Publication Year
Article Type

Structure of the Variables that Affect Job Satisfaction Study in Cuban Organizations

Empirical study

Citation Download PDF

International Journal of Management Science and Business Administration
Volume 4, Issue 4, May 2018, Pages 18-27

Structure of the Variables that Affect Job Satisfaction Study in Cuban Organizations

DOI: 10.18775/ijmsba.1849-5664-5419.2014.44.1002
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.18775/ijmsba.1849-5664-5419.2014.44.1002

1 Margarita de Miguel-Guzmán, 2 Alexander Sánchez-Rodríguez,
3 Reyner Pérez-Campdesuñer,
4 Gelmar García-Vidal, 5 Rodobaldo Martínez-Vivar

1 2 3 4 5 Faculty of Administrative Sciences, Universidad Tecnológica Equinoccial,
campus Santo Domingo, Ecuador

Abstract: This paper aims to establish a model of structural equations that summarizes the degree of incidence of variables related to job satisfaction in organizations. It starts from the identification of the variables to analyze according to the literature on the subject and those that were corroborated through the consultation of experts, later proceed to the construction of instruments for their measurement and application of these to 4,235 employees in 150 entities from different productive sectors. With the results obtained in the surveys, a confirmatory factor analysis was developed, which verified the incidence of the variables evaluated in the work satisfaction and later proceeded to the construction of the model. The model obtained shows the relationship between the different variables that affect job satisfaction and confirming its multifactorial character as a construct. The data that facilitated the generation of the model allow to establish a logic of management of the job satisfaction from managing in an integrated way the latent variables that condition them, ensuring their correct management, such as: the design of work content, working conditions, interpersonal relationships with peers in general and with managers in particular, policies and methods of stimulation and the group work. job satisfaction

Keywords: Job satisfaction, Cuban organizations, Model of structural equations

Structure of the Variables that Affect Job Satisfaction Study in Cuban Organizations

1. Introduction

The studies of job satisfaction (JS) are as old as they are different (1976, quoted by Alegre, Mas-Machuca and Berbegal-Mirabent, 2016), which is analyzed by varied sciences like Psychology and Organizational management. For this reason, among others, the variety of research on the subject is abundant. In some investigations they conceive it as an end, placing man in the center of attention (Park, Seo, Park, Bettini, and Smith, 2016). Others, as a means to impact on performance indicators, such as: Productivity, quality service, organizational commitment, staff turnover and absenteeism; where it is assumed as a general hypothesis that satisfied workers have greater commitment and create the conditions to raise quality, customer satisfaction and productivity and decrease staff turnover and absenteeism (Chen, Sparrow, and Cooper, 2016; Alvarez-García, Del Río-Rama, Saraiva, and Ramos-Pires, 2016; Amasonah, Gamor, Deri, and Amissah, 2016; Jafari Navimipour and Soltani, 2016; Chiang and Lin, 2016; Hsu and Liao, 2016; Amponsah-Tawiah, Annor, and Arthur, 2016; Hsu and Liao, 2016).Several investigations, on the other hand, seek to identify or understand which variables influence JS and how they interact (Alegre, et al., 2016; Amponsah-Tawiah, et al., 2016), while others seek to measure or evaluate the level of JS (Chang and Cheng, 2014; Row, Paik, Griffeth, and Allen, 2014; Macintosh and Krush, 2014; Spagnoli, Caetano, and Santos, 2012). This research aims to know, under an integral conception, what variables are involved in JS, and the extent to which they interrelate with each other. job satisfaction

2. Literature Review

According to Locke (1976): “…JS is a pleasant or positive emotional state resulting from the valuation of work or job experiences…”, cited by Alegre et al. (2016, p.1). Mihalic (cited in Álvarez-García, Del Río-Rama, Saraiva and Ramos-Pires, 2016) also defines job satisfaction as: “…something pleasant or positive, resulting from the perception of work, conception and evaluation of the work environment, job experiences and a perception of all elements of work and the workplace…”, Pires (p. 3). Several concepts of this theme are presented by Amissah et al. (2016) in which it is clear that in spite of the variety and common or conflicting points of view, they all result in ideas similar to those set forth by Locke (1976). These authors conclude and accept the idea that JS is not influenced by the same factors in all organizations, and that the variables to study and measure it must change from one organization to another. job satisfaction

In general, research on the subject presents a partial view of JS frequently focusing on the influence of a limited group of variables; observing the existence of five groups related to the content of work, working conditions, group work, the reward system and general variables that are associated with workers welfare conditions. These are not necessarily directly related to the organization or its way of operating but that affect the SL.In the group of variables related to the work content, researchers like Hsu and Liao (2016) emphasize the incidence of variables related to this aspect, considering variables such as the variety of skills, personal autonomy, task identity and the importance of the task, and the feedback of work that favors learning. job satisfaction

The working conditions, safety, and spirituality that must be ensured in the workplace are evaluated by researchers such as Beehner and Blackwell (2016), Consiglio, Borgogni, Di Tecco, and Schaufeli (2016). In this sense, specific analyzes have been developed like the incidence of non-territorial work in JS (Kim, Candido, Thomas, and de Dear, 2016). In terms of interpersonal relationships or group work, it was found leadership style analyzes, empowerment of workers, participation in decision-making, where positive relationships have generally been observed (Chiang and Lin, 2016; Edú-Valsania, Moriano, and Molero, 2016; Lee, Kim, and Perdue, 2016; Kim, Knutson, and Choi, 2016). For their part, Kanyurhi and Bugandwa Mungu Akonkwa (2016) analyze as conditioning variables: leadership, organizational structure, relationship with boss, supervisors and colleagues and the work itself. job satisfaction

In the same way, the incidence of the variables related to the reward of employees in JS has been deepened, with general investigations in this area like Baule and Soost (2016) and Miller et al (2016). Further research is focused on the development of concrete rewards schemes and the incidence of hierarchy in the organization as a form of reward (Ogwueleka and Maritz, 2016; Otto and Bolle, 2016). There are more particular studies that delve into specific variables within reward forms such as the effects of equity, stimulation methods and perception of payment system (Oxley and Pandher, 2016; Park and Sturman, 2016; Sieweke, Köllner, and Süß, 2016; Wickramasinghe and Wickramasinghe, 2016). job satisfaction

Welfare conditions are analyzed by Park et al. (2016), who introduced in the study variables that are exogenous to the organization such as personal experiences, vocational preparation, and satisfaction with life in general, but limit the study to a very particular field: people with disabilities. Similarly, Hu and Ho (2016) argue that a family-friendly environment favors JS.

There is another group of researchers (Alegre et al., 2016) who analyze variables from different groups in a mixed way, although they exclude variables of considerable importance, such as those who deepen the incidence of work organization, relationships with co-workers and supervisors, group work, personal autonomy and mastery of the strategy. Also, the research of Amissah et al. (2016) presents a particular analysis of the hotel industry and proposes to evaluate the following variables: salary, promotion, supervision, training, work content. Siengthai and Pila-Ngarm (2016) present a fairly general view of the study by identifying variables such as Possibilities for development, achievement and recognition, salary, relationships with supervisors and co-workers, status, participation in decision-making, working conditions and some welfare conditions, but their greater emphasis is on the variables related to the work content like personal autonomy, task identification, variety of skills, meaning of tasks and feedback. Another integral vision of the analysis is the one made by Álvarez Santos (2106), who proposes the integration of all variables treated in the literature but does not delve into whether they affect JS in general.

Similarly, in the previous literature, the techniques used to delve into JS are varied. For example, Baldschun, Töttö, Hämäläinen, and Salo (2016) perform a factorial analysis to demonstrate the multifactor nature of the construct studied, an idea to which are also added Kanyurhi and Bugandwa Mungu Akonkwa (2016). Lee et al. (2016) use cluster analysis to relay results consistent with the previous ones. In this sense, Alegre et al. (2016) present a mixture of models of structural equations with fuzzy set analysis and also use the structural equations analysis of Álvarez-García et al. (2016), Hsu and Liao (2016) and Park et al. (2016). job satisfaction

3. Methodology

3.1 Selection of the Variables That Condition the JS

In order to establish the study variables, the variables analyzed in the literature were reviewed and classified, which were submitted to the evaluation of a group of experts (11 university professors with PhD degrees related to business management who have carried out studies on this subject and have at least more than 12 years of research experience) were chosen, according to their competence coefficient, showing competences higher than 0.84. The initial review of the literature evidenced the existence of 33 variables with some degree of incidence in the JS, and the evaluation of the experts led to reducing the listing to 25, as shown in Table 1. It was included the variables selected by al less than 75% of experts. job satisfaction

Table 1: Summary of variables to be analyzed.

Variables Description
Sufficiency Perception that the salary reaches to satisfy basic needs
Correspondence Salary corresponds to what the worker is
Linking Salary corresponds to what the worker does
Equity Salaries are proportional to contributions
Perception It is understood the stimulation system
Recognition Moral acknowledgments are developed for the contributions
Variety Work demands a variety of skills
Identity The individual contribution is recognized in the final product
Social meaning Society recognizes the importance of work
Autonomy Decisions can be made in the workplace
Feedback The work shows the extent to which progress is made
Cohesion There is unity among the members of the working group
Attraction There is a desire to belong to the group
Relationships There are good relationships between group members
Participation Participation in group decision-making is allowed
Leadership Boss style is accepted
Esthetic Aesthetics is perceived in the place
Technical Material Assurance There are technical material conditions for the work
Security The job is safe
Hygiene There is hygiene in the premises and jobs
Personal development Work promotes personal development
Ergonomics The design of the workstation is ergonomic
Supporting services The entity offers support services to workers
Employment Security The worker considers having job security
Attention to life The entity offers additional conditions favorable to the life of the worker and his family

3.2 Design of the Method of Evaluation of the Variables

A survey was designed to know the state of the 25 variables chosen in the entities studied. A question was asked to assess the overall satisfaction of the entity. In all cases, the variables should be evaluated using a Likert scale from 1 to 5 (from “totally unsatisfied” to “totally satisfied”).

3.3 Sample Definition

The survey was applied to a varied group of representative organizations from different sectors, with a variety of years of founding and size of the organization, as shown in Table 2. Within the organizations a non-sampling was applied probabilistic for stratified convenience, covering 30% of workers and ensuring representation of the different occupational categories (operators, services, technical and administrative staff and managers), which generated a total sample size of 4,235 respondents. job satisfaction

Table 2: Composition of the sample.

Characterization of the sample by an organization
Type of organization Quantity Type of organization Quantity
Companies providing personal services 12 Restaurants 15
Hotels 14
Computer companies 3 Small business 35
Business service companies 13 Hand invoice Companies 21
Public transport companies 4 Construction companies 9
Freight transport companies 3 Agricultural companies 13
Universities 3 Hospitals 5
Characterization of the sample by respondents


Male 2 317 (54.7%) Age


≤30 years 986 (23.2%)
Female 1 918 (45.3%) 30-50 years 2021 (47.7 %)
51-65 years 1228 (29%)
Category Operators 1451 (34.7%) Years of experience ≤ 5 years 1278 (30.2%)
Services 1166 (27.6%) 5 – 10 years 2458 (58%)
Technicians and Administrative 1224 (28.9%) 10 ≥ years 499 (11.8%)
Managers 394 (9.3%)

3.4 Analysis of the Relationship between the Variables and Their Influence on the JS

With the information collected, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed in order to verify the existence of a construct that would explain the relationship of the variables under study. Likewise, the existence of dimensions and the reliability of the scales used were evaluated. The SPSS 23 statistical package was used to establish the factorial structure of the set of observed variables, allowing to evaluate if there is a relationship between the observed variables and the existence of underlying latent constructs (Aktepe, Ersöz, and Toklu, 2015; Kesari and Atulkar, Schumacher and Lomax, 1996). job satisfaction

3.5 Structural Equation Modeling

Structural equations model (SEM) is used to find the structural relationships between the latent variables (Aktepe et al. 2015, Kesari and Atulkar, 2016). For the construction of the model the SPSS AMOS 23 was used. From the identification and estimation of the model, the degree of fit of the data to the proposed model is analyzed following three alternatives: evaluation of the fit of the global model, evaluation of the fit of the model of measurement and evaluation of the adjustment of the structural model (Salgado Beltrán, 2009). The existence of statistical procedures that allow differentiating between observable and latent variables justifies the application of the structural equations model since it allows to test theoretical models with empirical data. The proposed model is presented in Figure 1. job satisfaction

Figure 1. Proposed initial model.

3.6 Evaluation of the Model

To determine the validity of the analyzed model, the indicators used for this purpose will be used, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Indicators for the validation of the generated model.

Indicators Acronym Contrast Value
Chi-square value/ degrees of freedom CMIN/DF < 3 – Good
Probability level associated to Chi-square value Probability level > 0.05 – Significant
Comparative Fit Index CFI > 0.95 – Great
Goodness of Fit Index GFI > 0.95 – Excellent

> 0.90 – Traditional

> 0.80 – Permissible

Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index AGFI > 0.80 – Acceptable
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation RMSEA < 0.05 – Good

0.05 to 0.10 – Moderate

Probability of Close Fit PCLOSE > 0.05 – Significant

4. Results

With the application of the instruments in the organizations research objects it was possible to perform a CFA, which was valid when a KMO coefficient of 0.901 was observed, a general value of explained variance of 78.21 and the Bartlett sphericity test was highly significant, confirming the existence of five dimensions that group a total of 25 variables that influence the overall satisfaction. In addition, reliability was evaluated, obtaining a Cronbach’s alpha in all instruments above 0.822 (Table 4). job satisfaction

Table 4: Latent variables found in the factor analysis.

Latent variables
Working conditions Working team Content of work Stimulation Welfare conditions
Sufficiency 0.023 0.046 0.158 0.761 0.042
Correspondence -0.035 0.046 0.084 0.775 -0.082
Linking -0.045 0.034 0.012 0.822 -0.021
Equity -0.079 -0.017 0.003 0.790 -0.089
Perception -0.062 0.121 0.194 0.720 -0.042
Recognition 0.000 0.074 0.110 0.757 0.027
Variety 0.003 0.245 0.715 0.114 -0.031
Identity 0.041 0.246 0.810 0.160 -0.075
Social meaning -0.058 0.192 0.808 0.149 0.001
Autonomy 0.056 0.220 0.785 0.126 -0.013
Feedback -0.007 0.244 0.735 0.018 0.002
Cohesion -0.034 0.897 0.237 0.106 -0.037
Attraction -0.061 0.887 0.303 0.067 -0.025
Relationships -0.014 0.889 0.274 0.049 -0.084
Participation -0.011 0.903 0.270 0.047 -0.064
Leadership -0.067 0.882 0.292 0.075 -0.096
Esthetic 0.899 -0.031 -0.026 -0.040 -0.013
Technical Material Assurance 0.900 -0.018 0.029 -0.036 -0.027
Security 0.987 -0.037 0.007 -0.043 -0.017
Hygiene 0.987 -0.038 0.005 -0.045 -0.016
Personal development -0.021 -0.071 -0.035 -0.049 0.979
Ergonomics 0.987 -0.037 0.006 -0.045 -0.016
Supporting services -0.018 -0.074 -0.041 -0.030 0.946
Employment Security -0.031 -0.053 -0.039 -0.047 0.943
Attention to life -0.016 -0.051 -0.031 -0.035 0.933

Note: Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
job satisfaction
As can be seen, the latent variables found to correspond to those analyzed previously in the literature review and those selected by the experts, corroborating that the variables studied can be grouped into five latent variables related to work content, working team, stimulation, working conditions and welfare conditions. From the previous results, we proceeded to verify the structure of the relationships between variables and dimensions and between them and the observed variable “general satisfaction”. Figure 2 shows the result of the analysis of the structural equation model obtained.

Figure 2. Results of the structural analysis.

As can be seen, the totality of the analyzed variables shows some degree of influence on general job satisfaction, resulting in a more pronounced influence on variables related to stimulation and work content, and to a lesser extent those related to working conditions.

Table 5 shows the adjustment indicators of the observed model, based on which it is possible to state that the relationships between the variables studied constitute a good model, based on verifying that the adjustment indicators satisfy the established parameters except for GFI (0.872) and RMSEA (0.082).

Table 5: Adjustment indicators of the model.

Indicator Reached value Evaluation
CMIN/DF 2.334 Good
Probability level 0.267 Significant
CFI 0.943 Great
GFI 0.771 Permissible
AGFI 0.845 Acceptable
RMSEA 0.082 Moderate
PCLOSE 0.080 Significant

Source: Outputs from IBM AMOS 23.

Note: The meaning of the acronyms of the indicators can be found in Table 3.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

The observed model was based on the variables substantiated in the literature related to the JS. Through this model, the multifactorial character of the JS as a construct is verified. Based on the above, it is considered that the results obtained correspond to the results of previous studies.

The variables of the JS studied correspond in general with those contemplated by Álvarez Santos (2016), Siengthai and Pila-Ngarm (2016) and are representative of the analyzed under a vision biased by the rest of the researchers considered in the review of the preceding literature.Both the results of the factorial analysis and those of the analysis of the structural equations model allowed to corroborate that in the JS there are five groups of variables, commonly addressed in the literature in a biased or isolated way.

The working conditions dimension is one of the most studied (Beehner and Blackwell, 2016; Consiglio, Borgogni, Di Tecco, and Schaufeli, 2016; Kim, Candido, Thomas, and de Dear, 2016), both regarding the ergonomics of the post and hygiene, and to a lesser extent, the aesthetics and material-technical supply. The group work dimension is also frequently approached and the results obtained are consistent with those presented by previous authors such as Chiang and Lin (2016), Edú-Valsania, Moriano and Molero (2016), Kanyurhi and Bugandwa Mungu Akonkwa (2016), Lee, Kim and Perdue (2016), and Kim, Knutson and Choi (2016).

Likewise, on the work content researchers like Hsu and Liao (2016) deepen in their studies, considering variables such as the variety of skills, personal autonomy, identity, social recognition, and feedback. Although to a lesser extent, it also coincides with the results of Baule and Soost (2016), Miller et al. (2016), specifically the hypothesis of Otto and Bolle (2016) and Oxley and Pandher (2016) on the inception of the perception of equity of the stimulation in the JS is corroborated. The hypothesis of Park et al. (2016) and Hu and Ho (2016) was also verified, regarding the incidence of welfare conditions in the JS. job satisfaction

Specifically, in the analysis developed through structural equation models to evaluate which variables influence the JS and in what form they do, the results found in this research coincide with those of Álvarez-García et al. (2016), finding incidence in the JS of the variables: Leadership, personal development, and material-technical assurance. However, this study does not contemplate the rest of the variables analyzed here. The results of Hsu and Liao (2016) are also closely related to the analysis of one of the dimensions that influence the JS, and within it the same variables; On the other hand, this author in his research considers the influence in the organizational commitment and of this one on the JS. About the research of Park et al. (2016) did not find similarities since the study above concentrates, essentially, on evaluating the influence of variables external to the organization but that can certainly impact the JS. job satisfaction

As a fundamental difference of the results of this research concerning the precedents, it can point out the integral evaluation of the influence of the different variables and dimensions of the JS, which have been investigated in a biased way or for very specific contexts. However, in this research it is possible to present and evaluate an integral vision of how the various variables analyzed in the literature affect the JS and in several organizational contexts, knowing through the model of structural equations the degree of incidence of variables and dimensions in the general JS.

The results obtained in this research are limited in the sense that it is not deepened in the incidence of variables external to the organization such as the living and family environment or the history prior to work in the organization as the origin of the workers, nor it is analyzed if there are variables related to demographic characteristics such as sex, age, seniority that could somehow mark differences in the JS. Similarly, it is not investigated to what extent the JS that is experienced in the entities subject to study affect the performance of workers or organizational results such as productivity, customer satisfaction, absenteeism, fluctuation, working day, commitment.

This research was developed under very specific conditions regarding control variables, and the results may not be extended to other contexts as organizations of recent creation or where systems of labor very different from those of the organizations where the study was carried out. Similar studies are recommended in the context of other countries to evaluate the consistency of the results found in the case of changes in study scenarios. In general, it can be concluded that the JS is the result of the interaction of multiple variables of different origins and peculiarities such as: the design of work content, working conditions, interpersonal relationships with peers in general and with the managers; in particular, the policies and methods of stimulation that are presented and with other actions that the organization can develop to promote well-being in the workers. Although it was not the objective of this investigation, it has been demonstrated in several previous types of research that the JS is closely related to the achievement of highly satisfactory results for the organization. Therefore, to make the entity satisfied, workers must be a priority for its managers and knowing what variables influence the JS will allow them to develop strategies to promote these achieve more significant result. job satisfaction


  • Aktepe, A., Ersöz, S. and Toklu, B. (2015), “Customer satisfaction and loyalty analysis with classification algorithms and Structural Equation Modeling”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 86, pp. 95-106.
  • Alegre, I., Mas-Machuca, M. and Berbegal-Mirabent, J. (2016), “Antecedents of employee job satisfaction: Do they matter?”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69, No. 4, pp. 1390-1395.
  • Álvarez Santos, L., De Miguel Guzmán, M., Noda Hernández, M.E., Álvarez López, L.F., Galcerán Chacón, G. (2016), “Diagnóstico de la satisfacción laboral en una entidad asistencial hospitalaria”, Revista Cubana de Salud Pública, Vol. 2, No. 3.
  • Álvarez-García, J., Del Río-Rama, M. D. L. C., Saraiva, M. and Ramos-Pires, A. (2016), “Dependency relationships between critical factors of quality and employee satisfaction”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 27, No. 5-6, pp. 595-612.
  • Amissah, E.F., Gamor, E., Deri, M.N. and Amissah, A. (2016), “Factors influencing employee job satisfaction in Ghana’s hotel industry”, Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 166-183.
  • Amponsah-Tawiah, K., Annor, F. and Arthur, B. G. (2016), “Linking commuting stress to job satisfaction and turnover intention: The mediating role of burnout”, Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 104-123.
  • Arroyo-López, P. E., Cárcamo-Solís, M. L., Álvarez-Castañón, L. and Guzmán-López, A. (2016), “Impact of training on improving service quality in small provincial restaurants”, Journal of Foodservice Business Research, pp. 1-14.
  • Baldschun, A., Töttö, P., Hämäläinen, J. and Salo, P. (2016), “Modeling the occupational well-being of finnish social work employees: A multigroup confirmatory factor analysis”, Human Service Organizations Management, Leadership and Governance, pp. 1-16.
  • Baule, R. and Soost, C. (2016), “Pay for performance versus non-financial incentives in small and medium-sized enterprises”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, Vol. 8, No.1, pp. 24-45.
  • Beehner, C. G. and Blackwell, M. J. (2016), “The impact of workplace spirituality on food service worker turnover intention”, Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion, pp. 1-20.
  • Chen, P., Sparrow, P. and Cooper, C. (2016), “The relationship between person-organization fit and job satisfaction”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 31, No. 5, pp. 946-959.
  • Chiang, C. F. and Lin, M. Y. (2016), “Motivating organizational commitment in hotels: The relationship between leaders and employees”, Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 462-484.
  • Consiglio, C., Borgogni, L., Di Tecco, C. and Schaufeli, W. B. (2016), “What makes employees engaged with their work? The role of self-efficacy and employee’s perceptions of social context over time”, Career Development International, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 125-143.
  • Edú-Valsania, S., Moriano, J. A. and Molero, F. (2016), “Authentic leadership and employee knowledge sharing behavior: Mediation of the innovation climate and workgroup identification”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 487-506.
  • Habtoor, N. (2016), “Influence of human factors on organisational performance: Quality improvement practices as a mediator variable”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 65, No. 4, pp. 460-484.
  • Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. and Snyderman, B. B. (1959), The motivation to work, Wiley, Nueva York, NY.
  • Hsu, L. C. and Liao, P. W. (2016), “From job characteristics to job satisfaction of foreign workers in Taiwan’s construction industry: The mediating role of organizational commitment”, Human Factors and Ergonomics In Manufacturing, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 243-255.
  • Hu, J. L. and Ho, C. W. (2016), “Service quality and non-salary mechanism for airline companies in Taiwan”, Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 55, pp. 61-66.
  • Jafari Navimipour, N. and Soltani, Z. (2016), “The impact of cost, technology acceptance and employees’ satisfaction on the effectiveness of the electronic customer relationship management systems”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 55, pp. 1052-1066.
  • Kanyurhi, E. B. and Bugandwa Mungu Akonkwa, D. (2016), “Internal marketing, employee job satisfaction, and perceived organizational performance in microfinance institutions”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp. 773-796.
  • Kesari, B. and Atulkar, S. (2016), “Satisfaction of mall shoppers: A study on perceived utilitarian and hedonic shopping values”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 31, pp. 22-31.
  • Kim, J., Candido, C., Thomas, L. and de Dear, R. (2016), “Desk ownership in the workplace: The effect of non-territorial working on employee workplace satisfaction, perceived productivity and health. Building and Environment, 103, 203-214.
  • Kim, M., Knutson, B. J. and Choi, L. (2016), “The effects of employee voice and delight on job satisfaction and behaviors: Comparison between employee generations”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 563-588.
  • Lee, G., Kim, P. B. and Perdue, R. R. (2016), “A longitudinal analysis of an accelerating effect of empowerment on job satisfaction: Customer-contact vs. non-customer-contact workers”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 57, pp. 1-8.
  • Miller, J. J., Grise-Owens, E., Addison, D., Marshall, M., Trabue, D. and Escobar-Ratliff, L. (2016), “Planning an organizational wellness initiative at a multi-state social service agency”, Evaluation and Program Planning, Vol. 56, pp. 1-10.
  • Ogwueleka, A. C. and Maritz, M. J. (2016), “Modeling for incentive payoffs in the Nigerian construction industry”, Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 543-562.
  • Oppel, E. M., Winter, V. and Schreyögg, J. (2016), “Evaluating the link between human resource management decisions and patient satisfaction with quality of care”, Health Care Management Review.
  • Otto, P. E. and Bolle, F. (2016), “Organizational power: Should remuneration heterogeneity mirror hierarchy?”, Review of Economic Design, pp. 1-19.
  • Oxley, J. and Pandher, G. (2016), “Equity-based incentives and collaboration in the modern multibusiness firm”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 37, No. 7, pp. 1379-1394.
  • Park, S. and Sturman, M. C. (2016), “Evaluating form and functionality of pay-for-performance plans: The relative incentive and sorting effects of merit pay, bonuses, and long-term incentives”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 55, No. 4, pp. 697-719.
  • Park, Y., Seo, D. G., Park, J., Bettini, E. and Smith, J. (2016), “Predictors of job satisfaction among individuals with disabilities: An analysis of South Korea’s National Survey of employment for the disabled”, Research in Developmental Disabilities, Vol. 53-54, pp. 198-212.
  • Rogers, S. E., Jiang, K., Rogers, C. M. and Intindola, M. (2016), “Strategic human resource management of volunteers and the link to hospital patient satisfaction”, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 409-424.
  • Salgado Beltrán, L. (2009), “Instrumentos de marketing aplicados a la compra de productos ecológicos: Un caso de estudio entre Barcelona, España y La Paz, México”, Unpublished PhD. thesis, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona.
  • Schumacker, R. E. and Lomax, R. G. (1996), A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers Mahwah, New Jersey, NJ.
  • Shantz, A., Arevshatian, L., Alfes, K. and Bailey, C. (2016), “The effect of HRM attributions on emotional exhaustion and the mediating roles of job involvement and work overload”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 172-191.
  • Siengthai, S. and Pila-Ngarm, P. (2016), “The interaction effect of job redesign and job satisfaction on employee performance”, Evidence-based HRM, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 162-180.
  • Sieweke, J., Köllner, B. and Süß, S. (2016), “The relationship between employees’ objective internal and external pay standing and their job performance: A within-person analysis”, Journal of Business and Psychology, pp. 1-14.
  • Wickramasinghe, V. and Wickramasinghe, G. L. D. (2016), “Variable pay and job performance of shop-floor workers in lean production”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 287-311.
job satisfaction

Comments are closed.

Subscribe To High-quality Research and Scientific Content
Get the latest research results, academic writing tips, and access research opportunities.
Stay Updated