Project Study on Employee Satisfaction: General Motors South Africa

Description
Affective job satisfaction is the extent of pleasurable emotional feelings individuals have about their jobs overall, and is different to cognitive job satisfaction which is the extent of individuals

A STUDY OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION IN TWO MANUFACTURING FACILITIES OF GENERAL MOTORS SOUTH AFRICA

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTERS IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

of

RHODES UNIVERSITY

by

LEANETSE PAUL MATUTOANE

Supervisor:

Mr. Mike Routledge December 2009

DECLARATION
I, Leanetse Paul Matutoane, hereby declare that this dissertation is my own original work and that all sources have been accurately acknowledged, and that this document has not previously in its entirety or in part been submitted at any university in order to obtain an academic qualification.

_____________________ Leanetse Paul Matutoane December 2009

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
All thanks to the Lord almighty, the creator of the earth and all on it, for making this possible. I am also thankful to the following people, who all played a part in ensuring that this report eventually comes to completion: My Parents, Motsumi and Dikeledi Matutoane, for instilling the importance of studying in me and raising me to be the person I am today. My Wife, Siyabulela Loyilane-Matutoane, whose continued encouragement led to the fruition of this report. My children, Mehluko and Lesakhanya Matutoane, who brought joy into my life that I never knew before. My friend, David Lefutso, for his companionship and friendship throughout the MBA class attendance days right through to life. The late Elisa Phaphazela, who helped with the analysis of the results. My mother, Ndileka Loyilane, for encouraging me to finish off my thesis. My Supervisor, Mr. Mike Routledge, for his guidance and wisdom and patience. The founding Director of Rhodes Investec Business School, Prof. Gavin Staude, for not giving up on me. My friend Denis Owaga for his continued encouragement to finish this report. The employees of General Motors South Africa who participated in the survey to make this report possible. Dawie Fourie, our discussions of which led to travels down this path. Genevieve Scheepers, for her encouragements in the early days of this project.

iii

ABSTRACT
Employed individuals spend a majority of their waking time at work. Therefore, within an individual’s working lifetime, most hours will be spent at work. Subsequently, theories abound purporting that humans are hedonistic beings. Considering that on average people spend most of their working lives in a working environment, it then stands to reason that people should endeavor to be satisfied at work if humans are always in pursuit of happiness. The questions arise as thus: what makes people satisfied at work, does being satisfied with the job result in less turnover, and is that the only reason that they would endeavor to prolong their employment, are older employees more satisfied with their jobs than younger employees, is a plant with an older workforce more satisfied than a similar plant with a younger workforce? This study attempts to find an answer to these and other related questions. It was conducted on employees of two plants of an automotive manufacturer based in Port Elizabeth, a town in the Eastern Cape province of South Africa. The Job Descriptive Index (JDI) was used to collect the feelings of 92 employees in different shops and analyzed to check for differences in satisfaction levels. No significant differences were found between the plants, shops and age categories surveyed. Key words: Employee satisfaction, Job satisfaction, Motivation, Automotive Manufacturing, Manufacturing plants, Job Descriptive Index.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION ......................................................................................................... II ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......................................................................................... III ABSTRACT ..............................................................................................................IV TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................................V LIST OF FIGURES..................................................................................................VIII LIST OF TABLES .....................................................................................................IX CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1
1.1. Background Of The Study..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1.1. Processes in automotive manufacturing ................................................................................... 2 1.1.2. Organization Structure ................................................................................................................ 2 1.2. Objectives Of The Study ........................................................................................................................ 3 1.2.1. Problem statement ....................................................................................................................... 3 1.3. 1.4. 1.5. 1.6. 1.7. 1.8. Purpose Of The Research ...................................................................................................................... 4 Research Question.................................................................................................................................. 5 Value Of The Research .......................................................................................................................... 5 Literature Review................................................................................................................................... 5 Thesis Structure...................................................................................................................................... 6 Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 7

CHAPTER 2: MOTIVATION ...................................................................................... 8
2.1. 2.2. 2.3. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 8 The Individual As An Employee ........................................................................................................... 8 Early Motivation Theory ..................................................................................................................... 10

2.4. Contemporary Motivation Theory ..................................................................................................... 13 2.4.1. Content Theories ........................................................................................................................ 13 2.4.2. Process Theories ....................................................................................................................... 17 2.5. Conclusion............................................................................................................................................. 20

v

CHAPTER 3: JOB SATISFACTION ........................................................................ 21
3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4. 3.5. 3.6. 3.7. 3.8. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 21 Definition............................................................................................................................................... 21 Importance of Job Satisfaction............................................................................................................ 22 Theories of Job Satisfaction................................................................................................................. 23 Studies into Job Satisfaction................................................................................................................ 24 Elements of Job Satisfaction................................................................................................................ 25 Measurement of Job Satisfaction ........................................................................................................ 26 Conclusion............................................................................................................................................. 28

CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY .............................................................................. 29
4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 29 Research Paradigms............................................................................................................................. 29 Research Goals ..................................................................................................................................... 29 Data Collection ..................................................................................................................................... 31 Instrument Validity.............................................................................................................................. 32 Research Design.................................................................................................................................... 32 Research Procedure ............................................................................................................................. 33 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 34 Ethical Considerations ......................................................................................................................... 35 Conclusion............................................................................................................................................. 36

CHAPTER 5: RESEARCH RESULTS ..................................................................... 37
5.1. 5.2. 5.3. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 37 Analysis Of Results............................................................................................................................... 37 Descriptive Statistics Frequencies....................................................................................................... 37

5.4. Inferential Statistics Frequencies ........................................................................................................ 42 5.4.1. Difference in Job Satisfaction between Plants................................................................................... 43 5.4.2. Difference in Job Satisfaction per Shop ............................................................................................ 45 5.4.3. Difference in Job Satisfaction per Division ....................................................................................... 46 5.4.4. Difference in Job Satisfaction by Age ............................................................................................... 48 5.4.5. Difference in Job Satisfaction by Role .............................................................................................. 49 5.4.6. Difference in Job Satisfaction by Income.......................................................................................... 50 5.4.7. Difference in Job Satisfaction by Length of Service ......................................................................... 52

vi

5.5.

Conclusion............................................................................................................................................. 53

CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION................................................... 54
6.1. 6.2. 6.3. 6.4. 6.5. 6.6. 6.7. 6.8. 6.9. 6.10. 6.11. 6.12. 6.13. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 54 Job Satisfaction By Intention .............................................................................................................. 54 Job Satisfaction By Recommendation ................................................................................................ 54 Job Satisfaction By Service Length..................................................................................................... 55 Job Satisfaction By Age ....................................................................................................................... 56 Job Satisfaction By Gender ................................................................................................................. 57 Job Satisfaction By Role ...................................................................................................................... 58 Job Satisfaction By Income ................................................................................................................. 58 Job Satisfaction By Shop ..................................................................................................................... 59 Job Satisfaction By Plant ..................................................................................................................... 60 Job Satisfaction By Division ................................................................................................................ 62 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 62 Conclusion............................................................................................................................................. 63

REFERENCES......................................................................................................... 66 APPENDIX A ........................................................................................................... 74

vii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Typical organizational hierarchy in the manufacturing plant........................ 2 Figure 2: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs ..................................................................... 15 Figure 3: The Porter and Lawler model (Nel, et al, 2003:336).................................. 19

viii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: GMSA’s corporate presence in South Africa ................................................ 1 Table 2: Variables affecting the motivational process in organizational settings ...... 12 Table 3: Factors that play a role in satisfying employees (Quinn, et al.) .................. 14 Table 4: Satisfaction Likert Scale ............................................................................. 32 Table 5: How long do you plan to work at General Motors SA? ............................... 38 Table 6: Would you recommend employment at General Motors SA to a friend?.... 38 Table 7: How long have you worked for GMSA?...................................................... 39 Table 8: What is your age? ...................................................................................... 39 Table 9: What is your gender? ................................................................................. 40 Table 10: What is your role in the organisation? ...................................................... 40 Table 11: What is your total before-tax monthly income from this job, including overtime and bonuses? ............................................................................................ 41 Table 12: In which shop do you work? ..................................................................... 41 Table 13: In which plant do you work? ..................................................................... 42 Table 14: In which division do you work? ................................................................. 42 Table 15: Plant means per JDI category .................................................................. 43 Table 16: Plant median Mann-Whitney test results .................................................. 44 Table 17: Combined plant means by shop per JDI category.................................... 45 Table 18: Shop median Kruskal-Wallis test results .................................................. 46 Table 19: Combined plant means by Division per JDI category ............................... 47 Table 20: Division median Kruskal-Wallis test results .............................................. 47 Table 21: Combined plant means by Age per JDI category ..................................... 48 Table 22: Age category median Kruskal-Wallis test results...................................... 49 Table 23: Combined plant means by Role per JDI category .................................... 49 Table 24: Role median Kruskal-Wallis test results ................................................... 50 Table 25: Combined plant means by Income per JDI category................................ 51 Table 26: Income median Kruskal-Wallis test results ............................................... 51 Table 27: Combined plant means by Length of Service per JDI category................ 52 Table 28: Income median Kruskal-Wallis test results ............................................... 53

ix

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background Of The Study

General Motors South Africa (GMSA) was a wholly-owned subsidiary of General Motors Corporation (GMC), the world’s largest automotive manufacturer in 2005 (GMSA Intranet, 2005). GMSA’s history in South Africa spanned from when it was set up 76 years ago, to General Motors’s disinvestment in 1986 when the company’s name changed to Delta Motor Corporation, to the return of General Motors again in February 2004. In 2005, the year in which research for this thesis was conducted; GMSA had corporate presence in South Africa as per table 1 below. Province Eastern Cape Gauteng Western Cape Kwazulu-Natal City Port Elizabeth Johannesburg Cape Town Durban Office Head Office and Manufacturing plants Sales, Marketing & Aftersales Office Regional Sales & Aftersales Office Regional Sales & Aftersales Office

Table 1: GMSA’s corporate presence in South Africa There were 2 General Motors South Africa manufacturing plants in Port Elizabeth: Kempston Road, in which the Isuzu light commercial vehicles (LCV’s), trucks and the Corsa lite hatchback passenger vehicles were manufactured and Struandale, in which the Corsa LCV’s and the HUMMER H3 single utility vehicles (SUV’s) were manufactured. The Kempston Road plant was set up by GMSA in Port Elizabeth in 1929. With the sanctions that took place in South Africa during the previous regime, General Motors decided to disinvest in SA, and a management group bought them out in 1986. The company was renamed Delta Motor Corporation and continued manufacturing, marketing and selling vehicles in South Africa. In 1996, Delta Motor Corporation acquired the Struandale Plant in order to expand production capacity. General Motors reinvested in South Africa by buying out the Delta Motor Corporation group in 2004, effectively returning to the South African market.

1

1.1.1. Processes in automotive manufacturing An automotive manufacturing plant typically has 3 shops wherein different processes take place, viz. Bodyshop, Paintshop and General assembly. The Bodyshop is where the differently stamped metal bits are welded together and a vehicle body shell is the output. From the Bodyshop, the body shell gets transported to the Paintshop where it is painted the required colour. Thereafter it goes to General Assembly, where the rest of the parts are assembled onto the painted body shell and a finished vehicle emerges. Each of the 2 plants (Kempston road and Struandale) had their own Bodyshop and General assembly but shared Struandale’s Paintshop. 1.1.2. Organization Structure The organisational structure within both plants was the same. Six to fourteen team members (operators) made up a team headed by a team leader. A group of team leaders working on a specific area reported to a co-ordinator, and all the coordinators in the shop reported to Shop Managers (Bodyshop, Paintshop, Trim & assembly, etc).

Figure 1: Typical organizational hierarchy in the manufacturing plant 2

Team members and team leaders were hourly-paid, whilst from co-ordinators upwards employees were monthly-paid and said to be “staff”. This meant that should a plant come to a standstill due to an unforeseen circumstance, e.g. material shortage, for a considerable period (more than 4 hours), the hourly-paid staff could be sent home for the shift for the duration of the circumstance without pay, whilst “staff” members were required to work whether the plant runs or not. Team members, team leaders and co-ordinators were represented by a worker’s union, viz. NUMSA (National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa), in the bargaining forum, wherein wage rates and conditions of employment were negotiated centrally.

1.2.

Objectives Of The Study

1.2.1. Problem statement When Delta Motor Corporation acquired the Struandale plant, company

management had been aware of the shortcomings of the Kempston Road plant, which were: 1. Ageing workforce. 2. Declining discipline. 3. Illiteracy. 4. Difficulty to implement new programs. These shortcomings were taken into consideration when staffing the new manufacturing plant (Struandale) in 1996 and the following criteria were used: 1. Only people with a minimum education level of matriculation with Mathematics and Physical Science as subjects were hired as line operators (team members).

3

2. A minimum number of people from the Kempston road plant were taken over to Struandale in order to preserve manufacturing knowledge and experience whilst retaining the envisaged culture. The research in this thesis was motivated by the different work ethics between the 2 plants, the different age profiles between the 2 plants and the pride of some employees for having long service periods. Having worked in the different shops of both plants, the researcher wondered what motivated the employees to stay with the company for prolonged periods and not leave. Given that manufacturing cars is a monotonous job comprised of placing people in certain job functions to do the same thing for the duration of their shift without fail. The older Kempston road employees seemed content, proud of their years of service with the company and willing to work, whilst the younger Struandale employees were deemed to be stubborn, unhappy with their jobs and ploughed on with their tasks from day to day. Previous research had never been done in the company on this subject, which makes this research a pilot study.

1.3. Purpose Of The Research
This study was aimed at investigating the level of job satisfaction amongst plant personnel in the 2 automotive manufacturing plants of General Motors South Africa. The main objective of the study was to unearth the determinants of satisfaction in an automotive manufacturing company. Several aspects of job satisfaction were interrogated in order to find out whether older, less educated workers were as satisfied as their younger, better educated colleagues and whether job satisfaction differed between the organizational divisions. The research was conducted in a postpositivist paradigm and used quantitative methodology to acquire the required information on job satisfaction. The main objectives of this study were to: Measure job satisfaction level in the 2 plants

4

Identify reasons for the measured levels Compare the differences / similarities between the plants Recommend possible solutions to improve job satisfaction within the plants These objectives were formulated with a main assumption in mind that the measured job satisfaction levels between the plants would be different given the perceptions as discussed above.

1.4. Research Question
The overarching research question that forms the basis of this research is as follows: What was the difference in the levels of job satisfaction of manufacturing plant employees?

1.5. Value Of The Research
The results of this research will give an indication as to the levels of job dissatisfaction within the said company so that those factors identified as problematic can be worked on to improve job satisfaction in the same and similar environments and ultimately improve productivity and quality.

1.6. Literature Review
Kahn (1972) mentioned that job content, supervision, physical work conditions and possibly organisation structure are amongst the highly probable causes of satisfaction and dissatisfaction in the workplace. In the automotive industry, jobs are standardised and have a narrow range, as designed according to scientific management principles. Scientific management, as pioneered by Frederick Taylor, uses research and experimentation to determine the most efficient way to perform jobs and organizes workers into specialised and standardized jobs (Kreitner, Kinicki

5

and Buelens, 1999). Thus, people are fitted into jobs and are expected to adjust accordingly, which doesn’t allow room for self-expression and results in alienation and frustration in the workplace. There is no independence and freedom allowed in doing the job, therefore the employees’ need for self-esteem is not satisfied, as outlined in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory (Kreitner, et al, 1999). This diminishes the sense of achievement as the job is limited to a particular repetitive operation, depriving the person of the opportunity to see a job through to its final completion. As a result, the individual experiences a basic frustration that manifests itself in different efforts to achieve adjustment (Gardell, 1976). These could be high dissatisfaction, turnover and absenteeism (Schultz and Schultz, 1986). The official unemployment rate in South Africa in 2005 was 26.7% (Statistics South Africa, 2005:xiv), which made turnover the least desirable option from an employees’ point of view, leaving high dissatisfaction and absenteeism as the more likely avenues. It is an accepted fact that a certain amount of turnover is desirable for a company to ensure rejuvenation and infusion of new ideas whilst balancing the desired culture. A measurement of employee satisfaction would help the company understand the current situation in order to introduce appropriate interventions to improve employee satisfaction. It is also in the company’s interest to increase employee satisfaction if necessary, as the company’s vision singles out customer enthusiasm as the strategy that the company will use in the quest to be the world leader in automotive products and related services. In order to generate customer enthusiasm in customers, employees have first to be enthusiastic There are a number of ways for a company to address this alienation, viz. job rotation, job enlargement and job enrichment (Kreitner, et al, 1999). All these interventions are aimed at addressing job dissatisfaction by introducing variety into a worker’s job. The measure of whether these and any other measures have been introduced and are effective or not will not fall within the scope of this research.

1.7. Thesis Structure
This report is structured as follows:

6

Chapter 2 will dwell on theories of motivation. Chapter 3 will focus on theories surrounding job satisfaction. In Chapter 4, the methodology applied in the research will be detailed together with the validity and credibility of the instrument used. Chapter 5 will present the research findings from applying statistical methods to unearth the validity of the hypotheses put forward. In Chapter 6 the results will be discussed at length and conclusions put forward.

1.8. Summary
The question is: why is it that, with people in employment, some are happy (satisfied) with their jobs whilst others are unhappy (dissatisfied) with theirs? The goal is to find out what makes people satisfied and productive in a working environment and what makes them dissatisfied and unproductive by the same token. The importance of this is that in future an OD practitioner will know what “features” to address in order to get the desired results in a similar situation. That is the goal of this research.

7

CHAPTER 2: MOTIVATION
2.1. Introduction

It is a well-known fact that organizations do not run all by themselves. People are a fundamental requirement for any organization, whatever the size, technological complexity, set-up or business model. It therefore stands to reason that for an organization to prosper, the employed people should be motivated and inspired to act in the interests of and for the good of the company whilst they are engaged in their work. For an organization to be successful, Katz and Kahn (1978) state that: people should be attracted to join and remain in the organization, people should do tasks for which they are employed and people should go beyond dependable to being creative, spontaneous & innovative. For people to be moved to expedite the above-mentioned activities, they are furthering the objectives of the organization that employed them. What do they get in return?

2.2.

The Individual As An Employee

Nel, et al (2003) reported that people join organizations with specific objectives in mind. And on the other hand, organizations attract people having specific objectives in mind. It is in the merger of these two objectives that an employment expectation is created. Employees, being individuals, bring along their own personalities into the job and the organization and are attacked by the organization’s own culture. The dynamics of this merger eventually determine the fit of the two parties involved. If the fit is negative, the employee will not be satisfied and endeavour to extricate themselves from the union. If the fit is positive, the employee will be satisfied and will endeavour to lengthen the duration of the contract. Kotter (1976:93) explained this fit as an expectation and identified two types of expectations.

8

“Expectation 1: What an individual expects to receive from the organization and what the organization expects to give to the individual. Expectation 2: What an individual expects to give to the organization and what the organization expects to receive from the individual.” People join organizations to derive social, financial and psychological benefits. Social benefits are derived from the company of colleagues and the interactions that take place. Financial benefits emanate from the salary they receive in set periods (weekly or monthly). They also derive Psychological benefits from the work opportunity to showcase their intellectual abilities through job output. In exchange for their time, physical and mental abilities, organizations employ people to expedite certain functions for the advancement of their objectives. Within this fit, this thesis endeavours to explore the details of what makes people satisfied to want to lengthen their employ within an organization. This paper also hopes to highlight the determinants of dissatisfaction amongst employees in an organization. These determinants can thus be manipulated for the good of organizations and people. It has been established thus far that companies need people who will act in their interest. Following from this, it also stands to reason that it is in the interest of companies to retain their employees. According to Gouws’s (2006) interpretation of Bussin, (2002) the following are reasons companies would want to retain their employees: The consistency in the quality of work, products and services remain. Knowledge of the history and background of the customers and business prevail. Efficiency and productivity increases. A particular skill and knowledge capability is retained. The culture of the organization remains consistent.

9

Despite being attracted to join and remain in an organization, employees can be dissatisfied. Dissatisfaction, being the opposite of Satisfaction, has got consequences (Lawler, 1994:106). They are: Job performance: Lawler (1994) states that there is a low but positive relationship between satisfaction and performance. He argues that satisfaction is an outcome of performance, that people will perform their jobs according to the size and desirability of the reward. Turnover: Again, there is a low relationship between satisfaction and turnover, probably influenced by the likelihood of less satisfied employees to leave and determined by the economic climate prevailing at the time, which determines scarcity of jobs to which employees can migrate to in other companies. Absenteeism: Research done by Mashonganyika (2004) found no statistical relationship between job satisfaction and absenteeism. However, Lawler (1994) purports that there is a relationship between satisfaction and absenteeism, however only pertaining to voluntary absence. Organization effectiveness: The previous two points influence this point in that it consumes an organization’s resources to alleviate their results. It costs additional time and money to recruit and train another person. Overstaffing and interrupted schedules are direct results of absenteeism. This consequence concurs with Bussin’s argument above. It therefore stands to reason that it makes good business sense for companies to ensure that their employees are satisfied in their jobs. By extension, going beyond dependable to producing what they are employed to do, to being creative, spontaneous and innovative in furthering the company’s objectives to the benefit of both.

2.3.

Early Motivation Theory

What satisfies people in a working environment? Before attempting to answer this question, a clarification of what satisfaction is needs to be provided first and foremost. The Concise Oxford Dictionary (1995:1226) describes satisfaction as “a

10

thing that settles an obligation or pays a debt”. The question then advances to the question of what this obligation / debt is, as relevant to the workplace. To satisfy is to meet the expectations or comply with something, putting an end to an appetite by supplying what is required, so that nothing is left to be desired. Whilst satisfy is an action (verb), satisfaction is the state of being satisfied. In our everyday lives, satisfaction is involved in our daily interactions. Buying goods / services is an exchange process after which the initiator’s need is fulfilled. Thereafter there is no desire, at least of the need that has been fulfilled. Therefore for satisfaction to occur there has to be an initial need. The question then advances to what happens in between, bridging the gap between the need and satisfaction? That is a purely individual endeavor or will to strive for satisfaction. This is called motivation. Therefore an understanding of human needs has to be developed in order to understand human motivation, and current theories come in handy in this regard as previously discussed. This focuses the subject on early motivation theories. Steers and Porter (1975) proposed that most psychological theories of motivation have their origins in the principle of hedonism, where people are assumed to make decisions, whether conscious or sub-conscious, in order to maximize positive results and minimize negative results. These hedonism theories of motivation are categorized into 3 groups: Instinct theories: these theories posited that human motivation was a result of their innate instincts. Their inherited instincts predispose them to act in a certain way. These theories were criticized for not explaining whether the unconscious motives were really instinctive or learned behaviour (Hilgard & Atkinson, 1967 and Morgan & King, 1966). Drive & reinforcement theories: these theories viewed behaviour as a function of past experiences “Hedonism of the past”. They were based on the effect that previous learning has on current behaviour (Woodworth in Steers & Porter, 1975). Hull posited that the effort expended in conducting a task was a function of the person’s drive, habit and the incentive derived from doing so: Effort = drive x habit x incentive (Hull, 1952 in Steers & Porter, 1975).

11

Cognitive theories: they viewed motivation as “hedonism of the future”, where current human behaviour was seen as purposeful, goal-directed and based on conscious intentions. Organisms make conscious decisions about current behaviour based on expected future outcomes: Effort=Expectancy x Valence. (Lewin, 1938 and Tolman,1959 in Steers & Porter, 1975) The above theories endeavored to explain motivation from a hedonism view. Applied to the workplace, this hedonism can be paralleled to the joys that the result of sacrificing one’s time and abilities to the benefit of a company brings. Because people are different as individuals from their characteristics, they would also be different as employees and would be motivated by different characteristics. The following are variables said to affect the motivational process in organizational settings (Steers & Porter, 1992:20): Individual characteristics 1. Interests Job Characteristics Types of intrinsic rewards Degree of autonomy 2. Attitudes a. Towards self job c. Towards aspects the situation Table 2: Variables affecting the motivational process in organizational settings of work Degree of variety in tasks Amount of direct performance Work Environment Characteristics 1. Immediate work environment a. Peers b. Supervisor 2. Organizational actions a. Reward practices b. System wide rewards c. Individual rewards d. Organizational climate

b. Towards the feedback

12

Therefore, Steers & Porter concur that people are different and their motivation is determined by characteristics that they put into three categories, individual, job and work environment characteristics.

2.4.

Contemporary Motivation Theory

Motivation theories are numerous; however, Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler and Weik (1970) divided them into two categories, viz. content and process theories. Content theories prescribe characteristics that should be present in all jobs because of their basic underlying presumption that all individuals have the same needs. Process theories highlight the differences between individuals’ needs and therefore are concerned with the cognitive processes that create these differences. 2.4.1. Content Theories Lawler (1994) noted that the theory on job satisfaction was not developed due to the nature of satisfaction itself being more an internal state that a person has to express, rather than observable phenomena. There are, however, various theorists that have contributed to the understanding of the employee’s internal state. Reverting back to the working environment, there are a number of factors that play a role in satisfying people. According to Quinn, Staines and McCullough (1974:16), these factors, divided between Blue and White Collar workers in order of importance, are:

13

“Blue-collar Workers 1. The Pay is good 2. I receive enough help and equipment to get the job done 3. The job security is good 4. I have enough information to get the job done 5. The work is interesting

White-collar Workers 1. The Work is interesting 2. I have an opportunity to develop my special abilities 3. I have enough information to get the work done 4. I have enough authority to do my job 5. I receive enough help and equipment to get the job done”

Table 3: Factors that play a role in satisfying employees (Quinn, et al.) It thus emerges that the priorities are different for different classes of employees. Satisfaction goes hand-in-hand with expectations or desires, as alluded to earlier. Therefore, in an attempt to explain job satisfaction, one needs to get to grips with and explain what people need in their working environment. Steers and Porter (1992) explained a need as a person’s internal state of disequilibrium that has the power to trigger a behavior-related response. This explains the link between needs and motivation. There first has to be a need and a will to satisfy that need for there to be a response to satisfy the need. Abraham Maslow (1943:380) suggested that people have needs in the form of a hierarchy (See figure 2).

14

SELF-ACTUALIZATION NEEDS ESTEEM NEEDS LOVE NEEDS

HIGHER-ORDER NEEDS

SAFETY NEEDS

LOWER-ORDER NEEDS

PHYSIOLOGICAL NEEDS

Figure 2: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs Starting from the bottom, Maslow maintained that these needs progress upwards with the satisfaction of the previous one, culminating in the realization of a person’s full potential, termed self-actualization. Therefore according to Maslow, as a person’s needs get satisfied, they change to the next level need until they get to the topmost need in a prepotent fashion. In a working situation, the first two needs would be automatically fulfilled seeing that employees’ salaries would be used to satisfy those needs. The third need would be partly satisfied by their day-to-day encounters with their colleagues on a daily basis. The fourth need, Self-esteem, refers to the need to be respected amongst a group of employees. This can be in the form of recognition as a contributing member of an organization from colleagues and / or management. This need can be filled through being members of a formal / informal organization within the company; therefore not every employee would have reached this hierarchical level from the context of this research. The final need, Self-actualization, which he recognizes that not many people reach, refers to reaching one’s full potential. The premise is that an organization has to be in a position to meet all these individual needs in order to have satisfied employees, wherever the employee(s) are along the hierarchy. 15

Contrasting the satisfaction factors discussed previously between blue-collar and white-collar workers and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs suggests that blue-collar workers are likely to be motivated by lower-order needs seeing that blue-collar workers would choose Pay as a first priority in their satisfaction at work. It also suggests that white-collar workers are likely to be motivated by higher-order needs considering that they had chosen interesting work as a first priority and that they would be better educated than the blue-collar employees. Alderfer (1972) offered that individual needs are divided into 3 categories, viz. Existential needs Relatedness needs Growth needs He also offered that these are not in any form of hierarchy such that none supersedes the other once satisfied. Existential needs refer to basic order needs for general survival. These are food, safety, shelter and money. Relatedness needs refer to social needs that are met through interaction with other beings. Growth needs refer to higher order needs for personal psychological development. Alderfer (1972) suggested that these human needs should be thought of as a continuum rather than a hierarchy and that relatedness or growth needs become more important when satisfied. Therefore in the setting of a working environment, employees have: (1) Existential needs, which is corroborated by Quinn, et al’s (1974:16) first blue –collar workers’ satisfying factor (The Pay is good). The pay provides a means to satisfy existential needs as it can provide nutritional and material needs. (2) Relatedness needs to interact and converse with their colleagues and superiors and (3) Growth needs to move beyond their current position to a more superior position with higher responsibilities and pay. The 2 theories above helped understand human needs as applicable to the workplace as needs are a precursor to motivation.

16

Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman’s (1959) study found five factors that stood out as strong determinants of job satisfaction; achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility and advancement. When probing for dissatisfiers, company policy and administration, supervision, salary, interpersonal relations and working conditions were cited. Since one cluster of factors related to what a person does and were found to be effective in motivating employees to superior performance and effort, it was named Motivators because they led to job satisfaction because of a need for growth or self-actualization seeing that the study was conducted on Engineers and Accountants. Whilst the other cluster related to the context of an employees work environment and served to prevent job dissatisfaction, they named it Hygiene Factors. That is the Motivator-Hygiene theory as related to job satisfaction. These two are motivation content theories that attempt to prescribe characteristics that ought to be present in jobs assuming that all individuals have the same set of needs. However, it is a known fact that no two individuals have the same set of needs, hence Process Theories. 2.4.2. Process Theories Process theories, contrary to Content theories, assume that people’s needs differ and therefore focus on the cognitive processes that create those differences. They “view behavior as a function of beliefs, expectations, perceptions, values and other mental cognitions” (Nel, et al, 2003:335). Adam’s Equity theory of motivation attempted to explain “how people strive for fairness and justice” in social exchanges (Kreitner, et al, 1999:210). It offered that there are two primary components involved in the employer / employee exchange, viz. inputs and outcomes. If there was a perceived inequity, brought about by the individual’s evaluation of whether they received equitable outcomes for their contributive inputs, between the individual and a “similar other”, the individual experiences cognitive dissonance, which results in a conscious effort to reduce the inequity. These efforts could be: 1. Increase inputs 17

2. Decrease inputs 3. Increase outcomes 4. Decrease outcomes 5. Leave the field 6. Psychologically distort individual inputs and outcomes 7. Psychologically distort comparison other’s inputs and outcomes 8. Change comparison other Therefore, applying Adam’s Equity theory to the working environment, employees are motivated to resolve perceptions of inequity, depending on what is perceived to be fair and equitable, and they need to be treated thus. Vroom‘s expectancy theory offered that a person’s effort will be directly proportional to the probability of the action resulting in attaining the organizations’ goals, and attainance of the organization’s goals is the instrument through which personal goals are attained (Kreitner, et al, 1999). This theory is based on three key concepts, viz. Valence, Instrumentality and Expectancy. Valence is the attractiveness of the specific outcome to the person, the anticipated satisfaction of attaining a goal. Instrumentality is the perception that performance will lead to the desired outcome. Expectancy refers to the person’s belief that a certain level of effort will lead to a certain level of (company) performance (Nel, et al, 2003). This theory is based on the premise that in an organization, in order to reap the desired rewards (promotion, bonus, etc), one has to put in a certain amount of effort in performing their duties, and the extent to which that effort is applied will depend on the probability of it having a positive outcome for the organization, and the perception that the positive outcome for the organization will have a positive outcome for him / her as an employee. Porter and Lawler’s expectancy theory extended Vroom’s theory into an expectancy model of motivation. According to Nel, et al (2003:336), this model attempted to do the following: 1. Identify the origin of people’s valences and expectations. 2. Link effort with performance and job satisfaction. 3. Identify factors other than effort that influence performance. 18

4. Emphasize the importance of equitable rewards.

Value of reward

Abilities

Perceived equitable rewards

Effort

Performance (Actual results)

Rewards

Satisfaction

Effort-reward probability

Role perception

Intrinsic and extrinsic

Figure 3: The Porter and Lawler model (Nel, et al, 2003:336) From these Expectancy Theories, there are implications for organizations. Organizations should: Reward employees for the desired performance. Design challenging jobs. Attach some rewards to group accomplishments. Reward managers for creating, monitoring and maintaining expectancies, instrumentalities and outcomes that lead to high effort and goal attainment. Monitor employee motivation. Build flexibility into motivation programmes to accommodate individual differences. (Adapted from Kreitner et al, 1999:220 Table 8-3) The premise is that if employees are satisfied with their jobs, they will be encouraged (motivated) to act in a goal-directed fashion towards attaining the organization’s, and by extension, their own goals.

19

2.5.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is evident that for an organization to thrive, employees should be motivated by the outcomes they receive from the same company they expend their efforts in. Kotter’s (1976) employment contract was discussed to understand the employees’s motivation for staying with an employer. Furthermore, a case was made for companies to want to retain their employees and ensure that they are satisfied. Content and process theories of motivation were discussed in order to understand human needs and processes they employ to get what they want. If it’s understood what people want and processes they employ to get it, then it can be known what needs to be done in organizational settings to derive the most out of the employeremployee contract.

20

CHAPTER 3: JOB SATISFACTION
3.1. Introduction

Human beings spent a majority of their adult life making a living for themselves and their families. To this end, they spend eight hours or more weekly at places of employment using their time, energy and intellectual ability to the benefit of their employer. Whether they are raring and energized to carry out these responsibilities or not constitutes motivation, which was discussed in the previous chapter. Moving from motivation, this chapter aims to detail contemporary research studies into job satisfaction and parallel their applicability to the working environment as described in chapter 1.

3.2. Definition
Greenberg and Baron (1999:170) defined job satisfaction as “an individual’s reaction to their job”. This reaction they categorized as cognitive, affective and evaluative. Smith, Kendall and Hulin (1969) defined job satisfaction as the feelings a worker has about his job, with different feelings attached to different aspects of the job. They saw it as a function of the perceived characteristics of the job relative to an individual’s frame of reference (internal standard(s) used in making an evaluation). Smith et al (1969) offered that these internal standard(s) are related to: An individual’s prior experience An individual’s set / predilection for making a given response Expectations Threshold for change in a given stimulus dimension Kreitner, et al (1999:197) described job satisfaction as “an affective / emotional response towards various facets of one’s job”. It is an individual’s degree of positive attitudes towards their current job, as an individual could be satisfied with one aspect but dissatisfied with another. Job satisfaction is, therefore, not a unitary concept that can be explained by a single factor, but rather a multi-faceted concept that is defined 21

by a number of factors. Additionally, alternatives available to an individual influence his / her total evaluation of the job and must increase / decrease the extent to which various aspects of the situation contribute to total satisfaction (Smith, et al, 1969).

3.3.

Importance of Job Satisfaction

Job Dissatisfaction is revealed by a number of factors. Bargraim, Potgieter, Schultz, Viede and Werner (2003) offered that when employees are dissatisfied, they display the following responses, amongst others: Exit: Terminating the contract of employment with the current employer or actively seeking alternative employment by applying for a job. Voice: Employees unhappy about their jobs may put forward alternative suggestions or demand attention to their work problems. To this end, employees have been known to toyi-toyi in South Africa. Loyalty: A state of inactivity may be shown by dissatisfied employees. They would, however, remain positive to resolution of problems encountered. Neglect: Intentionally letting the work conditions deteriorate without taking the necessary steps to rectify, absenteeism, less effort and making more mistakes. Nel, et al (2003) mention that current research has not found a direct relationship between job satisfaction and performance, but a general agreement exists that job satisfaction influences absenteeism, turnover, commitment and loyalty. Ross and Zander’s (1957) study of need satisfactions and turnover found that a degree to which an employee’s needs are supplied by their company has a significant direct relationship to their continued employment in that company. Those needs were as follows, in order importance: Need for recognition. Need for autonomy. Need for doing important work.

22

Need for evaluation by fair standards. They concluded that workers whose needs were satisfied on the job were more likely to maintain their employ with their company. Alavi and Askaripur (2003) offered the following reasons highlighting the importance of job satisfaction: Dissatisfied employees leave the organization, Satisfied employees enjoy better health and increased life expectancy, Job satisfaction effects on the employee cross over into the individual’s private life. Lawler (1994) suggests that organizational effectiveness can be influenced by job satisfaction since it is related to absenteeism and turnover. It therefore makes good business sense for organizations to be concerned with job satisfaction.

3.4.

Theories of Job Satisfaction

Lawler (1994) identified four approaches in the theoretical work on satisfaction; viz. 1. Fulfillment Theory: this theory proposes that employees will be satisfied in a direct proportion to the extent to which their needs are satisfied (Schafer, 1953). That people’s satisfaction is a function of how much they receive and of how much they feel they should and / or want to receive (Locke, 1969). 2. Discrepancy theory: states that dissatisfaction is determined by the difference between the actual outcome and either the felt or the expected outcome. The bigger the discrepancy the bigger the dissatisfaction (Porter, 1961). 3. Equity theory: Adams (1965) argued that satisfaction is determined by a person’s perceived equity, which is determined by his / her input / outcome balance compared to some other’s perceived input / output balance.

23

4. Two-factor theory: Herzberg, et al’s (1959) study revealed that satisfaction and dissatisfaction do not exist in a continuum running from satisfaction to neutral to dissatisfaction, but rather in two independent continua; satisfied to neutral and dissatisfied to neutral. 5. Dispositional theory: Crow and Hartmann (1995:36) offered that job satisfaction “is a result of a multiplicity of factors, most of which cannot be influenced by the employer”. They further explained that “enhancing job satisfaction for chronically dissatisfied employees may be impossible”, suggesting that some employees will be dissatisfied wherever they will find themselves given their inborn disposition towards life and work, by extension. Staw and Ross (1985) suggested that job satisfaction is influenced by an employee’s genetics, which might be a determinant of personality.

3.5.

Studies into Job Satisfaction

Studies into job satisfaction in the South African context are very few. This means that if they are ever done, they are only for internal consumption and are never published. This view concurs with Moodliar’s (2006:36) findings when researching the determinants of job satisfaction in South Africa, in which he acknowledged that job satisfaction is not a new area of research, “however the amount of work done in this area in the South African context is limited.“ He found that employees desire to be passionate about their work and want to be remunerated well. Also, employees desired acknowledgement for their contribution, opportunity to grow and develop around a righteous leader and good relations with colleagues. His research was on professionals, administrators, middle & senior management in the Gauteng region. Being white collar workers, the surveyed sample were in higher positions than this research’s white collar workers (co-ordinators). Given their needs, they indicated that they had progressed to self-actualization needs as per Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of needs. These findings are not generalisable to this research in that the sample was not from the same company, came from a “well-to-do” province and their occupations were higher than the current studies’.

24

3.6. Elements of Job Satisfaction
Nel et al (2001) propose 2 main groups of factors that contribute to job satisfaction, viz. Personal and Organizational Factors. Organizational factors are the following: Work: employees prefer interesting and challenging tasks that provide opportunities for self-actualization and recognition. For employees to execute their tasks efficiently, they need training and development, which serve to enable the employer to reach its HR targets, not forgetting that these two are of mutual interest to the employer and the employee. Pay: the remuneration employees receive is perceived as an indication of their worth to the organization after evaluating their input and peer’s input against their pay. Luthans (2002a) concurred and offered that money is more persuasive than fringe benefits seeing that it encourages employees to perform better than is expected of them. Promotion: opportunities for promotion are seen to be key in determining job satisfaction. Employees’ perception of the existence of the ability to selfactualize in the organization through getting a better job and the perception of that being applied fairly contribute towards job satisfaction. It therefore stands to reason that an objective performance measurement system needs to be in place and applied fairly because, according to Luthans (2002a), promotions usually occur when employees are appraised and remunerated for the efforts they have contributed to the organization. Supervision: the amount of technical and social support extended by the supervisor to the employee influences job satisfaction. Supervisors direct the activities of employees by planning, leading, organizing and controlling the organization’s resources (Davis & Newstrom 2002). By being open to employees’ suggestions relative to their jobs and letting their inputs form part of the decisions that affect their jobs, they play an important role in employees’ job satisfaction (Nel, et al, 2001).

25

Co-Workers: the relationship with co-workers is seen to affect job satisfaction moderately given the employee’s predisposition / emphasis to career orientation. The writer believes that blue-collar workers in the context of this report would be more affected by co-workers in determining their job satisfaction than white-collar workers, given their team set-up as discussed in Chapter 1. Robbins (2003) offered that co-workers who are friendly and supportive lead to increased job satisfaction.

3.7.

Measurement of Job Satisfaction

As mentioned previously, job satisfaction is the general attitudes that an employee has relative to their job, therefore an understanding of those attitudes can only be assessed by: 1) Their behaviour, 2) Confrontational meetings, 3) Questionnaires & surveys. Nel et al (2001) offer that there are various reliable and valid instruments to measure job satisfaction systematically and mention the following, but not limited to, the following 3 instruments: Rating scales: These are questionnaires in which people report their reactions to their jobs, and the JDI (Job Descriptive Index) is one example of this. It is easy and quick to fill in and norms are usually available for comparison. Critical incidents: Employees are given an opportunity to describe events in their jobs that made them either very satisfied or very dissatisfied. Interviews: Structured interviews provide a basis for comparison and ensure that important aspects are covered.

26

They conclude that conducting a job satisfaction survey in an organization tends to create expectations that positive changes will be implemented and that nonattendance to obvious problems may aggravate any existing dissatisfaction. Smith et al (1969), in their analysis of job satisfaction, designed their final scales around 5 factors of job satisfaction, viz. Work, Pay, Promotions, Supervision and Co-workers. They recognized that these factors do not specify the general construct of job satisfaction completely; however they felt that they were the 5 areas that were most discriminatively different for the pool of workers they were studying and were of primary importance across the range of conditions they wished to study. This study will be focusing on the 5 constructs of job satisfaction as offered by Smith et al (1969) (work, pay, promotions, supervision & co-workers) and will not venture into other areas of job satisfaction-influencing factors like general satisfaction, morale, general company policies and general satisfaction with the company as a place to work. Herewith are the reasons given by Smith et al (1969) for retaining all 5 of the JDI scales: 1. They represent discriminatively different areas of satisfaction. 2. Although the areas are correlated, some areas may be more important to some people than to others. 3. Different areas may be related quite differently to different personal background variables and individual characteristics like age, education and performance. 4. The intercorrelations among different areas may be a function of a common measurement method and of specific job situations and employee samples, and thus they may vary widely from one company/situation to another, and 5. Different areas may be affected differently by different situational variables. In line with the purpose of this study to unearth the determinants of job satisfaction for the manipulation thereof by organizations, only the organizational factors will be measured.

27

3.8.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Lawler (1994:78) declared that “...compared to what is known about motivation, relatively little is known about the determinants and consequences of satisfaction”. It is in this spirit that this research is undertaken in order to add to the body of knowledge on the subject of satisfaction.

28

CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY
4.1. Introduction

This chapter aims to outline the methodology that was followed in researching the topic at hand. Discussions revolve around the paradigm in which the research was conducted, the goals that it aimed to achieve, the methods followed in getting there, the design of the research, the instrument used, the population, data analysis and ethical considerations for the research.

4.2.

Research Paradigms

Leedy (1997:104) described the quantitative / positivist research approach, wherein the researcher wants to “deduce” and test the implications of pre-formed hypotheses, as an approach whereby the researcher attempts to “answer questions about the relationships among measured variables with the purpose of explaining, predicting and controlling phenomena”. (Creswell, 1994:2) defined a quantitative study as “an inquiry into a social or human problem, based on testing theory composed of variables, measured with numbers and analyzed with statistical procedures in order to determine whether the predictive generalizations of the theory hold true”. Leedy (1997:189) explained non-experimental research as the type of research that “…involves making careful descriptions of observed phenomena and/or exploring the possible relationships between different phenomena”, the idea of which is to study an occurring phenomenon as it is without attempting to manipulate the situational variables. Such is the route that was followed for this study.

4.3.

Research Goals

The research aimed to identify and explore the levels of job satisfaction amongst employees in the Kempston Road and Struandale plants of General Motors South Africa. The hypotheses to be tested are as given below:

29

Test hypothesis (H1): There is a significant difference in employee satisfaction levels between Kempston Road and Struandale. Null/Real hypothesis (H0): There is no significant difference in employee satisfaction levels between Kempston Road and Struandale. Test hypothesis (H1): There is a significant difference in employee satisfaction levels between lengths of service. Null/Real hypothesis (H0): There is no significant difference in employee satisfaction levels between lengths of service. Test hypothesis (H1): There is a significant difference in employee satisfaction levels between employee ages. Null/Real hypothesis (H0): There is no significant difference in employee satisfaction levels between employee ages. Test hypothesis (H1): There is a significant difference in employee satisfaction levels between employee roles. Null/Real hypothesis (H0): There is no significant difference in employee satisfaction levels between employee roles. Test hypothesis (H1): There is a significant difference in employee satisfaction levels between employee incomes. Null/Real hypothesis (H0): There is no significant difference in employee satisfaction levels between employee incomes. Test hypothesis (H1): There is a significant difference in employee satisfaction levels between shops. Null/Real hypothesis (H0): There is no significant difference in employee satisfaction levels between shops. Test hypothesis (H1): There is a significant difference in employee satisfaction levels between divisions.

30

Null/Real hypothesis (H0): There is no significant difference in employee satisfaction levels between divisions.

4.4.

Data Collection

Data collection for this research involved use of the Job Description Index (JDI) tool, which was used to measure the five facets of job satisfaction - the work itself, pay, opportunities for promotion, relationships with co-workers and quality of supervision. The original JDI was modified so as to have only these 5 organizational facets of job satisfaction represented in the questionnaire. This structured questionnaire was headed by a statement of intent and reassurance to the respondent. It had 3 main sections. Section A contained questions related to the 5 elements of job satisfaction according to the Job Descriptive Index, with the number of questions attached to each as follows: Work- 12 questions Supervision- 15 questions Pay- 5 questions Promotions- 5 questions Co-workers- 12 questions Each of the questions had a 4-point Likert scale wherein the respondent could indicate their choice by marking with an X on one of the following options: Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree A mid-point was omitted in order to force the respondents to choose. For the purpose of analysing the results visually, the coded value labels were expanded on the likert scale to show midpoints in between the discrete values. This is shown in Table 4 below.

31

1 Highly

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neutral

Satisfied

Highly Satisfied

Table 4: Satisfaction Likert Scale Section B asked questions related to the employment intention of respondents and an open question on what the company could do to increase their satisfaction. Section C, the third and last section, contained general questions such as age, gender, length of service and position held in the business, aimed at gathering demographic and sociographic information for comparative and analytical purposes. A copy of the Questionnaire is shown in Appendix A.

4.5

Instrument Validity

The instrument used was the JDI, which is highly regarded and well-documented as valid and reliable. Kerr (1985:755) mentioned that the JDI “possesses good content validity, impressive construct validity, and adequate reliability” and also added that “very few instruments in industrial-organizational psychology have received the attention of researchers that the JDI has”. This instrument provided a good fit with the research at hand for its briefness and simplicity to fill out, which in turn would maximize the responses. It has also been employed in more job satisfaction studies than any other instrument, therefore comparative data and norms can be readily found (Crites, 1985). No research was found done with the JDI in South Africa in order to cement its applicability evidence in the South African context.

4.6

Research Design

The research was designed to determine the differences in job satisfaction levels in 2 automotive plants of the same automotive manufacturer situated in the same city. It is descriptive in nature and uses a survey to gather pertinent information relevant to the determination of job satisfaction. It entails gathering the characteristics of

32

representative random samples of Kempston Road and Struandale production employees in order to observe the phenomenon which is job satisfaction at a “point in time” (Leedy, 1997:189). This is described as a “Descriptive / Normative Survey”, which Leedy (1997:190) described as “a method of research that looks with intense accuracy at the phenomena of the moment and describes precisely what the researcher sees“. The research aims to identify and explore the organizational factors that impact on levels of employee satisfaction in the Kempston Road and Struandale plants of General Motors South Africa. This was done by conducting a survey through questionnaires that were handed out to production employees in the different shops of the 2 plants. Manufacturing employees are defined as Co-ordinators, Team Leaders and Team members in the context of this report.

4.7

Research Procedure

The company had a total number of 3358 employees overall between the 4 corporate presence centers of Port Elizabeth, Johannesburg, Cape Town and Durban (GM Employment Equity report, 2005). Of that number, 1822 were “Plant and Machine Operators and Assemblers”, meaning Co-ordinators, Team Leaders and Team members directly involved in the production of vehicles. A letter was written to the employees union (NUMSA) and delivered. Acknowledgement was never received; however, discussions with the union representatives confirmed their position of having no problems with the research. A list of Production Co-ordinators, Team Leaders and Team Members employed by the company was obtained from the Human Resource department. This list of people formed the Population for the purpose of this study. A representative sample (n=150) was drawn from the population (N=1822) through random sampling of all population names to ensure accuracy and remove all investigator bias. The random drawing of the sample names was done by using MS Excel random generator on employee numbers. A total of 150 questionnaires were then physically delivered to these respondents in their respective shops within each plant. Of the 150 questionnaires sent out, only 94 were returned and 2 of those were unusable, resulting in a 63% response rate. This

33

was deemed sufficient enough for an initial study of this type in order to unearth the envisaged pointers.

4.8

Data Analysis

The data from the received questionnaires was coded in a nominal and ordinal fashion as relevant to the response and captured on an MS Excel spreadsheet. The JDI Elements were coded as follows: Strongly Disagree: 1 Disagree: Agree: Strongly Agree: 2 4 5

In the original questionnaire, the midpoint neutral of the Likert scale was removed in order to force the respondents to take a stance on a question and avoid neutral, unaffected answers. In order to do a proper analysis, a midpoint label was added as neutral and the ordinal responses were coded with the following value labels: 1 – Strongly Disagree 2 – Disagree 3 – Neutral 4 – Agree 5 – Strongly Agree The Demographics section’s responses to each category were coded in an increasing number fashion from 1 to the number of the available responses. The data was analyzed using descriptive statistics for means and inferential statistics to analyze satisfaction responses using Mann-Whitney’s u-test, which is used to test 2 independent samples with no assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variances (Leedy, 1997).

34

4.9

Ethical Considerations

Some issues had to be considered in order to validate this study. These are discussed below together with actions taken to alleviate, if any. Given that the demographics of the population were mainly Coloured & African and male, the research might appear biased along race and sex lines. However, such was the reality within the company. Perceptions might be created by employees that company management had a hidden agenda with this research. They therefore had to be convinced that management was not involved. The note at the beginning of the questionnaire together with the prepared talk when approaching respondents to give them the questionnaires ensured that this perception ceased to exist. The sample to whom the questionnaire was administered was informed of their free will to participate in the research. This ensured that the responses they gave were not “clinically correct”, but rather reflected their own feelings due to their own free will to participate and no management involvement. In order to avoid damaging rumours whilst conducting the survey, the employee’s representative union was informed of the research beforehand in order to be proactive. This also helped to set the employees at ease in their responses. It was taken into cognisance that some of the respondents might be illiterate. The researcher would have interviewed the respondents in their chosen language and marked the responses accordingly. However, all the respondents were literate; therefore there was no need to interview any of the sample members in their chosen language.

35

4.10 Conclusion
This chapter covered the methodology followed to research employee satisfaction in the given setting. Discussions covered the goals of the research, methods, design, population, data analysis and ethical considerations in gathering the data. “As human beings, we see as we are, therefore the ultimate truth is not known. With research, an attempt is made to get to the “Realm of Ultimate truth”, which can only be done by gathering data and analyzing it accordingly” (Besag, 1986:18).

36

CHAPTER 5: RESEARCH RESULTS
5.1. Introduction

This chapter reveals the results of the study into job satisfaction by providing the results of Descriptive and Inferential Statistics from the received responses of the applied questionnaire.

5.2.

Analysis Of Results

The tables below reflect the results of the sample survey of employee satisfaction using the Job Descriptive Index. The tables report the results of Descriptive statistics and Inferential statistics as applicable by category.

5.3.

Descriptive Statistics Frequencies

The following are Descriptive statistics of the combined (Kempston Road and Struandale) responses to the questionnaire. There were a total of 92 valid responses and various respondents from the original 150 did not answer some of the 10 questions. The responses are described below. How long do you plan to work at General Motors SA? This question yielded the following responses: Of the total 92 usable questionnaires, 7 respondents (7.6%) did not reply to this question, leaving a total of 85 responses to the question. More than half (51.8%) of the respondents indicated that they planned to work at General Motors SA for more than 5 years and a number of other respondents (35.3%) did not know how long they intended to work at General Motors SA (See Table 5).

37

Cumulative Frequency Valid One to two years Two to five years More years Don' t know Total Missing Total System than five 3 8 44 30 85 7 92 Percent 3.3 8.7 47.8 32.6 92.4 7.6 100.0 Valid Percent Percent 3.5 9.4 51.8 35.3 100.0 3.5 12.9 64.7 100.0

Table 5: How long do you plan to work at General Motors SA? Would you recommend employment at General Motors SA to a friend? Responses to the question “Would you recommend employment at General Motors SA to a friend?” showed that 47.7% of respondents definitely would recommend employment at General Motors SA to a friend, closely followed by 32.6% who responded that they probably would (See Table 6). A combined 5.8% of the respondents gave a negative response to this question, which pales in comparison to the combined positive responses (80.3%). Cumulative Frequency Valid Definitely not Probably not Maybe Probably would Definitely would Total Missing Total System 1 4 12 28 41 86 6 92 Percent 1.1 4.3 13.0 30.4 44.6 93.5 6.5 100.0 Valid Percent Percent 1.2 4.7 14.0 32.6 47.7 100.0 1.2 5.8 19.8 52.3 100.0

Table 6: Would you recommend employment at General Motors SA to a friend?

38

How long have you worked for GMSA? Cumulatively, 63% of respondents had worked for GMSA for ten years or more, with the least number (9.9%) having worked for less than a year (See Table 7). Valid Frequency Valid Less than 1 year 1 year to less than 2 years 2 years to less than 5 years 5 years to less than 10 years 10 years or more Total Missing Total System 8 10 3 9 51 81 11 92 Percent Percent 8.7 10.9 3.3 9.8 55.4 88.0 12.0 100.0 9.9 12.3 3.7 11.1 63.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 9.9 22.2 25.9 37.0 100.0

Table 7: How long have you worked for GMSA? What is your age? 60.2% of the respondents were between the ages 21 and 34, and the under 21’s and over 55’s constituted 6% of the respondents between them (See Table 8). Valid Frequency Percent Valid Under 21 21 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 or older Total Missing Total System 2 50 21 7 3 83 9 92 2.2 54.3 22.8 7.6 3.3 90.2 9.8 100.0 Percent 2.4 60.2 25.3 8.4 3.6 100.0 Cumulative Percent 2.4 62.7 88.0 96.4 100.0

Table 8: What is your age? What is your gender? An overwhelming majority of respondents (97.6%) were male, indicating the 39

strong male domination in the ranks surveyed (See Table 9). Valid Frequency Valid Male Female Total Missing Total System 81 2 83 9 92 Percent 88.0 2.2 90.2 9.8 100.0 Percent 97.6 2.4 100.0 Cumulative Percent 97.6 100.0

Table 9: What is your gender? What is your role in the organisation? 91.1 % of the respondents were hourly-paid with 73.4% being team members (See Table 10). The remainder were salaried (monthly-paid) Co-ordinators. Valid Frequency Valid Team member Team leader Co-ordinator Total Missing System Total 58 14 7 79 13 92 Percent 63.0 15.2 7.6 85.9 14.1 100.0 Percent 73.4 17.7 8.9 100.0 Cumulative Percent 73.4 91.1 100.0

Table 10: What is your role in the organisation? What is your total before-tax monthly income from this job, including overtime and bonuses? Table 11 below shows that most of the respondents (73.1%) earned between R2 000 and R6 000. 15.4% of the respondents earned less than R2000, whilst 11.6% earned between R6000 and R10000.

40

Valid Frequency Valid Less than R2000 R2000 to less than R4000 R4000 to less than R6000 R6000 to less than R8000 R8000 to less than R10 000 Total Missing System Total 12 27 30 8 1 78 14 92 Percent 13.0 29.3 32.6 8.7 1.1 84.8 15.2 100.0 Percent 15.4 34.6 38.5 10.3 1.3 100.0

Cumulative Percent 15.4 50.0 88.5 98.7 100.0

Table 11: What is your total before-tax monthly income from this job, including overtime and bonuses? In which shop do you work? As shown in Table 12 below, the respondents were mainly from General Assembly (44.4%) and the Paintshop had the least number of responses (2.5%). Valid Frequency Valid Bodyshop Paintshop Other Total Missing System Total 27 2 16 81 11 92 Percent 29.3 2.2 39.1 17.4 88.0 12.0 100.0 Percent 33.3 2.5 44.4 19.8 100.0 Cumulative Percent 33.3 35.8 80.2 100.0

General Assembly 36

Table 12: In which shop do you work? In which plant do you work? Of the responses received between the 2 plants, 53.7% came from the Kempston Road Plant, whilst the remainder (46.3%) came from Struandale (Table 13 below).

41

Valid Frequency Valid Kempston road Struandale Total Missing Total System 44 38 82 10 92 Percent 47.8 41.3 89.1 10.9 100.0 Percent 53.7 46.3 100.0

Cumulative Percent 53.7 100.0

Table 13: In which plant do you work? In which division do you work? By Division, 85% of the respondents were employed in Production and 6.3% in Quality. (See Table 14 below). Valid Frequency Valid Production Quality Other Total Missing System Total 68 5 7 80 12 92 Percent 73.9 5.4 7.6 87.0 13.0 100.0 85.0 6.3 8.8 100.0 Cumulative 85.0 91.3 100.0

Percent Percent

Table 14: In which division do you work?

5.4.

Inferential Statistics Frequencies

Welman and Kruger (2000) mentioned that in a frequency histogram where all responses are plotted, the mean of a normally distributed frequency histogram will be the average point where the majority of the responses will lie. However, for a skewed frequency histogram, the Mode represents the point with the most frequent responses, whilst the Median divides the Standard Deviation in half for a skewed distribution. Seeing that the type of test to be done depends on the nature of the data, a Homogeneity test was performed in order to determine whether the responses were normally distributed. The data failed this test, indicating that the responses were not normally distributed. Following this, a Mann-Whitney test was 42

then applied on the data. This test is used to determine ”whether the medians of two independent samples differ from each other to a significant degree” (Leedy, 1997:269). Furthermore, a Kruskal-Wallis test was done on samples with a single independent variable to check if there was a significant difference between the multiple independent variables (Leedy, 1997). The following are inferential statistics of the responses to the questionnaires from both the Kempston Road and Struandale plants. 5.4.1. Difference in Job Satisfaction between Plants

The means of the 5 facets of job satisfaction were calculated per plant and yielded the results as depicted in Table 15. Kempston Road employees recorded a higher mean on questions related to their work and scored equally with Struandale on Supervisor question means. Struandale employees scored higher means on questions related to Pay, Promotions and Co-workers, with promotions having a higher margin (0.4). Between both plants, the Pay category scored the lowest of all. In which plant do you work? Kempston Struandale Mean Road 3.8 3.7 3.8 3.7 2.9 3.4 3.9 3.5 3.7 2.9 3.2 3.8 3.5

MEANWORK

MEANSUPERVISOR 3.7 MEANPAY 2.8

MEANPROMOTIONS 3.0 MEANCOWORKERS 3.8 PLANT JDI MEANS 3.4

Table 15: Plant means per JDI category With the responses averaged and measured against a 5-point Likert scale ranging between Highly Dissatisfied and Highly Satisfied (see Table 4 in Chapter 4), both Kempston Road and Struandale responses were between Neutral and Satisfied (3.4 & 3.5).

43

In testing whether there was a significant difference in employee satisfaction levels between Kempston Road and Struandale, the medians of the 5 facets of job satisfaction from both plants were tested against the set hypothesis: H0: there was no significant difference between the medians of both plants (
Road

Kempston

=

Struandale). Kempston

Ha: there was a significant difference between the medians of both plants (
Road Struandale).

p-value MEANWORK MEANSUPERVISOR MEANPAY MEANPROMOTIONS MEANCOWORKERS .290 .889 .643 .020 .822

Table 16: Plant median Mann-Whitney test results The results were as follows, at a 5% significance level (Reject H0 if p