Motivational Efforts of Management in Achieving Job Satisfaction

Published: 2021-06-24 04:40:04
essay essay

Category: Management

Type of paper: Essay

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

Hey! We can write a custom essay for you.

All possible types of assignments. Written by academics


People management is integral in the management process and understanding the critical importance of it in an organization will be to acknowledge that the human factor and the organization are synonymous. Effective management within the organization can make the average worker the core foundation of quality and productivity gains. Employers must begin to move away from capital investment and rather focus on their employees, as they will be the fundamental source of enhancement within the organisation in the near future. De Meuse, Bergmann (2001), stated that, the world is witnessing a excess of corporate downsizing, restructuring and mergers. This statement was further support by Lester and Kickul (2001) when they indicated that, “current economic and employment landscape puts pressure on how organizations structures and motivates employees.” Due to the fiercely competitive environment most companies operate and focus on corporate goals, profit margins, and stock market prices (Bergmann et. al., 2001) leaving the employee to focus on determining his or her source of motivation. It is not surprising to find organisations seeking potential employees who are intrinsically motivated especially during recruitment. This desire can be linked increased workload and stress now associated with work and also decreased job security and commitment as indicated by De Meuse, Bergmann et al. (2001). The effectiveness of an organisation is measured according to the extent to which it achieves its goals. To this effect, employers must ensure and promote cooperation, commitment and high level of satisfaction within the field of its influence. In order to ensure that employees have a sense of satisfaction in their jobs, there should be strong and effective motivation at all levels within the organisation. The performance of an individual can be determined by the work environment, his/her abilities and motivation to work. In situations where the individual appears not to have the need capacity to do what is required of him or her some form of training can be provided to build the capacity required, where ergonomics and other environment factors are identified as cause of an individual’s inefficiencies, some form of adjustment can be made. However, when the individual lacks the desire to works, remedying it goes begun what an employer can do to bring about immediate results. This can be explained on the bases that, human behaviour is a complex and understanding it to enable change is not an easy task and as indicated by Fletcher (2004), wanting an immediate change in human behaviour is hard to imagine. Motivation therefore, can be considered as a factor that plays a significant role in influencing employee’s job satisfaction. However, this role might be negative or positive considering the fact that, motivation is intangible nature. Considering role of motivation on job satisfaction, one might one the stands of the Ghanaian employer. Does the Ghanaian employer acknowledge the importance of motivation and if so, what are the steps put in place to ensure that, motivation has a positive impact on employees? Most organizations have evolved with time and are adapting leaner and flat structures, these organisations place a lot of focus on delivering value to customers, not likely to provide employees with jobs for life, very open, and are more dynamic with competitive requirements and strategies. An attempt to understand motivation and its resultant effects on job satisfaction is not easy especially in a country like Ghana, where few organisations pay particular attention to their employees’ level of motivation. It is said that, a happy worker is a good worker but one may be tempted to challenge the validity of this statement. For at least 50 years, researchers have sought to determine if any, the relationship that job satisfaction has with job performance. It is important to emphasise that, empirical evidence to support that job satisfaction leads to better performance is conflicting and likewise the existence of a positive correlation between the two. If empirical literature is mixed on issue and a motivated employee is assumed to be a satisfied employee then serious questions will have to be raised to assess the relationship that exist between motivation and job satisfaction. It is quite notable to note that, it was very difficult finding published works in Ghana that seek to address or suggest this relationship, if any, on the relationship between motivation and job satisfaction and the effect of motivation on job satisfaction. As a result of this ambiguity, this research seeks to determine the relationship, if any, that exist between motivation and job satisfaction, keeping in mind the value this relationship has for organizations.

Problem Statement
There are motivation theories not supported by valid evidence but are easy to understand. If one should ask how many people are motivated by being given badges, titles, dedicated car parking spaces, photos in company newsletters, how many can not wait to get home from work to do other things? One will be amazed at the numbers simply because motivation does not operate in a vacuum. If people are going to spend as much time at work as they do, why can they not be enthused about the work that they do? Do managers have a responsibility to try to stir them up? Maintaining satisfactory hygiene factors will not necessarily motivate people – but it will stop them from being dissatisfied! However, there is not necessarily a relationship between satisfaction and productivity. One can find your job satisfying without you really doing very much. Also, when conditions are satisfactory, people attribute success to their own doing and when things are positive, they look to management for someone to blame. It should also be noted that, perhaps some managers subscribe to Theory X personally, whilst publicly espousing Theory Y? The underlying fact is, changing one’s actions in line with Y will not necessarily lead to increased motivation. In the concept of job satisfaction, the employee feels the importance of his belongingness in the workplace as well as the importance of his job. This achievement can be in the way where the needs are satisfied such as their self-esteem need and self-respect, appreciation or recognition, the safety and security of the employee (Wright, 2001). The job satisfaction of the employee is also affected by several factors, and for the organization to achieve the job satisfaction of the employees; they need to describe the relationship of the commitment and motivation towards job satisfaction. Employee motivation and job satisfaction have always been an important issue in an organization, but few organizations have not made motivation and job satisfaction top priorities or even neglected the issue at times. The failure of the managers in the organization to determine the motivational factors of the employees will create dissatisfaction of the employees which will eventually result to the decrease in productivity of the employees. The managers of the organization should properly utilize its people who are considered the most important part of an organization because these employees are the one’s doing the legwork in order to achieve the goals of the organization. It will be difficult to utilize the employees of the organization if they are not properly motivated, and in effect create job dissatisfaction of employees. A  A  A  A well-motivated person works harder and perseveres longer than an unmotivated one. A person level of intensity and persistence is higher because motivation energizes his behavior and gives the direction. It is very similar to the vector quantity in physics, it has both magnitude and direction. In the total workforce, almost all human behavior is motivated and caused and directed, meaning people act because something cause it, but their actions must not be aimless, it must be directional. Motivation, therefore, must be considered the strength of the drive toward an action. A  In this sense, motivation refers to the whole class of drives, needs and similar forces that prompt people to act in certain ways and develop tendencies for specific behaviors that may eventually lead to job satisfaction (Martirez, 2003). It is understandable that managers expect high quality performance from their employees regardless of the work environment that they provide. However, if from their employers concentrate on generating a kind of workplace that is positive with high motivation, job…
Research Objectives
The first objective is to determine motivational efforts of management in achieving job satisfaction. The second objective is to seek other factors, if any, that influences employee’s sense of satisfaction. The third objective is to be able to empirically test some of the various theories of motivation and assess their impact on employees’ job satisfaction in a country like Ghana. Finally through the study, recommendations could be made to the organisation on how to establish strong motivational program that leads to job satisfaction and brings out the commitment in their employees. This will contribute to knowledge management in the area of human resource.
Research Questions
There are several questions presented that can help the completion of the study in understanding the different factors that can produce the job satisfaction among the employees. Which motivational theory best determines an employees’ job satisfaction? Is there a relationship between motivation and job satisfaction? Are there other factors that contribute to job satisfaction apart from motivation? What are the measurements or signs that prove that the employees are committed to their job? Does job satisfaction play an important role in the success of the entire organization?
Definition of Motivation
Modern-day authors have defined motivation as the influence of behaviour based on knowing what makes people tick (Luthans, 1998); the psychological process that provides an innate force to satisfy an unsatisfied need (Higgins, 1994); behaviour purpose and direction (Kreitner, 1995); a tendency to behave in a purposive manner to achieve specific, unmet needs (Buford, Bedeian, & Lindner, 1995); and the will to achieve (Bedeian, 1993). Motivation for the purpose of this study is operationally as a psychological drive that propels individuals towards an objective or goal. Therefore, motivation can be considered as a basic psychological process with emphasises on how and why individuals act the way they do. Mine, Ebrahimi, and Wachtel (1995) indicated that, problems with competitiveness can be largely associated with motivation. One’s perception, personality, attitude, and learning, along with motivation are very important element of behaviour. Motivation is therefore a process of arousing, energizing, directing, and sustaining an individual’s behaviour and performance as asserted by Luthans (1998). Employers have the task of stimulating employees to take action and achieve a desired task. Employers can stimulate employees by employing effective motivation, which results in the employee being more satisfied with the work they do. Money cannot be considered as the only motivator of employees within an organisation as there are other incentives (interesting work, good wages, full work done, job security, excellent working conditions, advancement and growth in the organization, feeling of being in on things, employers loyalty, tactful discipline, and sympathetic help with personal problems) that can also serve as motivators.
Motivation theories
In the late 19th century, jobs were essential, usually hard and/or monotonous, pay was nothing to write home about as people worked mainly for bosses. It was not surprising to find people being fire for untidiness or unproductively as these were considered unacceptable. During these same periods, workers were not regarded as vital element to growth of the organisation but rather expendable resources and what matters most was increase in productivity levels. Taylor (1911) analysed time and motion, jobs were broken down into small parts, and the essence of it was develop quicker and better methods of working. This mechanistic way of working resulted in defensive and other forms of unacceptable employee behaviours. It is quite surprising to note that such management practise still exist in Ghana. Lack of research publication on this topic makes it difficult for one to validate such a claim. However, this research seeks to bring to light the level of importance plays on the Ghanaian employee considering that fact that, they form the back bone of business.
Needs theories
Practicing managers appear to have developed a soft spot for Maslow’s (1954) need theory which has resulted has received wide recognition even though its intended application was not motivation within the work place. Maslow’s theory simple indicates that, an employee is satisfied ones his or her needs at met and otherwise if they are not met. The theory also suggests that, employees will demand more from employers when they have satisfied their subsistence needs. If an employee obtains job security, he or she is most likely to seek means to attain the utmost end of self-actualization. The theory’s instinctive logic and simplicity has enabled it to build some level of accreditation. However, researchers have not validated this theory considering that, Maslow provided no empirical evidence and so has other studies failed in their attempt to validate the theory hence, the lack of support for it. Maslow’s needs theory leaves a love of questions unanswered. One should understand that, an individual higher level of need may change and become a lower level need and this may be due to one’s desire to adjust to group norms, change in time and place, and change of priority. Alderfer (1972) suggested that, an employee’s needs can be split into 3 groups as compared to that of Maslow’s (1954) proposed 5 levels. The existence level was founded on survival of the employee and this includes nutritional and material requirements. His relatedness needs was grounded on people’s desire to live and function within a social environment and these desires are achieved by one’s relations with family, friends and work colleges. The longing to be part of a values organisation which incorporates what Maslow (1954) described as safety, belonging and self-esteem needs. Alderfer’s growth needs is founded on people desire to develop their potential or personal psychological development. This growth need relates to Maslow’s self-actualisation and self-esteem needs. Alderfer emphasised that these needs do not occur in a hierarchy, but rather on a continuum (Spector, 2003), and may in fact be experienced simultaneously (Alderfer, 1969). Alderfer’s ERG theory has intuitive appeal, and is more directly applicable to employee motivation than Maslow’s needs hierarchy theory. It also has greater empirical support ( Wanous & Zwany, 1977). Despite the limited empirical support, needs hierarchy theory has had a positive impact on organisations, as it has focused attention on the importance of addressing employees’ needs at work (Spector, 2003). In addition, one of its main constructs, the self-actualisation concept, has become very popular with especially managers and executives who have accepted this high-level need as a potent motivator (Schultz & Schultz, 1998). Frederick Herzberg’s well-known and controversial theory of motivation was postulated in 1954, and developed from his work to determine the attitude of workers towards their jobs (Gouws, 1995). As such, it was originally intended to be a job satisfaction theory, but over time it was its motivational aspects that attracted most attention (Baron et al., 2002). Beach (1980) was of the opinion that this theory constitutes more of a work motivation than general human motivation theory. The basic assumption of Herzberg’s theory is that motivation originates from the job itself, and not from other external characteristics, and that those factors leading to job satisfaction (‘motivators’) are separate and distinct from those leading to job dissatisfaction (‘hygiene/maintenance’ factors) (Herzberg, 1966). The hygiene factors, which may be equated with Maslow’s lower order needs, are placed along a continuum, from a state of dissatisfaction, to no dissatisfaction. These factors involve circumstances surrounding the task which do not lead to job satisfaction, but prevent dissatisfaction, if maintained adequately. Examples of these maintenance factors include the level of supervision, job status, work circumstances, service conditions, remuneration and interpersonal relationships (Herzberg, 1966). Motivators, on the other hand, have a direct positive effect on the work situation, and lead to improved productivity. They may be equated with Maslow’s higher order needs, and are also placed along a continuum – from a highly motivated to a highly unmotivated state. Aspects of the job itself, e.g. level of recognition, pleasure of performance, increased responsibility, and opportunities for advancement and promotion, serve as motivators (Herzberg, 1966). The assumed independence of motivators and hygiene factors is a matter of some controversy in the field, and the theory in general has accumulated little empirical support. Nevertheless, the theory has had a major impact on organisational psychology (Baron et al., 2002), in that it has led to the re-design of many jobs to allow for greater participation of employees in planning, performing and evaluating their own work – a concept currently referred to as ‘job enrichment’ (Schultz & Schultz, 1998). Motivator/hygiene theory has been very successful in focusing attention on the importance of providing employees with work that is meaningful to them (Spector, 2003). Gouws (1995) noted that McGregor’s theory closely resembles that of Maslow, in that the factors McGregor believed act as motivators to people at work, are arranged and satisfied in a similar hierarchy. McGregor also placed physiological needs first, followed by physical and social needs. Egotistical needs are sub-categorised as self-regard needs on the one hand, which involve self-respect, self-confidence, autonomy, achievement, competence and knowledge, and reputation needs on the other. The latter include needs such as the status, recognition, respect and appreciation a person enjoys. The highest level of need is that of self-fulfillment, which people attempt to satisfy through continued self-development and creativity. Douglas McGregor’s (1960) Theory X and Theory Y represent an extension of his ideas on motivation to the direction and control of employees in the workplace. According to McGregor’s Theory X, which articulates the traditional approach to motivation, people are not keen on work, and try to avoid it where possible. As a result, employees must be coerced and controlled by punitive measures to perform effectively. The average person is believed to lack ambition, avoid responsibility, and strive for security and financial compensation only. They are egocentric, and not at all mindful of organisational goals. Theory Y, in contrast, reflects a more modern approach to motivation, in that most people are seen as keen to discipline themselves in order to successfully complete the tasks allocated to them. In addition, they seek responsibility, and are capable of creative problem solving. McGregor regarded Theory Y as a more accurate and realistic portrayal of human behaviour, since it represents the integration of individual and organisational goals. McGregor did, however, recognise that the theory does not offer a complete explanation for employee motivation (McGregor, 1960).
McClelland’s learned needs theory
McClelland’s theory, also referred to as the ‘Three-Needs’ theory (Gouws, 1995) or the ‘Achievement Motivation’ theory (Schultz & Schultz, 1998), was introduced in 1967. The theory is based on the position that achievement-oriented people share three major needs, which are not innate, but acquired through learning and experience (McClelland, 1987). McClelland assigned a specific code to each of the three needs, which include: the need for Power (n/PWR), which denotes the need to control others, influence their behaviour and be responsible for them; the need for Affiliation (n/AFF), which refers to the desire to establish and maintain satisfying relationships with other people; the need for Achievement (n/ACH), viewed as behaviour directed towards competition with standards of excellence. Although not highly influential, McClelland’s theory of motivation was certainly instrumental in focusing attention on the unusual needs of employees with a strong need to achieve (Beach, 1980).
Hackman and Oldham’s task enrichment theory
Richard Hackman and Greg Oldham’s model, which was introduced in 1980 (Van Niekerk, 1987), is also known as the ‘job characteristics’ theory (Schultz & Schultz, 1998). It developed out of the authors’ research on objective measures of job characteristics that correlated with job satisfaction and work attendance (Schultz & Schultz, 1998). The theory is based on the premise that three psychological states in particular are necessary to enhance a person’s motivation and job satisfaction, namely : the experience of work as meaningful; the experience of work responsibility, i.e. the level of personal responsibility for a person’s work; insight in job performance, i.e. how much insight a person has in how well or how poorly he is performing on his job. The more intense the experience of these three states, the higher the person’s motivation level will be (Porter, Lawler & Hackman, 1975). Hackman and Oldham also identified five task characteristics believed to lead to the above motivational states. These characteristics, which include skills variety, task identity, task importance, autonomy and performance feedback, and their interplay with the three motivational states.Fundamental to this theory is the notion that the need for personal development, creativity and challenge has a very significant impact on the successful execution of a meaningful task. In addition, due to differing individual drives and needs, different people will respond differently to the same task (Van Niekerk, 1987). The concept of task enrichment has proven to be very meaningful and useful in the workplace, and Hackman and Oldham’s theory therefore continues to stimulate investigation (Tyagi, 1985). A meta-analysis of 200 studies, for example, confirmed the positive relationship between job characteristics, job satisfaction and performance (Fried & Ferris, 1987). The learning theory of motivation holds the assumption that, motivation in other is induced when they see other being rewarded for putting a certain level of performance standard and will also put in extra effort when the realise that people are being punished for not meeting set performance standards. Cognitive theories
Equity theory
Equity theory was first introduced by Stacy Adams in 1965 (Hadebe, 2001). Its basic tenet is that people are motivated to achieve a condition of equity / fairness in their dealings with other people, and with the organisations they work for (Adams, 1965). People make judgements or comparisons between their own inputs at work, e.g. their qualifications, experience and effort, and the outcomes they receive, e.g. pay and fringe benefits, status and working conditions. They then assign weights to these inputs and outputs according to their relevance and importance to themselves. The summed total produces an output / input ratio, which is the key issue in terms of motivation. If a person’s output / input ratio is equal to that of another person, equity exists. A state of inequity leads to tension, which the individual tries to reduce by changing one or more elements of the ratio, e.g. increase or reduce his effort. Perceived inequity by the person is therefore the basis for motivation (Baron et al., 2002). This theory helped to provide the basis for studying the motivational implications of perceived unfairness and injustice in the workplace. It also laid the foundation for more recent theories on distributive (how much is allocated to each person) and procedural justice (how rewards and job requirements are determined) (Cropanzano & Folger, 1996). In a meta-analysis of many of these theories, Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001) found that both distributive and procedural justice were related to job performance, job satisfaction and the intention to quit. Equity theory has stimulated much research, but there has been a decline in interest of late because of its inability to predict people’s perception of the equitability of their specific situation. Nevertheless, it has served to direct attention to the importance of treating employees fairly, and the consequences of failing to do so (Spector, 2003).
Goal-setting theory
Goal-setting theory was first proposed by Edwin Locke in 1968 (Beck, 1983). Spector (2003) described this perspective on motivation as the assumption that people’s behaviour is motivated by their internal intentions, objectives or goals, in other words, by what people consciously want to achieve. According to Locke and Henne (1986) goals affect behaviour in four ways: they direct attention and action to those behaviours which a person believes will achieve a particular goal; they mobilise effort towards reaching the goal; they increase the person’s persistence, which results in more time spent on the behaviours necessary to attain the desired goal; they motivate the person’s search for effective strategies for goal attainment. There are several prerequisites for the goal-directed behaviour to effectively improve job performance (Locke & Henne, 1986): a thorough commitment to the specific goal; regular feedback on the person’s performance towards attaining the goal; the more challenging the goal is perceived to be, the better the person’s performance is likely to be; specific goals are more effective than vague goals, e.g. “do your best”; self-set goals are preferred over organisationally set goals. If this is not entirely possible, a person needs to at least have input into his own goals. This theory has an intuitive appeal because of its clear relevance to the workplace (Schultz & Schultz, 1998). It is well supported by empirical research evidence (Locke & Latham, 1990). A meta-analysis of 72 on-the-job studies pointed out that goal setting produces substantial increases in employee output (Wood, Mento & Locke, 1987). It is currently one of the most popular theories informing organisational approaches to employee motivation (Spector, 2003).
Expectancy theory
The original thinking behind what has come to be known as expectancy theory, or Vroom’s Expectancy-Valence-Instrumentality (VIE) theory (Beck, 1983), can be traced back to the theorizing of Tolman and Levin in 1932 and 1938 respectively (Petri, 1996). Vroom was, however, the first scholar to elaborate on this thinking in a motivational context in 1964 (Gouws, 1995). Since its origins in the psychological theorising of some 60 years ago, the expectancy theory has been presented in many variations. Common to all versions is the basic tenet that people base their behaviour on their beliefs and expectations regarding future events, namely those maximally advantageous to them (Baron et al., 2002). Essentially, the theory explains how rewards lead to behaviour, through focusing on internal cognitive states that lead to motivation. In other words, people are motivated to action if they believe those behaviours will lead to the outcomes they want. The said cognitive states are termed ‘expectancy’, ‘valence’ and ‘instrumentality’ (Spector, 2003). Vroom’s original theory posits that motivation (or ‘force’) is a mathematical function of three types of cognitions (Vroom, 1964): Force = Expectancy x AŽA£ (Valences x Instrumentalities) Where: force is the person’s motivation to perform; expectancy is the perceived probability that a person has regarding his ability to perform the behaviour required to lead to a desired outcome, e.g. working hard enough to secure a promotion. (This aspect is similar to self-esteem or self-confidence, in that it relates to a person’s belief that he can perform at the required level (Spector, 2003)); valence is the value or the attractiveness of the outcome to the person; instrumentality is the perceived probability that a given behaviour will lead to the desired outcome. There may be more than one outcome for each behaviour. According to Vroom’s formula, for each outcome a valence and instrumentality are multiplied, and each resulting product then summed (AŽA£), and multiplied by the person’s expectancy, to produce an overall force or motivation score (Spector, 2003). Hadebe (2001) points out that the multiplicative assumption implies that if any of the cognitive components equals zero, the overall level of motivation will be zero. Expectancy theory has represented a popular and influential approach since its introduction, but has been criticised for its assumption that people are as calculating and rational in their decision-making, as suggested. It has also been criticised for failing to take adequate account of people’s cognitive limitations (Baron et al., 2002). Consequently, there has been mixed levels of support for the theory’s usefulness in the workplace. According to Hadebe (2001) the theory has limited use, and is more valid for prediction of behaviour where effort-performance-rewards linkages may be clearly perceived by the individual. Support for the theory as an adequate predictor of job performance comes from authors such as Tubbs, Boehne and Dahl (1993), Van Eerde and Thierry (1996), Hackman and Porter (1968) and Fox, Scott and Donohue (1993). Reinforcement theories
Reinforcement theories, which assume that people’s behaviour is determined by its perceived positive or negative consequences (Baron et al., 2002) are based on the ‘Law of Effect’ idea, which was first postulated by Thorndike (1911), and further developed by Woodworth (1918) and Hull (1943). Hull’s drive theory elaborated on this idea and suggested that effort was the mathematical product of drive, multiplied by habit, and that habit was derived from behaviour reinforcement. The consequences of behaviour may be tangible, such as money, or intangible, such as praise (Spector, 2003). In this regard, reinforcement theory was highly influential in firmly establishing the ideas relating to incentive and reward systems that are applied in most organisations today. As such, it provided the basis for the notion that rewards should be contingent with individual units of productivity (Schultz & Schultz, 1998). As a motivation theory, reinforcement theory has fallen somewhat out of favour, as it merely describes relations between reinforcement and behaviour, but gives 34 little insight into motivational processes, e.g. whether or not a person wanted a specific reward, or why. Nevertheless, its relative popularity in the workplace is maintained by research that has shown that rewards can be highly effective in the enhancement of job performance (Spector, 2003). Job satisfaction is a complex and multifaceted concept, which can mean different things to different people. Job satisfaction is usually linked with motivation, but the nature of this relationship is not clear. Satisfaction is not the same as motivation. “Job satisfaction is more of an attitude, an internal state. It could, for example, be associated with a personal feeling of achievement, either quantitative or qualitative.” In recent years attention to job satisfaction has become more closely associated with broader approaches to improved job design and work organization, and the quality of working life movement. The most-used research definition of job satisfaction is by Locke (1976), who defined it as “. . . a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences” (p. 1304). Implicit in Locke’s definition is the importance of both affect, or feeling, and cognition, or thinking. When we think, we have feelings about what we think. Conversely, when we have feelings, we think about what we feel. Cognition and affect are thus inextricably linked, in our psychology and even in our biology. Thus, when evaluating our jobs, as when we assess most anything important to us. The relationship between job satisfaction and performance is an issue of continuing debate and controversy. One view associated with the early human relation’s approach, is that satisfaction leads to performance. An alternative view is that performance leads to satisfaction. However, a variety of studies suggest that research has found only a limited relationship between satisfaction and work output, and offer scant comfort to those seeking to confirm that a satisfied worker is also a productive one. Labour turnover and absenteeism are commonly associated with dissatisfaction, but although there may be some correlation, there are many other possible factors. No universal generalizations about worker dissatisfaction exist, to offer easy management solutions to problems of turnover and absenteeism. The study suggests that it is primarily in the realm of job design, where opportunity resides for a constructive improvement of the worker’s satisfaction level. METHODOLOGY This study will be a quantitative research drawing on deductive technique as research questions will be deduced from theories. The data for the research will be collected using a questionnaire and the population for this study will on 50 people across various industries above the legal working age (18+) in Ghana. The sample population will be randomly selected from the population in order to limit sampling error and other research biases. The study will gather participants’ information such as their age, gender, civil status, number of family members, years of employment and their position in their respective company.A  All these requirements will serve as moderating factors of the study and ethical considerations will be noted with great emphasis on confidentiality. +

Warning! This essay is not original. Get 100% unique essay within 45 seconds!


We can write your paper just for 11.99$

i want to copy...

This essay has been submitted by a student and contain not unique content

People also read