Content uploaded by Allah Nawaz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Allah Nawaz on Jan 03, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Gomal University Journal of Research, 26(2), 45-62.
45
GUJR-Gomal University DIK KP Pakistan
THEORIES OF JOB-SATISFACTION:
GLOBAL APPLICATIONS & LIMITATIONS
Abdul Sattar Khan,
1
Shadiullah Khan,
2
Allah Nawaz
3
& Qamar Afaq Qureshi
Abstract
Several theories have been proposed to view this attitude of job satisfaction in the
organizational work environment. Human behavior is made of belief (cognition) and
action (physical) therefore most of the theories either emphasize cognitive or prioritize
action/behavior levels to be important in the employee‟s attitudes of
motivation/satisfaction. Still another group of theories cover individual and group
characteristics, attributes of the work environment, organizational and managerial context
and broader social contexts of the organization as the determinants of job satisfaction.
However, an analysis of all the leading theories suggests that these are neither
contradictory nor replace one another rather all are complementary and supplementary in
explaining different dimensions of the human motivation leading to job satisfaction. This
paper is an attempt to synthesize the front line theories into a conceptual model wherein
the respective contribution of each model is identified.
INTRODUCTION
Motivation refers to the drive and effort to satisfy a want or goal. Satisfaction refers to
the contentment experienced when a want is satisfied. Motivation implies a drive toward
an outcome, and satisfaction is the outcome already experienced (Weihrich & Koontz,
1999:465). Job satisfaction is a general attitude, which is the result of many specific
attitude in three areas such as job factors, individual or personal characteristics and other
social and groups‟ relationship outside the job (Shajahan & Shajahan, 2004:116). When
people join an organization, they bring with them certain drives and needs that affect
their on the job performance. Sometimes these are immediately apparent, but often they
not only are difficult to determine and satisfy but also vary greatly from one person to
another. Understanding how needs create tensions which stimulate effort to perform and
how effective performance brings the satisfaction of rewards is useful for managers
(Newstrom, 2007:123).
To explain and understand the phenomena of „job-satisfaction‟ several theories have been
suggested (Maslow, Vroom, Adams etc.) and this effort continues forever because as
things change, the old theory needs to be either modified, or replaced with a new model.
Theories are the scientific tools, which are used to identify factors of job satisfaction and
their mutual relationships during the motivation and job-satisfaction process (Griffin,
1990:67). With the passage of time the number of these factors changes as well as the
inter-relations therefore new theories emerge. Furthermore, strength of organizational
1
Assistant professor, Department of Public Administration, Gomal University, DIKhan.
2
Professor, Department of Public Administration, Gomal University, DIKhan.
3
-4 Assistant Professor, Department of Public Administration, Gomal University, DIKhan.
Gomal University Journal of Research, 26(2), 45-62.
46
GUJR-Gomal University DIK KP Pakistan
behavior is its interdisciplinary nature and its emerging base of research knowledge,
models, and conceptual frameworks. The keys to its past and future success revolve
around the related processes of theory development, research and managerial practice
(Newstrom, 2007:6).
JOB SATISFACTION
The attitude of job satisfaction is a field of major interest to the researchers of
organizational behavior and the practice of human resource management (Luthans,
2005:211). Job satisfaction is the degree to which individuals feel positively or negatively
about their jobs. It is an attitude or emotional response to one‟s tasks as well as to the
physical and social conditions of the workplace, for example, from the perspective of
Herzberg‟s two-factor theory the contents of the job (i.e. achievement, responsibility,
recognition etc) are the motivators, which lead to positive employment relationships and
high level of job-satisfaction (Tirmizi et al., 2008).
Job satisfaction is defined and measured with reference to various factors of the job.
Regardless of the theoretical approach used to study job satisfaction, most studies have
identified at least two general categories of antecedent variables. Environmental factors –
personal characteristics both focuses on job satisfaction and individual attributes and
characteristics (Ellickson & Logsdon, 2001). This is a general attitude, which is the result
of many specific attitude in three areas such as job factors, individual or personal
characteristics and other social and groups‟ relationship outside the job (Shajahan &
Shajahan, 2004:116). Another researcher notes that the literature on employee
motivation, commitment, and job satisfaction proposes that organizational attitudes are
driven by both personal as well as work context (Moynihan & Pandey, 2007).
THEORIES OF JOB-SATISFACTION
Theory is a structure of fundamental concepts and principles around which knowledge in
a field is organized. Principles are regarded as fundamental truths which can be used to
describe and predict the results of certain variables in a given situation (Koontz &
O'Donnell, 1972:92). Theory is a conceptual device for organizing knowledge and
providing a framework for action. It is a roadmap to guide towards goals (Griffin,
1990:37). Theory is a systematic grouping of interdependent concepts and principles that
gives a framework to or ties together a significant area of knowledge (Weihrich &
Koontz, 1999:13). Theories offer explanations of how and why people think, feel, and act
as they do. Theories identify important variables and link them to form tentative
propositions that can be tested through research (Newstrom, 2007:6).
The executive attempting to manage without a theory, and knowledge structured by it,
must trust to luck, intuition, or what he did in the past; with organized knowledge he has
a far better opportunity to design a workable and sound solution to a managerial problem
(Koontz & O'Donnell, 1972:7) because, theories are important as organizers of
knowledge and as roadmaps to action (Griffin, 1990:67) and “there is nothing so practical
as a good theory (Luthans, 1995:13).” Theories are a classification, a set of pigeon holes,
a filing cabinet in which facts can be accumulated to make sense and thereby decisions
(Weihrich & Koontz, 1999:13).
Gomal University Journal of Research, 26(2), 45-62.
47
GUJR-Gomal University DIK KP Pakistan
Though most of the discussions about the theories of job-satisfaction start with Maslow‟s
theory of „Hierarchy of Needs‟ (1943) however, the story actually begins from early
decades of the 20th century with the theory of „Scientific Management‟ commonly
referred to as „Taylorism‟ by Frederick W. Taylor (1911) wherein humans are treated as
„Economic-men‟ therefore „Money‟ is considered the biggest motivator for job-
satisfaction. This view was then split apart 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
Across the literature, theories about the job-satisfaction have consistently been grouped
either on the „nature of theoris‟ or „chronological appearance these theories. For example,
Dr S. Shajahan & Linu Shajahan (2004:90-99) give nature-based grouping as 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).
Fred Luthans (2005: 240-256) have been using a mix of nature-based and historically
founded classifications since his first writings on the topic (See for example, Luthans,
1995) organized the theories into Content (Needs Hierarchy, Two-Factors, and ERG
theories); Process (Expectancy theory and Porter & Lawler model); and Contemporary
(Equity, Control and Agency theories). However, Stephen P. Robbins (2005:48-61)
applies single base of chronology and categorizes the job satisfaction 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). At
present the content and process theories have become established explanations for work
motivation.
Content Theories
The content theories base on what motivates people at work that is, identifying the needs,
drives and incentives/goals and their prioritization by the individual to get satisfaction
and thus perform effectively (Luthans, 2005:240). Researchers have prepared different
lists of biological, psychological, social and higher order needs or requirements of human
beings. Almost all the researchers have categorized these needs into primary, secondary
and high level requirements of employees, which need to be fulfilled whenever worker is
required to be motivated and satisfied. There are several content theories, which guide the
managers in understanding „what motivates the workforce?‟
Gomal University Journal of Research, 26(2), 45-62.
48
GUJR-Gomal University DIK KP Pakistan
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).” Capitalizing mainly on humanistic
psychology and the clinical experiences, Abraham Maslow postulated that an individual‟s
motivational needs could be arranged in 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 in his need hierarchy:
1. Physical needs: (food, clothing, shelter, sex),
2. Safety needs: (physical protection),
3. Social: (opportunities to develop close associations with other persons),
4. Esteem/Achievement needs: (prestige received from others), and
5. Self-Actualization: (opportunities for self-fulfillment and accomplishment
through personal growth) (Maslow, 1943).
Furthermore, individual need satisfaction is influenced both by the importance attached to
various needs and the degree to which each individual perceive that different aspects of
his or her life should, and actually do, fulfill these needs (Karimi, 2007). Some argue that
Maslow‟s hierarchy of needs theory is the first motivation theory actually laid the
foundation for „job satisfaction theory‟. This theory served as a good basis from which
early researchers could develop job satisfaction theories (Wikipedia, 2009).
Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory (1959)
Herzberg developed a specific work motivation theory. He did a motivational study on
about 200 accountants and engineers employed by firms in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He
used the 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? (Luthans, 2005:243).
Tabulating these reported good and bad feelings, Herzberg concluded that job satisfiers
(motivators) are related to job content and that job dissatisfiers (Hygiene factors) are
allied to job context. Motivators relate to the job contents like Achievement, Recognition,
Work itself, Responsibility and Advancement). They hygiene factors do not
„motivate/satisfy‟ rather „prevent dissatisfaction.‟ These factors relate to the context of
the job such as, Company policy, Administration, Supervision, Salary, Interpersonal
relations, Supervisor, and Working conditions (Herzberg et al., 1959).
The theory has been admired as the most useful model to study job satisfaction (Kim,
2004), for example, the theory has been found supported in educational settings (Karimi,
2007) and it has been used as a theoretical framework for scientifically assessing police
officers‟ job satisfaction (Getahun et al., 2007) however, a review of literature revealed
criticisms of the motivator-hygiene theory (Karimi, 2007). For example, researchers have
not been able to empirically prove the model. Likewise, the theory ignores the individual
differences and assumes that all employees react in a similar manner to the changes in
Gomal University Journal of Research, 26(2), 45-62.
49
GUJR-Gomal University DIK KP Pakistan
motivators and hygiene factors. The model is also criticized for suggesting no specific
method to measure the factors of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction (Wikipedia, 2009).
Gomal University Journal of Research, 26(2), 45-62.
50
GUJR-Gomal University DIK KP Pakistan
Theory X & Y (Douglas McGregor)(1960)
After viewing the way in which managers dealt with employees, McGregor concluded
that a manager‟s view of the nature of human being is based on a certain grouping of
assumptions and that he or she tends to mold his or her behavior toward subordinates
according to these „assumptions‟ (Robbins, 1998:170).
Theory X Assumptions
Average human beings have an inherent dislike of work and will avoid it if they
can.
Because of disliking work, most people must be coerced, controlled, directed, and
threatened with punishment to get them work for organization.
Average human beings prefer to be directed, wish to avoid responsibility, have
relatively little ambition, and want security (Weihrich & Koontz, 1999:466).
Theory Y Assumptions
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 toward
organizational objectives. People will exercise self-direction and self-control in
achieving committed objectives.
Degree of commitment to objectives is in proportion to the size of the rewards
associated with achievement.
Average human beings learn, under proper conditions, not only to accept
responsibility but also to seek it (Weihrich & Koontz, 1999:467).
Theory of Needs - Achievement Theory (David McClelland, 1961)
McCelelland and Associates argued that some people have a compelling drive to succeed.
They are striving for personal achievement rather than the rewards of success per se. they
have desire to do something better or more efficiently than it has been done before so
they prefer challenging work - these are high achievers (Shajahan & Shajahan, 2004:95).
Theory emphasizes on the achievement motives thus, also known as „achievement
theory‟ however model includes three interrelated needs or motives:
1. Achievement: The drive to excel, to achieve in relation to asset of standards, to
strive to succeed.
2. Power: The need to make others behave in a way that they would not have
behaved otherwise (Shajahan & Shajahan, 2004:95). It refers to the desire to have
an impact, to be influential, and to control others (Robbins, 2005:53).
3. Affiliation: The desire for friendly and close interpersonal relationships (Shajahan
& Shajahan, 2004:95). People with high affiliation prefer cooperative situations
rather than competitive ones (Robbins, 2005:53).
ERG Theory (Clayton P. Alderfer.) (1969)
Gomal University Journal of Research, 26(2), 45-62.
51
GUJR-Gomal University DIK KP Pakistan
Clayton Alderfer (1969) has reworked Maslow‟s need hierarchy to align it more closely
with the empirical research. He did a grouping of the Maslow‟s hierarchy of needs into
three groups of needs: Existence, Relatedness, and Growth, thus ERG theory. His
classification of needs 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 is suggesting more of a
continuum of needs than hierarchical levels or two factors of prepotency needs. Unlike
Maslow and Herzberg, he does not content 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
Unlike content theories, process theories are more concerned with „how the motivation
takes place?‟ The concept of „expectancy‟ from „cognitive theory‟ plays dominant role in
the process theories of job-satisfaction (Luthans, 2005:246). Thus, process theories try to
explain how the needs and goals are fulfilled and accepted cognitively (Perry et al.,
2006). A number of process-oriented theories have been suggested. Some of these
theories have caught the attention of researchers who tested these hypotheses in different
environments and found them thought-provoking. The leading theoretical formats in
process domain are the following:
Equity Theory (J. Stacy Adams)(1963)
Equity theory says that employees weigh what they put into a job situation (input) against
what they get from it (outcome) and then compare their input-outcome ratio with the
input-outcome ratio of relevant others. If they perceive their ratio to be equal to that of
the relevant others with whom they compare themselves, a state of equity is said to exist
(Robbins, 2005:58). The first of these fairness perceptions - distributive justice - has been
extensively studied over the past few decades under the more readily recognizable name
of equity theory (Yusof & Shamsuri, 2006). Continuing through the motivation cycle
suggests that high performance leads to the receipt of rewards, both intrinsic and
extrinsic, which leads to increased employee satisfaction when such rewards are valued
by the employee and perceived as equitable (Perry et al., 2006).
Vroom’s Expectancy Theory (1964)
Victor H. Vroom holds that people will be motivated to do things to reach a goal if they
believe in the worth of that goal and if they can see (probability) that what they do will
help them in achieving them (Weihrich & Koontz, 1999:470). Vroom‟s theory is
characterized with 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 refers to 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 would be motivated (motivational force or effort) toward superior
Gomal University Journal of Research, 26(2), 45-62.
52
GUJR-Gomal University DIK KP Pakistan
performance (first-level output) to realize promotion (second-level output) (Luthans,
2005:247).
Vroom recognizes the importance of various individual needs and motivations (Weihrich
& Koontz, 1999:471). For example, expectancy theory suggests that rewards used to
influence employee behavior must be valued by individuals (Perry et al., 2006). Thus,
theory is considered as the “most comprehensive theory of motivation and job
satisfaction (Robbins, 2005:60).” This theory explains that motivation is a product of
three factors: how much one wants a reward (valance), one‟s estimate of the probability
that effort will result in the successful performance (expectancy), and one‟s estimate that
performance will result n receiving the reward (instrumentality), which is explained as
„Valance × Expectancy × Instrumentality = Motivation‟ (Newstrom, 2007:115).
Porter/Lawler Expectancy Model (1968)
Porter and Lawler point out that „effort‟ (force or strength of motivation) does not lead
directly to „performance.‟ It is moderated by „abilities and traits‟ and by „role
perceptions.‟ Similarly, the „satisfaction‟ does not depend on performance rather it is
determined by the „probability of receiving fair rewards‟ (Weihrich & Koontz,
1999:473). The Porter-Lawler motivation model suggests that motivation depends on
several interrelated cognitive factors, for example, effort stems from the „perceived
effort-reward probability‟ before it is initiated. However, before this effort is converted
into performance, the „abilities and traits‟ plus „role-perceptions‟ cast moderating effect
on the real efforts invested for performance. Finally, it is the „perceived equitable
rewards‟, which determines „job-satisfaction.‟ (Luthans, 2005:249).
Goal-Setting Theory ( E dwin Locke, 1968)
In late 1960s, Edwin Locke argued that intentions, expressed as goals, can be a major
source of work motivation and satisfaction (Shajahan & Shajahan, 2004:95). Some
specific goals lead to increased performance. For example, difficult goals, when
accepted, result in higher performance than easy goals and that feedback leads to higher
performance than no feedback. Similarly, „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 professing toward their goals because
feedback helps to identify discrepancies between what they have done and what they
want to do. Studies testing goal-setting theory have demonstrated the superiority of
specific, challenging goals with feedback, as motivating forces (Robbins, 2005:54).
The goal-setting theory is the single most researched and dominant theory of employee
motivation in the field, for example, researchers have applied goal-setting theory to
studies 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 proposes
that difficult goals require focus on the problem, increase sense of goal importance, and
encourage persisting and working harder to achieve the goals. Goal theory can be
combined with cognitive theories to better understand the phenomena, for example,
cognitive tool of self-efficacy is the perception of the difficulty of a goal and ability to
Gomal University Journal of Research, 26(2), 45-62.
53
GUJR-Gomal University DIK KP Pakistan
achieve the goal. 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 (Hachman & Oldham)(1975-76)
Hackman and Oldham's (1980) original formulation of job characteristics theory argued
that the outcomes of job redesign were influenced by several moderators. Notable among
these moderators are differences in the degree to which various individuals or employees
desire personal or psychological development. (Perry et al., 2006). 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. The clarity of tasks leads to greater
job satisfaction. We expect that greater role clarity will create employees who are more
satisfied with, committed to, and involved in their work (Moynihan & Pandey, 2007).
The research reveals that jobs that are rich in motivating characteristics (i.e., task
significance) trigger psychological states (e.g., experienced meaningfulness of work)
among employees, which in turn increases the likelihood of desired outcomes. For
instance, the significance of a task can ignite a sense of meaningfulness of work that
leads to effective performance (Perry et al., 2006). More 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 Showing the Synthesis of Motivation/Satisfaction Theories
Human
Requirements
Human Behavior/Efforts to Meet those
Requirements (Mediated by the personal,
job-related, environmental and
organizational characteristics)
Rewards for
Human Behavior
Fulfilled
Requirements
Needs
Efforts/Performance
Rewards
Satisfaction
1. Personal Characteristics [Theory X & Y
Gomal University Journal of Research, 26(2), 45-62.
54
GUJR-Gomal University DIK KP Pakistan
Physical, Cognitive
& Social Needs
[Hierarchy of Needs
Maslow 1943/54;
Two-Factor Theory
Herzberg - 1959;
ERG Theory
Alderfer 1969;
Achievement
Theory McClelland
1961
McGregor 1960; Expectancy Theory
Vroom 1963; Porter & Lawler Model
1968; Attribution Theory; Control Theory
Scott & Snell 1992]
2. Job Characteristics [Job-characteristics
Theory Hachman & 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]
As said earlier, each theory aims at explaining the motivation and job satisfaction
attitudes of the employees so that managers can understand and thereby control the
organizational behavior in the favor of organization. The major difference between each
theory is the prioritization of the factors/variables involved in the process and their
mutual relationships. For example, „content theories‟ explain in terms of „what motivates
the employee?‟ while „process models‟ prioritize „how motivation/satisfaction takes place
both intellectually and physically.‟
Given these differences in approach, the researchers have positioned each theory across
the motivation/satisfaction process (needs – drive – incentive - satisfaction) on the basis
of „which aspect is emphasized and explained more by a particular theory. For example,
Maslow‟s theory is more about the needs (therefore comes in the 1st column for needs)
while „Equity theory‟ of Adams gives priority to the „equality of rewards‟ as the starting
point for the discussion on motivation and satisfaction (therefore placed in 3rd column of
rewards/incentives). The positioning of leading theories is an effort to argue that each
theory better explains a particular part of the whole process therefore using theories in
this manner will help researchers in benefiting from each theory thereby developing a
comprehensive story of motivation and job satisfaction process.
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 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:
Gomal University Journal of Research, 26(2), 45-62.
55
GUJR-Gomal University DIK KP Pakistan
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 belong to groups that look after each other in exchange for loyalty. For
example, US, UK, 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, Veneuela, 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
Theories are neither right nor wrong rather different views of reality (Checkland,
1981:44). These are 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). Furthermore, “at present there is a
lack of integration or synthesis of the various theories (Luthans, 2005:240).‟
Gomal University Journal of Research, 26(2), 45-62.
56
GUJR-Gomal University DIK KP Pakistan
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).
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.
Gomal University Journal of Research, 26(2), 45-62.
57
GUJR-Gomal University DIK KP Pakistan
References
1. Checkland, P (1981). Systems thinking: Systems practice. John Wiley & Sons
Ltd.
2. Griffin, R. W (1990). Management. 3rd ed. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston, USA.
3. Getahun, Seble., Barbara, Sims & Don Hummer (2007) Job Satisfaction and
organizational Commitment among Probation and Pay role officers: A case
Study: http://www.picj.org/docs/issue5. Vo1:3(1). ( Accessed on 17/9/2008).
4. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work.
New York: Wiley.
5. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture‟s consequences: Internal differences in work-
related values. Beverly Hills CA: Sage Publications.
6. Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N. (1998).
Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 17–34. http://home.ubalt.edu/tmitch/641/judge
(Accessed on 14/11/2009).
7. Karimi, S (2007). Factors Affecting Job Satisfaction of Faculty Members of Bu-
Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran. Department of Agricultural extension and
Education, College of Agriculture. Hamedan, Iran.
http://icbm.bangkok.googlepages.com/95.Saied.Karimi.PAR. ( Accessed on
12/7/2008).
8. Kim, J. C. (2004). The effects of work experiences and institutional support on
job satisfaction among ncaa coaches. Unpublished Thesis. Submitted to the
Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of Master of Science.
http://txspace.tamu.edu/bitstream/.../etd-tamu-2004A-KINE-Kim-1.pdf
9. Koontz, H. & C. O'Donnell (1972). Principles of management: An analysis of
managerial functions. 5th ed. McGraw-Hill. Kogahusha Ltd.
10. Locke, E. A. (1958). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, May, 157-189.
11. Luthans, F (1995). Organizational behavior. 7th ed. McGraw-Hill.
12. Luthans, F (2005). Organizational behavior. 10th ed. McGraw-Hill.
13. Maslow, A. H (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review,
July, 370-396.
14. McGregor, D (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.
15. 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. http://aas.sagepub.com (Accessed on 16/2/2009).
16. Newstrom, J. W (2007). Organizational behavior: Human behavior at work.
Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing C. Ltd.
17. Perry, J. L., Mesch, D. & Paarlberg, L (2006). Motivating Employees in a New
Governance Era: The Performance Paradigm Revisited. Public Administration
Review. Volume 66 | Number 4.
ras.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/75/1/53
18. Rugman, A. M. & Hodgetts, R. M (2002). International business. 3rd ed.
Gomal University Journal of Research, 26(2), 45-62.
58
GUJR-Gomal University DIK KP Pakistan
19. Seligman, M. E. P (1998). Positive social science. APA Monitor, April, P.2.
20. Shajahan, D. S. & Shajahan, L (2004). Organization behavior. New Age
International Publications.
21. Vroom, V. H (1964) Work and motivation. New York, Wiley & Sons.
22. Weihrich, H. & Harold Koontz (1999) Management: A global perspective. 10th
ed. McGraw-Hill. Inc.
23. Wiedmer, S. M (1998). An Examination of factors affecting employees
satisfaction. Department of Psychology, Missouri Western State University.
Missouri Western state university document copy right 2008.
http://clearinghouse.missouriwestern.edu/manuscripts/51. (Accessed on
18/5/2008).
24. Wikipedia, (2009) Job satisfaction. Available at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/job_satisfaction/ (accessed on February 12, 2009)
25. Yusof, A. A., & Shamsuri, N. A. (2006). Organizational justice as a determinant
of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Universiti Utara Malaysia
Faculty of Human and Social Development. Malaysian Management Review
Vol: 41(1). http://mgv.mim.edu.my/MMR/0606/frame.htm (Accessed on 14/8/2009).
Gomal University Journal of Research, 26(2), 45-62.
59
GUJR-Gomal University DIK KP Pakistan
Table of Contents
Abstract ......................................................................................................................... 45
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 45
JOB SATISFACTION ...................................................................................................... 46
THEORIES OF JOB-SATISFACTION ........................................................................... 46
CLASSIFICATION OF THE THEORIES ....................................................................... 47
Content Theories ........................................................................................................... 47
Maslow’s Theory of Motivation/Satisfaction (1943) ................................................ 48
Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory (1959) .................................................................... 48
Theory X & Y (Douglas McGregor)(1960) ............................................................... 50
Theory of Needs - Achievement Theory (David McClelland, 1961) ......................... 50
ERG Theory (Clayton P. Alderfer.) (1969) ............................................................... 50
Process Theories ........................................................................................................... 51
Equity Theory (J. Stacy Adams)(1963) ..................................................................... 51
Vroom’s Expectancy Theory (1964) ......................................................................... 51
Porter/Lawler Expectancy Model (1968) ................................................................. 52
Goal-Setting Theory ( E dwin Locke, 1968) ............................................................. 52
Job Characteristics Theory (Hachman & Oldham)(1975-76).................................. 53
DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................... 53
Synthesizing the Diversity of Theories ......................................................................... 53
Cultural Limitations ...................................................................................................... 54
CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................... 55
References ..................................................................................................................... 57
