Content uploaded by Allah Nawaz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Allah Nawaz on Oct 31, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 1382
JANUARY 2012
VOL 3, NO 9
SYNTHESIZING THE THEORIES OF JOB-SATISFACTION
ACROSS THE CULTURAL/ATTITUDINAL DEMENTIONS
*Saifuddin Khan Saif, **Dr. Allah Nawaz
***Dr. Farzand Ali Jan, and ****Muhammad Imran Khan
*Saifuddin Khan Saif (Ph.D scholar), Lecturer Management Sciences Qurtuba University
D.I.Khan, KPK, Pakistan. (Corresponding Author)
**Dr. Allah Nawaz Assistant Professor Department of Public Administration Gomal University
D.I.Khan. KPK, Pakistan.
***Dr. Farzand Ali Jan Director Finance/Academics IBMS Peshawar University, KPK,
Pakistan.
****Muhammad Imran Khan (Ph.D. Scholar), Lecturer Management Sciences, Qurtuba
University, D.I.Khan. KPK, Pakistan.
Abstract
Job satisfaction is a recurring attitude therefore needs continuous management. A huge research
is going on in the organizations around the world to understand and thereby control the elements
of employees’ satisfaction. An array of theories is available to explain the motivational contents
and cognitive processes that constitute the issues of job satisfaction in any organization. Given
that human behavior consists of ‘understanding – cognitive’ and the same translated into action
(verbal and/or physical) therefore researchers have either theorized on the basis of cognitive
levels of motivation or behavioral (physical) levels of motivation and satisfaction. An analysis
of the ‘commonly-cited’ theoretical models reveals that these are different views of the same
reality. Their differences lie in their prioritization of the main aspects of satisfaction. All the
theories can be synthesized into a satisfaction-model according to their contributions. This paper
first strives to so organize the main theories that each one adds to our understanding according
to its due scholarly-weight and secondly touches on the impacts of cultural differences on the
role of theories across the world.
Key words: Diversity of Theories, Content & process theories of Job Satisfaction,
Cultural/attitudinal dimensions.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 1383
JANUARY 2012
VOL 3, NO 9
INTRODUCTION
Satisfaction is the contentment felt after a need is fulfilled (Robbins, 1998:170). It is a general
attitude that is determined by job factors (i.e., pay, work, supervision etc), individual or personal
characteristics (demographics) and other social and group factors (Shajahan & Shajahan,
2004:116). People bring with them certain drives and needs that affect their performance
therefore, understanding how needs stimulate performance and how rewards on such
performance lead to the job-satisfaction is indispensable for the managers (Newstrom,
2007:123).
Theory is a tool of science as it: a. defines major orientation of a phenomena (such as job
satisfaction) by defining kinds of data to be required; b. offers a conceptual scheme or model in
which relevant facts are systematically organized, classified and interrelated; c. summarizes the
facts into empirical generalizations; predicts facts and finally points to the gaps in our
knowledge (Goode & Hatt, 1952:8). Thus, theories are the scientific tools that are used to
explain the factors of job satisfaction and how these factors interact in the cognitive and physical
processes of job-satisfaction on the basis of existing facts (Griffin, 1990:67).
At present the content and process theories have become established explanations for work
motivation, no agreed-upon overall theory exists (Luthans, 2005:240). Furthermore, with the
passage of time, factors of job satisfaction and their mutual relations change therefore new
models appear as fresh explanations of the old phenomena (Newstrom, 2007:6) for example,
Maslow’s theory of needs have been enhanced by ‘two-factor theory’.
JOB SATISFACTION
Whatever, theoretical approach is used to study job satisfaction, most of the researchers have
identified two groups of variables: environmental factors and personal characteristics of
individuals (Saif-ud-Din, Khair-uz-Zaman, & Nawaz., 2010; Ellickson & Logsdon, 2001;
Shajahan & Shajahan, 2004:116; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007). Job satisfaction is a popular
research topic for the researchers in organization and management studies particularly,
organizational behavior (Luthans, 2005:211). Job satisfaction is an attitude or emotional
response to one’s job, work environment or according to Herzberg’s two-factor theory, the
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 1384
JANUARY 2012
VOL 3, NO 9
contents of the job including achievement, responsibility, and recognition are the factors, which
motivate the workers and cause high levels of job satisfaction (Tirmizi et al., 2008).
THEORIES OF JOB-SATISFACTION
Luthans (1995:13) notes that “there is nothing as practical as a good theory.’ Theory is a
systematic grouping of interdependent concepts and principles resulting into a framework that
ties together a significant area of knowledge (Weihrich & Koontz, 1999:13). Or more precisely,
a theory identifies important variables and links them to form ‘tentative propositions’ (or
hypotheses) that can be tested through research (Newstrom, 2007:6).
Although most of the debates about theories of job-satisfaction start with Maslow’s theory of
‘Hierarchy of Needs’ (1943) however, the story begins with the idea of ‘scientific movement’ or
‘Taylorism’ by Frederick W. Taylor (1911), which treats the human being as ‘Economic-man’
where ‘Money’ is the biggest motivator for job-satisfaction. This view was criticized by Elton
Mayo & Associates (1924-33) during ‘Hawthorne Studies’ about the nature of human being.
They found that multiple factors contribute to the motivation and satisfaction of workers
including, personal morale, positive interrelationships, management founded on the
understanding of individual and group behavior through interpersonal skills like “motivating,
counseling, leading and communicating (Weihrich & Koontz, 1999:42).”
CLASSIFICATION OF THE THEORIES
A survey of literature about the theories of job-satisfaction suggests that theories are commonly
grouped either according to the ‘nature of theories’ or their ‘chronological appearance.’ Dr S.
Shajahan & Linu Shajahan (2004:90-99) have noted that there are ‘Content-theories’ (Maslow’s
Needs Hierarchy, Herzberg’s Two Factor theory, Theory X and Theory Y, Alderfer’s ERG
theory, and McClelland’s theory of Needs) and ‘Process-theories’ (Behavior Modification,
Cognitive Evaluation Theory, Goal Setting theory, Reinforcement theory, Expectancy theory,
and Equity theory). This division of theories is acknowledged across the literature.
Fred Luthans (2005: 240-256) suggests that there are Content (Needs Hierarchy, Two-Factors,
and ERG theories); Process (Expectancy theory and Porter & Lawler model); and
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 1385
JANUARY 2012
VOL 3, NO 9
Contemporary (Equity, Control and Agency theories) theories. While, Stephen P. Robbins
(2005:48-61) uses chronology and categorizes the theories into Early-theories (Hierarchy of
needs, Theory X & Y, Two-Factor theory) and Contemporary theories (McClelland’s theory of
needs, Goal Setting theory, Reinforcement theory, Job Design Theory (job-characteristics
model), Equity theory and Expectancy theory). It is however, notable that content and process
theories have become ‘standard classification.’
Content Theories
Content theories focus on identifying the needs, drives and incentives/goals and their
prioritization by the individual to get satisfaction (Luthans, 2005:240). Experts have been
preparing multiple lists of biological, psychological, social and higher level needs of human
beings. Interestingly, almost all the researchers categorize these needs into primary, secondary
and high level employee requirements, which need to be fulfilled when the worker is needed to
motivated and satisfied. Following are the well known content theories that are widely used by
the management.
Maslow’s Theory of Motivation/Satisfaction (1943)
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is “the most widely mentioned theory of motivation and
satisfaction (Weihrich & Koontz, 1999:468).” Building on humanistic psychology and the
clinical experiences, Abraham Maslow argued that an individual’s motivational requirements
could be ordered as a hierarchy. Once a given level of needs is satisfied, it no longer helps to
motivate. Thus, next higher level of need has to be activated in order to motivate and thereby
satisfy the individual (Luthans, 2005:240). Maslow (1943) identified five levels of need
hierarchy:
1. Physical needs: (food, clothing, shelter, sex),
2. Safety needs: (physical protection),
3. Social: (develop close associations with others),
4. Esteem/Achievement needs: (prestige given by others), and
5. Self-Actualization: (self-fulfillment and accomplishment through personal growth)
(Maslow, 1943).
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 1386
JANUARY 2012
VOL 3, NO 9
Having said that, individual needs are influenced both by the importance attached to various
needs and the level to which an individual wants to fulfill these needs (Karimi, 2007).
Researchers have noted that Maslow’s theory of hierarchy of needs was the first motivation
theory that laid the foundation for ‘the theories of job satisfaction’. This theory serves as a good
start from which researchers explore the problems of job satisfaction in different work situations
(Wikipedia, 2009). Several theories have been suggested so far but almost all begin with a brief
on Maslow’s ideas.
Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory (1959)
Herzberg did a motivational study in which he interviewed 200 accountants and engineers. He
used critical incident method of data collection with two questions: a. when did you feel
particularly good about your job – what turned you on? And b. when did you feel exceptionally
bad about your job – what turned you off? Tabulating these good and bad feelings, Herzberg
argued that there are job-satisfiers (motivators) related to the job contents and job-dissatisfiers
(Hygiene factors) are concerned with the job context. Motivators include Achievement,
Recognition, Work itself, Responsibility and Advancement. The hygiene factors do not
‘motivate/satisfy’ rather ‘prevent dissatisfaction.’ These factors are contextual such as,
Company policy, Administration, Supervision, Salary, Interpersonal relations, Supervisor, and
Working conditions (Herzberg et al., 1959).
Herzberg’s theory is the most useful model to study job satisfaction (Kim, 2004). For instance,
the researchers have found that it helps in understanding the job satisfaction in the ‘educational
settings’ (Karimi, 2007). Others have used it as a theoretical framework for assessing the police
officers’ job satisfaction (Getahun et al., 2007) however, a review of literature revealed
criticisms of the motivator-hygiene theory (Karimi, 2007). For example, the theory ignores
individual differences and wrongfully assumes that all employees react in a similar manner to
the changes in motivators and hygiene factors (Wikipedia, 2009).
Theory X & Y (Douglas McGregor) (1960)
After observing and understanding the manner in which managers handle the employees,
McGregor proposed that the manager’s view about the nature of human being is founded on a
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 1387
JANUARY 2012
VOL 3, NO 9
group of assumptions and that managers change their behavior toward their subordinates
according to these ‘assumptions’ about different employees (Robbins, 1998:170).
Assumptions of Theory X [Negative view of Human-being]
• Human beings have an inherent dislike of work and avoid it if possible.
• Due to this behavior, people must be coerced, controlled, directed, and threatened with
punishment to make them work.
• They prefer to be directed, avoid responsibility, have little ambition, and want security
(Weihrich & Koontz, 1999:466).
Theory Y Assumptions [Positive view of Human-being]
• Physical and mental efforts in work are as natural as play and rest.
• External control and threat are not the only means for producing effort. People can
practice self-direction and self-control in achieving objectives.
• The degree of commitment to objectives is determined by the size of rewards attached
with achievement.
• Under proper conditions, human beings learn and not only accept responsibility but also
seek it (Weihrich & Koontz, 1999:467).
Theory of Needs - Achievement Theory (McCelelland, David 1961)
McCelelland and Associates postulated that some people have a compelling drive to succeed
and therefore strive for personal achievement rather than the rewards of success themselves.
They have the desire to perform better than before therefore they like challenging jobs and
behave as ‘high achievers’ (Shajahan & Shajahan, 2004:95). This theory focuses on the
achievement motive thus, called ‘achievement theory’ but it is founded on achievement, power
and affiliation motives:
1. Achievement: This is the drive to excel and achieve beyond the standards of success.
2. Power: It refers to the desire to have an impact, to be influential, and to control others
(Shajahan & Shajahan, 2004:95; Robbins, 2005:53).
3. Affiliation: It is the desire for having friendly and close interpersonal relationships
(Shajahan & Shajahan, 2004:95). Those with high affiliation prefer cooperative rather
than competitive situations (Robbins, 2005:53).
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 1388
JANUARY 2012
VOL 3, NO 9
ERG Theory (Alderfer, Clayton P.) (1969)
Clayton Alderfer (1969) explored the Maslow’s theory and linked it with practical research. He
regrouped the Maslow’s list of needs into three classes of needs: Existence, Relatedness, and
Growth, thereby calling it ERG theory. His classification absorbs the Maslow’s division of
needs into: Existence (physiological and security needs), Relatedness (social and esteem needs)
and Growth (self-actualization) (Shajahan & Shajahan, 2004:94). Alderfer suggested a
continuum of needs rather than hierarchical levels or two factors of needs. Unlike Maslow and
Herzberg, Alderfer does not suggest that a lower-level need must be fulfilled before a higher-
level need becomes motivating or that deprivation is the only way to activate a need (Luthans,
2005:244).
Process Theories
Process theories are more concerned with ‘how the motivation takes place?’ Similarly, the
concept of ‘expectancy’ from ‘cognitive theory’ plays dominant role in the process theories of
job-satisfaction (Luthans, 2005:246). Thus, these theories strive to explain how the needs and
goals are fulfilled and accepted cognitively (Perry et al., 2006). Several process-based theories
have been suggested. Some of such theories have been used by researchers as hypotheses, tested
and found them thought-provoking. The well known theoretical models for process motivation
are:
Equity Theory (J. Stacy Adams) (1963)
This theory suggests that employees weigh what they put into a job (input) against what they get
from it (outcome) and then compare this ratio with the input-outcome ratio of other workers. If
they find this ratio equal to that of the relevant others, a state of equity is said to exist (Robbins,
2005:58). The equity theory has extensively been studied over the past few decades under the
title of distributive justice (Yusof & Shamsuri, 2006). It has been found that rewards increase
employee satisfaction only when these rewards are valued and perceived as equitable by the
employees (Perry et al., 2006).
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 1389
JANUARY 2012
VOL 3, NO 9
Vroom’s Expectancy Theory (1964)
Victor H. Vroom asserts that people are motivated to work to achieve a goal if they believe that
that goal is worthy and there is the probability that what they do will help them in achieving
their goals (Weihrich & Koontz, 1999:470). Vroom’s theory is based on three major variables:
valance, expectancy and instrumentality. Valance is the strength of an individual’s preference
(or value, incentive, attitude, and expected utility) for a particular output. Expectancy is the
probability that a particular effort will lead to a particular first-level outcome while
instrumentality is the degree to which a first-level outcome will lead to a desired second-level
outcome. For example, a person can be motivated (motivational force or effort) toward better
performance (first-level output) to realize promotion (second-level output) (Luthans, 2005:247).
Expectancy theory recognizes the importance of various individual needs and motivations
(Weihrich & Koontz, 1999:471). It suggests that rewards used to influence employee behavior
must be valued by individuals (Perry et al., 2006). Therefore, theory is considered as the “most
comprehensive theory of motivation and job satisfaction (Robbins, 2005:60).” It explains that
motivation is a product of three factors: how much reward is wanted (valance), the estimate of
probability that effort will lead to the successful performance (expectancy), and the estimate that
performance will result in getting the reward (instrumentality) - explained as ‘Valance ×
Expectancy × Instrumentality = Motivation’ (Newstrom, 2007:115).
Porter/Lawler Expectancy Model (1968)
This model is very popular explanation of the job satisfaction process. Porter and Lawler stress
that ‘effort’ (force or strength of motivation) does not lead directly to ‘performance.’ It is rather
moderated by the ‘abilities and traits’ and the ‘role perceptions’ of an employee. Furthermore,
‘satisfaction’ is not dependent on performance rather determined by the ‘probability of receiving
fair rewards’ (Weihrich & Koontz, 1999:473). The Porter-Lawler model suggests that
motivation is affected by several interrelated cognitive factors, such as motivation results from
the ‘perceived effort-reward probability.’ However, before this effort is translated into
performance, the ‘abilities and traits’ and ‘role-perceptions’ of employee affect on the efforts
used for performance. Furthermore, it is the ‘perceived equitable rewards’, which determine
‘job-satisfaction’ of the workforce (Luthans, 2005:249).
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 1390
JANUARY 2012
VOL 3, NO 9
Goal-Setting Theory (Locke, 1968)
Edwin Locke (In late 1960s) asserted that intentions can be a major source of motivation and
satisfaction (Shajahan & Shajahan, 2004:95). Some specific goals (intentions) lead to increased
performance, for example, difficult goals (when accepted) lead to higher performance than easy
goals and that feedback triggers higher performance than no feedback. Likewise, ‘specific hard’
goals produce a higher level of output than ‘generalized’ goals of ‘do your best’. Furthermore,
people will do better when they get feedback on how well they are progressing toward their
goals as feedback identifies discrepancies between what have they done and what they want to
do. All those studies, which tested goal-setting theory, demonstrate that challenging goals with
feedback, work as motivating forces (Robbins, 2005:54).
The goal-setting theory is the most researched theory of employee motivation, for example, it
has been applied to the study of more than 40,000 participants' performance on well over 100
different tasks in eight countries in both lab and field settings (Perry et al., 2006). Goal theory
suggests that difficult goals demand focus on problems, increase sense of goal importance, and
encourage persistence to achieve the goals. Goal theory can be combined with cognitive theories
to better understand the phenomena, for example, greater self-efficacy is positively related to
employees’ perception that they are successfully contributing to meaningful work and therefore
foster enhanced work motivation (Moynihan & Pandey, 2007).
Job Characteristics Theory (Hackman & Oldham) (1975-76)
Job characteristics are aspects of the individual employee’s job and tasks that shape how the
individual perceives his or her particular role in the organization. Hackman and Oldham's (1980)
original formulation of job characteristics theory argued that the outcomes of job redesign were
influenced by several moderators. These moderators include the differences to which various
employees desire personal or psychological progress (Perry et al., 2006). The clarity of tasks
leads to greater job satisfaction because greater role clarity creates such workforce, which is
more satisfied with, committed to, and involved in work (Moynihan & Pandey, 2007).
The jobs that are rich in motivating characteristics trigger psychological states, which in turn
increases the likelihood of desired outcomes. For example, the significance of a task can ignite a
sense of meaningfulness of work that leads to effective performance (Perry et al., 2006). More
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 1391
JANUARY 2012
VOL 3, NO 9
precisely, the model states that there are five core job characteristics (skill variety, task identity,
task significance, autonomy, and feedback) which impact three critical psychological states
(experienced meaningfulness, experienced responsibility for outcomes, and knowledge of the
actual results), in turn influencing work outcomes (job satisfaction, absenteeism, work
motivation, etc.) (Wikipedia, 2009).
DISCUSSION
Synthesizing the Diversity of Theories
The researchers comment that one of the errors in using theoretical frameworks is the tendency
to overlook the need for ‘compromising, or blending’ while there is a little doubt about the fact
that the “ability to compromise with the least of undesired consequences is the essence of art
(Koontz & O'Donnell, 1972:7).” Role of theory is to provide a means of classifying significant
and pertinent knowledge (Weihrich & Koontz, 1999:13). Several motivational models are
available. All these models have strengths and weaknesses as well as advocates and critics.
Though, no model is perfect, but each of them adds something to understanding the motivational
and satisfaction process. While new models are emerging, there are also efforts to integrate the
existing approaches (Newstrom, 2007:122; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007).
Table 1: Showing the Synthesis of Motivation/Satisfaction Theories
Human
Requirements Human Behavior (Mediated by the
personal, job-related, environmental and
organizational characteristics)
Rewards for
Human Behavior
Fulfilled
Requirement
Needs Efforts/Performance Rewards Satisfaction
Physical, Cognitive
& Social Needs
[Hierarchy of Needs
Maslow 1943/54;
Two-Factor Theory
Herzberg - 1959;
ERG Theory
Alderfer 1969;
Achievement Theory
McClelland 1961
1. Personal Characteristics [Theory X
& Y McGregor 1960; Expectancy
Theory Vroom 1963; Porter &
Lawler Model 1968; Attribution
Theory; Control Theory Scott &
Snell 1992]
2. Job Characteristics [Job-
characteristics Theory Hackman &
Oldham]
3. Environmental Characteristics
[Hawthorne Studies Mayo]
4. Organizational/Management
Characteristics [Reinforcement
Theory Skinner 1953/69; Goal
Setting Theory Locke 1968; Control
Theory Scott & Snell 1992; Agency
Theory Hill & Jones 1992]
Intrinsic &
Extrinsic Rewards
[Scientific
Management
Taylor 1911;
Porter & Lawler
Model 1968;
Reinforcement
Theory Skinner
1953/69; Perceived
Equity Theory
Adams 1963]
If satisfied, the
worker is likely to
repeat the same
behavior. If
dissatisfied, the
worker is more
likely to discontinue
the same behavior.
[16 Theories]
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 1392
JANUARY 2012
VOL 3, NO 9
Cultural Limitations
Most of the motivation/satisfaction theories were developed in USA by natives for natives. So
we need to be careful in assuming that these theoretical models are workable across the cultures
in the same manner. For example, almost all the theories emphasize individualism and
achievement, which are pro-American characteristic (Robbins, 2005:61). Thus, the story of
these theory changes from one culture to another due to several factors. For example, religion
attaches varying values with diverse needs/motives thereby changing the importance of different
needs in different religious beliefs (Luthans, 2005:258), which definitely modifies the
hypotheses of the original theories.
The well known research by a Dutch researcher Geert Hofstede identifies four cultural
dimensions to help and explain how and why people from various cultures behave as they do.
These dimensions also explain the reasons for modifying the theories according to the specific
dimensions of every single nation and culture. The researcher filled 116,000 questionnaires from
the IBM employees from 70 countries (Hofstede, 1980). He found that cultures are different on
the following four dimensions:
• Power distance: People in societies where authority is obeyed without question live in a
high power distance culture. In cultures with high power distance, managers can make
autocratic decisions and the subordinates follow unquestionably. Many Latin and Asian
countries like Malaysia, Philippines, Panama, Guatemala, Venezuela, and Mexico
demonstrate high power distance but America, Canada and several countries such as
Denmark, UK, and Australia are moderate or low on power distance (Rugman &
Hodgetts, 2002:133).
• Uncertainty avoidance: It refers to understanding the tendency of people to face or avoid
uncertainty - are they risk-takers or risk-avoiders. Research reveals that people in Latin
countries (in Europe and South America) do not like uncertainty. However, nations in
Denmark, Sweden, UK, Ireland, Canada, and USA like uncertainty or ambiguity. While
Asian countries like Japan and Korea fall in the middle of these extremes (Luthans,
2005:257).
• Individualism is the tendency of people to look after themselves and their immediate
family only. On the contrary is the collectivism, the tendency of people to belling to
groups that look after each other in exchange for loyalty. For example, US, UK,
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 1393
JANUARY 2012
VOL 3, NO 9
Netherlands, and Canada have high individualism but Ecuador, Guatemala, Pakistan and
Indonesia have low individualism (Rugman & Hodgetts, 2002:134).
• Masculinity: If the dominant values of a society are ‘success, money and things’ in
contrast to femininity (caring for others and the quality of life), the society is known as
‘Masculine’. Research tells that Japan, Austria, Venezuela, and Mexico are high on
masculinity values than Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Netherlands while America is
moderate on these two extremes (Rugman & Hodgetts, 2002:134).
The researchers pinpoint that there are more differences than similarities in the application of
various job satisfaction theories (Luthans, 2005:258). For example, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs
demonstrates more the American culture than the countries like Japan, Greece, or Mexico,
where uncertainty avoidance characteristics are strong, safety needs would be on top of the
needs hierarchy (Robbins, 2005:61-62). Despite these differences, all the theories of job-
satisfaction share some similarities, for example, they encourage mangers not only to consider
lower-level factors rather use higher-order, motivational, and intrinsic factors as well to
motivate and thereby satisfy the workforce (Newstrom, 2007:123).
CONCLUSIONS
There is common saying that theories are neither right nor wrong rather different views of
reality (Checkland, 1981:44). They are actually different perceptions (views) wherein every
researcher visualizes the same attributes of the situation but gives them meaning from his/her
own perspective thereby creating a difference of perception, which is again a psychological truth
in the sense that psychologists even suggest that human cannot see the reality they simply
develop a unique perception of it (Luthans, 1995:86). However, “at present there is a lack of
integration or synthesis of the various theories (Luthans, 2005:240).’
However, mere knowledge of theory cannot guarantee the successful practice unless one is clear
about how to use it therefore any system of principles and theory demand clear concepts, which
provide “mental images of a thing formed by generalization from particulars (Koontz &
O'Donnell, 1972:11).” Thus, good theories need to be practical, by addressing the behavioral
issues through adding to our understanding of workers, work environment and organizational
objectives (Newstrom, 2007:6).
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 1394
JANUARY 2012
VOL 3, NO 9
Both content and process theories aim at generating the understanding of the work situations by
postulating the ‘human behavior.’ Though most of the theories try to become global views of
reality (employee and work environment characteristics) however, research has revealed that
these theories are culture-specific. Since most of the job satisfaction theories have generated in
USA therefore match more closely with the American culture (Rugman & Hodgetts, 2002;
Luthans, 2005; Robbins, 2005). However, since cultures are different therefore the same
‘Needs’ have different meanings and prioritization with the change in the culture.
Furthermore, these theories need to be restructured according to the new areas of research in
human psychology, for example, ‘positive psychology’ movement is now earning footings
among the researchers on human motivation and job satisfaction (Seligman, 1998). This
thinking emerged from the argument that so far psychology has been exclusively preoccupied
with controlling negative, pathological aspects of human behavior. Thus, positive psychology
emerged as a scientific method to discover and promote the factors that allow individuals,
groups, organizations, and communities to thrive and prosper. These factors are optimism, hope,
happiness, resiliency, confidence, and self efficacy (Luthans, 2005:271). Thus, theories of job
satisfaction have to be tested against these emerging factors of positive psychology and their
impact on human behavior at individual, group and organizational levels.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 1395
JANUARY 2012
VOL 3, NO 9
References
Checkland, P. (1981). Systems thinking: Systems practice. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Ellickson, Mark C., and Logsdo K. (2001). Determinants of job satisfaction of Municipal
Government employees”. State and Local Government Review. Volume 33 (3) 173-184.
Griffin, R. W. (1990). Management. 3rd ed. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston, USA.
Getahun, Seble, Sims B, & Hummer D. (2007). Job Satisfaction and Organizational
Commitment among Probation and Parole Officers: A Case Study. Available at:
http://www.picj.org/docs/issue5.Vol: 13 (1).
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York: Wiley.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: Internal differences in work-related values.
Beverly Hills CA: Sage Publications.
Karimi, S. (2008). Affecting Job Satisfaction of Faculty Members of Bu-Ali Sina University,
Hamedan, Iran. Scientific & Research Quarterly Journal of Mazandaran University,
23(6), 89-104.
Koontz, H. & C. O'Donnell (1972) Principles of management: An analysis of managerial
functions. 5th ed. McGraw-Hill. Kogahusha ltd.
Luthans, F. (1995) Organizational behavior. 7th ed. McGraw-Hill.
Luthans, F. (2005) Organizational behavior. 10th ed. McGraw-Hill.
Maslow, A. H. (1943) A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, July, 370-396.
McGregor, D. (1960) “The human side of enterprise”. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Moynihan, D. P. & Pandey, S. K. (2007) Finding Workable Levers over Work Motivation
Comparing Job Satisfaction, Job Involvement, and Organizational Commitment.
University of Wisconsin–Madison, the University of Kansas, Lawrence.
Newstrom, J. W. (2007). Organizational behavior: Human behavior at work. Tata McGraw-Hill
Publishing C. Ltd.
Perry, J. L., Mesch, D., & Paarlberg, L. (2006). Motivating Employees in a New Governance
Era: The Performance Paradigm Revisited. Public Administration Review. Volume 66
(4).
Robbins & Stephen P. (1998). Organizational behavior: Concepts, controversies and
Applications. Prentice-Hall.
Rugman, A. M. & Hodgetts, R. M. (2002). International business. 3rd ed.
Shajahan, D. S. & Shajahan, L. (2004) Organization behavior. New Age International
Publications.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 1396
JANUARY 2012
VOL 3, NO 9
Saif-ud-Din, Khair-uz-Zaman, & Nawaz, A. (2010). Impacts of Demographic Variables on Job-
satisfaction of the Academicians in Universities of NWFP, Pakistan. Bulletin of
Education and Research, 32(1), 53-68.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1998). Positive social science. APA Monitor, April, P.2.
Tirmizi, Ali M, Malik M.I & Mahmood-ul-Hasan (2008). Measuring satisfaction: An
investigation regarding age, tenure and job satisfaction of white collar employees.
Available at: http://icbm.bangkok.googlepages.com/3.Muhammad.Ali.Tirmizi.PAR.pdf
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, Wiley & Sons.
Weihrich, H. & Koontz H. (1999) Management: A global perspective. 10th ed. McGraw-Hill.
Inc.
Wikipedia, (2009) Job satisfaction. Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/job_satisfaction/
Yusof, A. A., & Shamsuri N. A. (2006). Organizational justice as a determinant of job
satisfaction and organizational commitment. University Utara Malaysia Faculty of
Human and Social Development. Malaysian Management Review, 41 (1).
