 18.9

Communication 3.8333 1.21821 15.33 14.4

Job Satisfaction 3.7215 .77882 126.53 137.7

Length of Service 10.78 5.947

Age 33.12 6.126

 Supervi Fringe Contingent Operating Communi Job Length of
Pay Promotion sion Benefits Reward Condition Coworkers Work cation Satisfaction Service Age
Pay

Promotion .521**

Supervision .360** .269**

Fringe Benefits .642** .490** .213**

Contingent
.301** .343** .345** .316**
Rewards

Operating
.217** .
263** .143 .255** .321**
Conditions

Coworkers .398** .427** .608** .302** .427** .377**

Work .414** .473** .480** .312** .431** .287** .595**

Communication .395** .504** .519** .335** .377** .301** .531** .614**

Job Satisfation .701** .702** .664** .629** .605** .485** .773** .766** .765**

Length of
-.156* -.187* -.052 -.088 -.192 * -.207** -.060 -.056 -.082 -.165 *
Service

Age -.197* -.224** -.065 -.116 -.247 ** -.275** -.135 -.118 -.117 -.231 ** .961**

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

 Discussions
 On the average most of the EME officers of Pakistan
Public Sector Organization have ambivalent level of JS
 All nine dimension have positive statistically significant
correlation with JS
 Length of Service has a inverted semi circular
relationship with JS
 Length of Service has a inverted semi circular
relationship with JS
Q & A Session