1. Introduction We are going to examine numerous case studies, the theories of Maslow, Herzberg, Vroom & Adam’s and other supporting evidence, in relation to job satisfaction. We will look at why the study of job satisfaction is important for managers, what factors influence job satisfaction in organisations and what is the relationship between job satisfaction and productivity. There is no direct theory regarding job satisfaction, however there are endless case studies and articles on this topic. The theories referred to all have their academic critics as well as avid supporters. Job satisfaction has been one of the most extensively discussed and studied concepts in organisational and personnel management, accounting for thousands of published works.
The information generated by research into this area has practical implications for individuals and organisations alike, as employees strive for the best quality of life possible and managers are faced with the ever- increasing challenge of operating efficient, effective organisations using the human and technological resources available to them. Understanding job satisfaction and what it means is not only a desirable, but also a critical aspect of life for both organisations and individuals. 2. What is Job Satisfaction & Why is the study of it important? Job satisfaction is about how individuals feel about their jobs i. e. their attitude.
It is an outcome of their perception of their jobs and the degree to which there is a good fit between them and the organisation. Numerous aspects of the job impact job satisfaction, including pay, promotional opportunities, supervisors & co-workers as well as factors of the work environment, such as policies & procedures, working conditions and fringe benefits. (Ivancevich et al. 1999: 91) A major reason why the study of job satisfaction is so important is to provide managers with ways to improve employee attitudes. The levels of employee job satisfaction are determined by many organisations from attitude surveys. It is difficult to determine the actual degree of job satisfaction from surveys, particularly in a specific department as well as a bias towards giving a positive answer.
The Term Paper on The Relationship Of Engagement And Job Satisfaction In Working Samples
The present study explored the factor structure of engagement and its relationship with job satisfaction. The authors hypothesize that work engagement comprises 3 constructs: vigor, dedication, and absorption. Using structural equation modeling, the authors analyze data from 3 archival data sets to determine the factor structure of engagement. In addition, they examine the hypothesis that ...
(Ivancevich et al. 1999: 92) 3. Relevant Theories There are numerous theories in relation to motivation, but no direct theory for job satisfaction. However, these theories provide aspects and important insights for managers, particularly in terms of employee needs and job satisfaction. The relevant theories and an outline of each follows; Herzberg’s two-factor theory In the late 1950 s, Frederick Herzberg, considered by many to be a pioneer in motivation theory, interviewed a group of employees to find out what made them satisfied and dissatisfied on the job. He asked the employees essentially two sets of questions: 1.
Think of a time when you felt especially good about your job. Why did you feel that way? 2. Think of a time when you felt especially bad about your job. Why did you feel that way? From these interviews Herzberg went on to develop his theory that there are two dimensions to job satisfaction: motivation and “hygiene” The absence of hygiene factors in the workplace causes dissatisfaction, however their presence at an acceptable level would only produce a neutral feeling. It is then argued that the opposite of dissatisfaction is not satisfaction. It is also argued that the presence of ‘motivators’ would produce high levels of job satisfaction and motivation.
? This theory links with Maslow’s theory, in particular hygiene factors line up with security and physiological needs, as well as ‘motivators’ which aligns with the opportunity for people to satisfy their higher order needs. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory Abraham Maslow published his theory of human motivation in 1943. Maslow’s insight was to place actualization into a hierarchy of motivation. Self-actualization, as he called it, is the highest drive, but before a person can turn to it, he or she must satisfy other, lower motivations like hunger, safety and belonging. The hierarchy has five levels. 1.
The Review on Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Motivation in Islam among IIUM Employees Introduction
Work motivation is important to encourage a worker to improve productivity and achieve organizational goals. In Islamic perspective, motivation is a form of drive that can influence humans to performance act. In work place, employers are faced with the task which is motivating employees and creating high job satisfaction among their staff. Program and policy can develop job satisfaction and ...
Physiological (hunger, thirst, shelter, sex, etc. ) 2. Safety (security, protection from physical and emotional harm) 3. Social (affection, belonging, acceptance, friendship) 4. Esteem (also called ego).
The internal ones are self-respect, autonomy, achievement and the external ones are status, recognition, and attention.
5. Self actualization (doing things)? As is Herzberg’s theory, Maslow’s theory is more widely accepted by managers than by researchers. Research findings on Maslow’s theory fail to support the existence of a needs hierarchy. Instead they suggest there is only two levels: physiological and all other needs. Maslow points out that the hierarchy is dynamic; the dominant need is always shifting. Satisfaction is relative.
He notes that a satisfied need no longer motivates. For example, a hungry man may be desperate for food, but once he eats a good meal, the promise of food no longer motivates him. One of the most common crit isms concerning his methodology however, revolved around only, picking a small number of people that he himself declared self-actualizing, then reading about them or talking with them, and coming to conclusions about what self-actualization is in the first place. In his defence, it should point out that he understood this, and thought of his work as simply pointing the way. He hoped that others would take up the cause and complete what he had begun in a more rigorous fashion. Vroom’s expectancy theory Victor Vroom suggests that employees behave in certain ways because of the outcomes they expect as a result of their performance and because of the attractiveness of those outcomes.
The Term Paper on Job Satisfaction Levels Of Employees Of A Multinational Organisation
... because of a belief in the theory that job satisfaction is multi-dimensional. An employee might be satisfied with one or ... in Figure 2. These motivating factors are related to the work itself and can increase employee performance.In addition to this, Herzberg ... Work r. Communication These factors were rated on a standardized scale and the scores added up to determine an overall job satisfaction ...
Vroom argues that individual choices are determined by an individual’s assessment of the relationship between effort and performance, between performance and the attainment and the value of those rewards. This theory suggests performance leads to satisfaction, but satisfaction does not lead to performance. Adams’ equity theory Adam’s theory was developed in 1965 and essentially it is about perceived fairness in the workplace. It states that people trade inputs for outcomes with inputs being effort, time, skill and outcomes being pay, recognition or opportunities for social interaction. Adam’s argues that each worker perceives a ratio of their inputs to outcomes and compares this to an appropriate person. If the ratios are not similar, the worker will see an imbalance or inequity, which then leads towards feelings of discomfort and tension, resulting in lower levels of job satisfaction.
4. Influencing factors & Related studies There are numerous dimensions associated with job satisfaction in organisations, with five in particular that have crucial characteristics. They are pay, job, promotion opportunities, supervisor and co-workers. Cranny, Smith, & Stone’s (1992) study of job satisfaction and job performance identified several factors that influence job satisfaction.
They found that job satisfaction is substantially influenced by intrinsically rewarding conditions such as interesting work, challenge, and autonomy. To a lesser extent, they found that extrinsic rewards, such as pay and security, also influence job satisfaction. They did not find any direct evidence that job performance directly influences job satisfaction, although it indirectly affected it through the consequences of greater rewards. Edgar S chien suggests that the degree to which employees are willing to exert effort, commit to organisational goals and derive satisfaction from their work is dependant on two conditions: 1. the extent to which employee expectations of what the organisation will give them and what they owe the organisation in return matches the organisation’s expectations of what it will give and receive; 2. assuming there is agreement on these expectations, the specific nature of what is exchanged (e.
The Dissertation on A Study on Job Satisfaction Level on Employee’s Performance at JUPEM Negeri Sembilan
... Dimensions of Work Ethics and its Relationship with Job Satisfaction Factors: The Case of NBI, on the overall, clerical and non-clerical employees have expressed ... the lower the level of satisfaction obtained. Job satisfaction is a pleasant emotional state with how workers view their work. Job satisfaction reflects one’s feelings towards his ...
g. effort for pay) The mutual expectations regarding exchanges constitute part of the psychological contract. The psychological contract is an unwritten agreement between the individual and the organisation, which specifies what each, expects to give to and receive from the other. (Ivancevich et al.
1999: 142) As discussed previously Herzberg’s theory and research suggests that job dissatisfaction is caused by the absence of or deficits in “hygiene” factors such as salary, job security, working conditions, status, company policies, quality of supervision, and quality of interpersonal relationships. These factors, although they can cause job dissatisfaction if deficient, do not result in job satisfaction if present. Rather, according to Herzberg, it is the “motivation” factors intrinsic to a job and related to job content that have the power to increase job satisfaction. Motivation factors include achievement, recognition, responsibility, advancement, the work itself, and possibility of growth.
The graph below shows a composite of the factors that are involved in causing job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction, drawn from samples of 1685 employees. Graph XX Factors affecting job attitudes as reported in 12 investigations Factors characterising 1844 events on the job that led to extreme dissatisfaction Factors characterising 1753 events on the job that led to extreme satisfaction Percentage frequency 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Achievement Recognition Work Itself Responsibility Advancement Growth Cpy policy & admin Supervision Relationship with supervisor Work conditions Salary Relationship with peers All factors contributing to Job dissatisfaction All factors contributing to Job satisfaction Personal Life Relationship with subordinates 69 Hygiene 19 Status 31 Motivators 81 Security 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Ratio and percent The results indicate that motivators were the primary cause of unhappiness on the job. The employees studied in 12 different investigations included a wide variety of positions, levels and occupations. They were asked what job events had occurred in their work that had led to extreme satisfaction or extreme dissatisfaction on their part. As the lower right hand part of the graph shows, of all the factors contributing to job satisfaction, 81% were motivators.
The Research paper on Link Between Job Satisfaction and Job Performance
... will be determined is whether job satisfaction and job performance are influenced by some other factors. Job satisfaction is an important dimension of employee wellbeing in its own ... of Having a Performance Appraisal Program, Part I, the trusted professional, Vol. 7, No.14 Locke, E. A. (1970). Job satisfaction and job performance: A theoretical analysis. ...
And of all the factors contributing to the employees’ dissatisfaction over their work, 69% involved hygiene elements. (Sourced HBR article by Frederick Herzberg, One more time: How do you Motivate Employees? September-October 1987) E skew and He neman (1996) found in surveying compensation amongst professionals that pay based on merit is seen as being only marginally successful in influencing employees’ attitudes and behavior. Kovach (1995) found that although supervisors believe that good salaries were very important to employees, the employees themselves report that interesting work is the most important. Ettore (1994) reported that job satisfaction is more important to both men and women than any other job- related factor, including financial remuneration. Filipczak (1996) and Merit (1995) discuss the need to recognize that money is not high in its relation to job satisfaction or employee motivation, and that Herzberg’s Motivation- Hygiene Theory of satisfaction versus dissatisfaction on the job needs to be taken into account when looking at motivators for employees. They suggest that while correcting inadequate wages, poor company policy, poor supervision, or lack of job security can reduce employee dissatisfaction, only intrinsic motivators (such as recognition, interesting and challenging work, and opportunities for advancement) can serve to increase satisfaction.
Burke and McKeen (1995 a) found in studying managerial and professional women that those working in male- dominated organizations have lower job satisfaction than those working in organizations with fewer men at the higher levels of management. They speculated that exclusion from the “boys club” network or the feeling of being an outsider might be relevant factors. Burke and McKeen (1995 b) in another study report that while a increasing proportion of accountants are women, they do not seem to be obtaining the rank of partner at the same rate, as what men do. They found that women accountants with more gaps in employment reported less job satisfaction and less job involvement. Dodd-Mckee and Wright (1996) found in studying accountants that women are less committed to their organizations and are less satisfied; and they suggest that women’s under- representation in upper management, as well their job satisfaction, involvement, and commitment, could be increased by altering factors within an organisation’s control.
The Research paper on Employee Turnover and Job Satisfaction
... job satisfaction and its relation to job performance and employee turnover is such a large topic, this literature review will be focusing on several key factors: ... is important when examining employee turnover and job satisfaction (Patnaik, 2011). In a study performed by Cline et. ... of reward and recognition on job satisfaction and motivation: An empirical study from Pakistan. International Journal of ...
Barry Staw and his co-workers reviewed the extent to which personality could affect job satisfaction. It was determined that individuals who hold a more positive and enthusiastic view will also report greater job satisfaction. Staw argues that his findings have important organisation implications and that selection rather than organisational programs are the key to obtaining a satisfied workforce. Several criticisms can be made of Staw’s research. Newton and Keenan reported individuals who, over time, remained with the same employer reported stable levels of anger, frustration, hostility, alienation and job satisfaction, however those who changed employers reported decreases in these with a corresponding increase in job satisfaction. Gerhard showed that by including a range of situational factors such as pay, status and job complexity, situational factors are able to predict job satisfaction.
He also demonstrated that the correlation between affect and job satisfaction was highest when individuals stayed in the same occupation with the same employer and vice versa. These findings suggest that Staw’s results can be explained in terms of an older and more stable work group. Therefore, organisations should be concerned with conditions of employment and organisational programs, such as job redesign that are aimed at improving the quality of working life. (Ivancevich et al. 1999: 75)? ? Lawson S avery (1991) assessed the extent to which men and women differ in their expectations of the workplace, by using staff in a government department. His findings showed that women want greater job security and that men want better promotion prospects, more opportunities to lead, greater responsibility and higher social status.
Women and men do not differ in pay, challenge, interest, working hours, autonomy, variety, opportunities for learning, cooperation from others and career development. (Ivancevich et al. 1999: 128) Trist and Bam worth (1951) advocated a proper balance between social and technical systems to achieve optimal productivity. Trist and other researchers from the Tavistock Institute for Social Research in the UK identified the following psychological requirements as critical to worker motivation and satisfaction; 1. The content of each job must be reasonably demanding or challenging and provide some variety. 2.
Performing the job must have perceivable, desirable consequences. 3. Workers should be able to see how the lives of other people are affected by what they do. 4.
Workers must have some decision-making authority. 5. Workers must be able to learn from the job and go on learning. 6. Workers need the opportunity to give and receive help As employees of ANZ Banking Group (ANZ), there are extensive staff programs in operation and gradually increasing to meet the needs of the employees. These programs have been put in place in more recent times to build upon job satisfaction and overall satisfaction with ANZ.
These programs include, but are not limited to; SS Staff Share scheme – Bonus shares, dependent on annual results SS Share acquisition plan – Discounted shares and salary sacrifice SS Pay for Performance – Individual contracts for managers SS Family friendly initiatives – Paid maternity leave, parental leave, career breaks etc. SS Bright Ideas – 10% reward for savings identified and suggested SS AAA Projects – Rewards for Improvements made to processes SS PC’s at Home Package – Discounted home computers SS Staff Foundation – Community involvement SS Greening of the environment From personal experiences these programs have had a significant impact on our job satisfaction. We can also relate to times prior to these programs when such programs were non existent. In such a large organisation, we know of fellow employees who even with these programs are not satisfied with their job, due to their current role, manager and / or circumstances and generally are not highly productive. However, we both currently have a high level of job satisfaction, as along with these programs have fulfilling roles, which we enjoy. As a result are both highly motivated and productive.
Although, we can relate to times when this has not been the situation. The whole idea of job satisfaction is a moving target. For many people, how satisfied they feel is a complex interplay of what’s happening in their personal and business lives. Job expectations also play into the elusive nature of job satisfaction. To find out the levels of job satisfaction amongst their employees, some companies administer employee surveys.
These surveys ask how people feel about their supervisors, their work environment, promotions and career training, the quality & level of communication, and the salary and benefits package. These factors are all part of overall job satisfaction. Annual staff surveys as well as Snapshot surveys are conducted at ANZ to measure the various factors discussed above. These surveys are quite extensive with questions aimed at an individual level, as well as team and organisation level. (See Appendices) 5. Relationship with productivity The study of job satisfaction and its relationship to job performance is one of the most widely debated and controversial issues.
There are three general views: satisfaction causes performance; performance causes satisfaction; and the satisfaction-performance relationship is moderated by other variables such as rewards. (Ivancevich et al. 1999: 93) There is minimal research to support the first two views. There are extensive studies dealing with the performance-satisfaction relationship, of which a review of twenty of these studies found a low association between performance and satisfaction. The evidence is clear that a satisfied worker is not necessarily a high performer and vice versa. (Ivancevich et al.
1999: 93) The numerous motivational theories provide managers with tools for directing the energy of employees towards the accomplishment of organisational goals, however the individual’s willingness to perform is only one side of the psychological contract. Managers and their organisations must ensure individuals have the capacity and opportunity to perform, to optimise job performance. Vroom’s theory refers to an effort-performance expectancy, which represents the individual’s perception of how hard it will be to achieve a particular behaviour and the probability of achieving that behaviour. There is also a performance-outcome expectancy, where in an individual’s mind every behaviour is associated with outcomes e. g. reward (Ivancevich et al.
1999: 131).
Therefore, suggesting performance leads to satisfaction, but satisfaction does not lead to performance. The below table shows the significance of environmental factors for employees with different degrees of job satisfaction. This data indicates that very dissatisfied employees continue to stay because of financial considerations, family responsibilities, lack of outside opportunities, age etc.
? Such reasons for staying are self-defeating and hardly could be considered right. These turn offs have not yet affected turnover statistics, but still they may be having just as severe, or even a more severe, effect on the company. These employees see themselves as so locked in by the environment that they have little alternative but to stay; and, therefore, the possibility of reduced productivity or behavior antagonistic to the organization is great. Skill Level Job Satisfaction Level Reasons for staying Low Moderate Manager Very Low Low High I wouldn’t want to rebuild most of the benefits that I have now if I left the company 72% 64% 26% 76% 63% 44% I have family responsibilities 69% 55% 46% 76% 73% 44% I have good personal friends here at work 57% 45% 34% 35% 45% 38% The company’s been good to me and I don’t believe in jumping from company to company 57% 59% 41% 24% 39% 58% I’m working to make ends meet and I don’t want to take the risks in a new job 57% 36% 8% 59% 52% 21% I wouldn’t like to look for a job on the outside 52% 29% 13% 35% 39% 20% I’m a little too old for starting over again 46% 25% 14% 41% 34% 20% I wouldn’t like to start all over learning the policies of a new company 39% 30% 3% 35% 27% 17% I like to live in this area 30% 31% 58% 35% 28% 37% Difficult to find a job 58% 42% 47% 59% 53% 42% According to Cranny, Smith, & Stone (1992), the methods researchers used to study performance and satisfaction influence the conclusions reached about their relationship. They suggest that correlational studies have shown moderate relationships at best, while intervention research suggests a stronger relationship. Katz ell & Guzzi (1983), for example, reviewed 207 studies of the effects of psychologically based interventions on productivity and performance, and reported that 87 percent of the interventions were successful in raising productivity (as well as job satisfaction).
Another example of the inconsistencies of the various conclusions that can be formed from studies or surveys relates to the Lucent Technology Job satisfaction (See Appendices) where an interesting outcome becomes clear from the results. “Non-monetary recognition of achievement, though rated next to last in importance, is the strongest indicator of high overall job satisfaction. ” Other recent studies have discussed the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance. DeConinck and Stilwell (1996) found in studying female advertising executives that job satisfaction is a significant predictor of organizational commitment; and Becker, Billings, Evel eth, & Gilbert (1996) found that organizational commitment as targeted at supervisors was positively related to performance. Keller, Julian, & Kid ia (1996) found in studying research and development teams that satisfaction with pay, advancement, and supervision was related to an increase in patent acquisition, technical quality ratings, and publication of articles. ? Hackman, Oldham, Janson and Purdy devised the job characteristics model, which also shows some linkage between satisfaction and performance.
This model grew out of attempts to measure individual perceptions of job content, which identified the five core components of jobs, being skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy and feedback. The model attempts to account for interrelationships among certain job characteristics; psychological states associated with motivation, satisfaction and performance; job outcomes; and growth need strength. (Ivancevich et al. 1999: 169-170) There is no simple, all-encompassing set of guidelines on how to motivate employees, which leads to job satisfaction and productivity, however the following suggestions will assist greatly; SS Recognise Individual differences SS Match people to jobs SS Use Goals SS Ensure that Goals are perceived as attainable SS Individualism Rewards SS Link Rewards to Performance SS Check the system for Equity SS Don’t ignore money! (Robbins 1992: 59-60) 6. Conclusion We have discussed a number of theories and case studies in this document and referred to numerous articles, to find there is no simple way of determining or managing job satisfaction within organisations. There are extensive articles on job satisfaction and numerous influencing factors, with some links between job satisfaction and productivity, however there is no clear evidence of any direct relationship.
Herzberg’s theory is the closest theory to supporting job satisfaction, but in itself is actually a motivation theory? ? . The importance of job satisfaction to the dynamics of the workforce has made it one of the most widely discussed and researched topics in management. Although research over time has provided inconsistent results about the relationship between job satisfaction and other work- related attitudes and behaviours such as job performance, there has been work done to refine and standardize the way in which job satisfaction is defined and measured. We therefore conclude that there is no direct relationship between job satisfaction and productivity 7. References 1.
Douthit, M. (1999) ‘Job Satisfaction Returns to Human and Social Capital’, The Journal of Behavioural an Applied Management, Vol 1 (1), pp. 67. 2. Flowers, V.
& Hughes, C. (1973) ‘Why Employees Stay?’ , Harvard Business Review, Harvard College, USA. 3. Herzberg, F.
(1987) ‘One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees?’ , Harvard Business Review, Harvard College, USA. 4. Ivancevich, J. , Olekalns, M. & Matteson, M. (1999) Organisational Behaviour and Management, McGraw-Hill, Sydney.
5. Ott, J. (ed) (1996), Classic Readings in Organisational Behaviour, 2 nd edn, Wadsworth, Belmont, CA. 6. Robbins, S. (1992), Essentials of Organisational Behaviour, 3 rd edition, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
8. Appendices Case Study – Lucent Technologies Overall, two-thirds of networking professionals are satisfied with their current jobs, leaving the remaining third dissatisfied. This outcome is an improvement from the survey conducted in 1998, where only 56% of respondents were satisfied with their jobs, and 44% were unsatisfied. In fact, nearly one-quarter (22%) of respondents in 1999 describe themselves as very satisfied with their current job, compared to only 17% one year ago. Clearly, something good has been happening over the past year for networking professionals, although there is still much room for improvement.
When viewed by the size of the company in which respondents work, overall job satisfaction is fairly consistent until we reach companies with 20, 000 or more employees. Here we see a significant (approximately 10%) drop-off in job satisfaction. Four job factors appear to be the cause of this lower job satisfaction level: type of work, non-monetary recognition of achievement, compensation package, and balanced work week. For each of these contributors to overall job satisfaction, 11%-15% fewer respondents from companies with 20, 000 or more employees are satisfied than respondents from companies with fewer than 20, 000 employees. Taken from another viewpoint, job function also plays a role in overall job satisfaction. Curiously, IT managers and directors are both the most likely to say that they are very satisfied with their current job (33%) and most likely to be completely dissatisfied with their current job (15%), perhaps a reflection of both the increased stresses and rewards that these positions offer.
IT consultants, on the other hand, are as likely as IT managers and directors to be dissatisfied with their current job (35%), but considerably fewer are very satisfied with their current job (24%).
Technical staff other than network administrators (who are least likely to be satisfied with their current jobs) have, on average, the highest overall satisfaction with their current jobs, with a satisfaction rating of 3. 0 on a scale of 1-4, where 4 is very satisfied. Overall job satisfaction of network professionals is not significantly influenced by either the length of time with their current employer or length of time in the networking industry, although professionals who are new to their job or the profession tend to have slightly higher overall job satisfaction.
There are many factors that contribute to the satisfaction a network professional derives from his / her job. These factors range from opportunities for growth and responsibility, to compensation and monetary reward practices, to vacation and flex-time policies. Each of these plays a role to a greater or lesser extent in forming overall job satisfaction. When we asked respondents to tell us how important 15 different job factors are to the satisfaction they would get from an ideal job, the opportunity to learn new skills was at the top of the list, along with achievement opportunities, type of work, and professional growth opportunities.
The importance of a compensation package is only sixth on the list, and monetary recognition of achievement a distant 10 th. Clearly, network professionals demand more from their work than money; foremost they want challenge and the ability to move ahead. They are even willing to work longer hours (the importance of a balanced work week is 12 th in importance) to achieve those goals. Network professionals’s satisfaction with the same set of job factors shows a different picture entirely. On this measure, relationships with co-workers and supervisors, along with vacation policy, take three of the top four slots for satisfaction. However, type of work, which is third in importance, is second in satisfaction, and opportunity to take responsibility, which is fifth in importance, is also fifth in satisfaction.
On these two important yardsticks, companies appear to be doing a good job. On the other hand, 96% of respondents indicate that compensation packages are important, but four out of ten are dissatisfied with their compensation package. 7. References 1.
Douthit, M. (1999) ‘Job Satisfaction Returns to Human and Social Capital’, The Journal of Behavioural an Applied Management, Vol 1 (1), pp. 67. 2. Flowers, V.
& Hughes, C. (1973) ‘Why Employees Stay?’ , Harvard Business Review, Harvard College, USA. 3. Herzberg, F. (1987) ‘One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees?’ , Harvard Business Review, Harvard College, USA.
4. Ivancevich, J. , Olekalns, M. & Matteson, M. (1999) Organisational Behaviour and Management, McGraw-Hill, Sydney. 5.
Ott, J. (ed) (1996), Classic Readings in Organisational Behaviour, 2 nd edn, Wadsworth, Belmont, CA. 6. Robbins, S. (1992), Essentials of Organisational Behaviour, 3 rd edition, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
