Job Satisfaction and HR Practices CHAPTER

V

IMPACT OF HR PRACTICES ON JOB SATISFACTION This chapter of the research study presents a broader understanding of the impact of HR practices if perceived appropriate on the level of Job Satisfaction among employees at the managerial level in the pharmaceutical units under study. The HR policies, shapes the specific Human Resource Practices, being adopted in an organization. Through this, the Satisfaction of employees, especially at managerial levels, is affected to a large extent. 5.1 FACTORS OF JOB SATISFACTION In the present study, employees were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction for different aspects of their job. In all, ten items were included in this part of the questionnaire. Factor Analysis was performed by calculating mean values of VarianceCovariance matrix of the ten statements of Job Satisfaction in the questionnaire to measure the level of Job Satisfaction of the employees at managerial level in the entire six pharmaceutical units understudy. The ten statements of Job Satisfaction were grouped into five factors using Factor Analysis. These factors of Job Satisfaction are named as: Team working & Supportive Culture (JS1); Working Conditions (JS2); Quality of Work Life (JS3); Supervisory Style (JS4) and Skill Enhancement (JS5). The following table represents the five factors of Job Satisfaction with their corresponding statement numbers as in the questionnaire. Table 5.1 Job Satisfaction factors in Pharmaceutical units understudy Sr.

Factors

Statement Numbers

1.

Team Working & Supportive Culture

1,2,9,10

2

Working Conditions

3,4

3.

Quality of Work Life

8

4.

Supervisory Style

5

5.

Skill Enhancement

6,7

173

Job Satisfaction and HR Practices After formulating the factors of Job Satisfaction, comparison of levels of Job Satisfaction among employees of the six pharmaceutical units understudy was performed. The details of this can be observed in the following table. (Also refer to appendix: 8) Table 5.2 Comparison of Job Satisfaction Levels of the Pharmaceutical Units

Organization

Team

Quality

working &

of

Supportive Working

Work

Culture

Skill Enhance Supervisory

Conditions Life

Style

Ment

AC

Mean 2.4475

2.35

2

2.15

2.235

APS

Mean 2.2425

1.815

2.34

2

2.08

DDP

Mean 2.3275

2.165

2.03

2.33

2.54

KP

Mean 2.1575

2.235

1.63

1.5

2.135

VM

Mean 1.965

2.115

1.41

1.27

2.07

SBL

Mean 2.44

2.355

2.06

1.65

2.265

Total

Mean 2.2825

2.175

1.94

1.9

2.235

Table 5.2 shows the comparison of Job Satisfaction levels of the six Pharmaceutical units under study. It was observed from the table above, that the averages are varying between 1.27 (VM) and 2.54 (DDP). The inference drawn from here is that the level of Job Satisfaction at VM is average and at DDP is highly satisfactory. The Figure 5 below also gives us a graphical analysis of the means of Job Satisfaction at the six Pharmaceutical units under study. The inference drawn by the researcher from the graph supports the results of the comparison table 5.2 that the level of Job Satisfaction is highest at DDP followed by AC, SBL, APS, KP and VM in descending order.

174

Job Satisfaction and HR Practices

Figure 5: Comparision of Means of all five factors of Job satisfaction amongst all the six Pharmaceutical Industries 5.2 COMPANYWISE ANALYSIS OF JOB SATISFACTION For AC, it is observed that the means of various factors of Job Satisfaction are ranging between 2.00 to 2.4475. It highlights that all the factors of Job Satisfaction are on the higher side of Likert scale (1-3). The inference drawn from here is that all the factors of Job Satisfaction are satisfactory at AC. In APS the means of the factors of Job Satisfaction are observed to be varying between 1.815 and 2.34. These values are on the higher side of Likert scale (1-3), therefore, it is inferred that the factors of Job Satisfaction are satisfactory at APS. In DDP, the researcher observed that the average of the factors of Job Satisfaction are between minimum 2.03 and maximum 2.54 on 1-3 Likert scale. The inference drawn here is that Job Satisfaction is highly satisfactory at DDP. For KP, the means of the factors of Job Satisfaction are observed to be ranging between 1.50 and 2.23 on Likert scale (1-3). This highlights that Job Satisfaction at KP is satisfactory.

175

Job Satisfaction and HR Practices In VM, it is observed that the means of various factors of Job Satisfaction are lying between 1.27 and 2.115. These values are average on the Likert scale (1-3); hence, the researcher inferred that satisfactory levels up to some extent of Job Satisfaction are observed at VM. At SBL the researcher observed that the averages of the factors of Job Satisfaction are varying between 1.65 and 2.44. These values are observed to be on the higher side of the Likert scale (1-3), hence, it is inferred that the Job Satisfaction is highly satisfactory at SBL. From the overall analysis, it is concluded that the averages are ranging between 1.90 (Supervisory Style) and 2.2825 (Team working & Supportive Culture). Thus we can summaries that the job satisfaction levels of the employees are satisfactory in all the employees of the pharmaceutical units under the study. 5.3 FACTOR WISE COMPARISON OF LEVELS OF JOB SATISFACTION 1. TEAM WORKING AND SUPPORTIVE CULTURE During the study it was observed that the Team Working and Supportive Culture is an important factor that leads to employee’s Job Satisfaction as the mean value is between 1.965 (VM ) to 2.4475 (AC) these values are on the top average of the Likert Scale (1-3). Hence, we can say that in entire Pharmaceutical units understudy the employees have full confidence in their respective managements and believe that favoritism does not have any significant role to play in their organizations. The respondents also believe that their employers have been giving them promotions as per their qualification, experience and merit. There is high team spirit in the managers; hence, they seek good prospects of advancement in their current job. 2. WORKING CONDITIONS: The study indicates that the factor Working Conditions also lead to Job Satisfaction. In the comparative analysis of the six pharmaceutical units understudy, the researcher observed that the employees of SBL (2.355) are highly satisfied with their working conditions. They are highly positive about the general supervision in their departments

176

Job Satisfaction and HR Practices and strongly believe that their organization treats them better than any other organization. The mean values of AC (2.35), APS (1.815), DDP (2.165), KP (2.235) and VM (2.115) also indicate good working conditions in their organizations. 3. QUALITY OF WORK LIFE The observations regarding the Quality of Work Life in the Pharmaceutical units under study indicates that the employees of APS are highly satisfied with their jobs due to better Quality of Work Life (2.34) in their organization. The employees at VM also indicated high satisfaction towards this factor with a mean value of 2.06 on the Likert Scale (1-3). Also, it was observed that managerial employees at other Pharmaceutical units under study i.e. AC, DDP, KP and SBL showed comparatively lower Job Satisfaction levels related to the factor Quality of Work Life. 4. SUPERVISORY STYLE The researcher observed that the Supervisory Style in all the Pharmaceutical units under study was appreciated by the employees. On the Likert scale (1-3) the mean values were observed to be above four in all the six Pharmaceutical units under study. This indicated that the employees were highly satisfied with the way their supervisors took into account their wishes and their performance. This also indicates that the employees have highly satisfactory relations with their supervisors. The leading company, DDP (2.33) here again indicates that their supervisory styles were par excellence in comparison to the other units understudy. 5. SKILL ENHANCEMENT It was observed from the table that the employees in DDP (2.54) were highly satisfied with the way their job helped them learn more skills. This factor indicated a high level of satisfaction in the other Pharmaceutical units under study as well with mean values of 2.235, 2.08, 2.135, 2.07, and 2.265 in AC, APS, KP, VM and SBL respectively. The employees were also aware about the fact that their job was secure as long as they continue good work.

177

Job Satisfaction and HR Practices 5.4 ANALYSIS

OF

VARIANCE

(ANOVA)

OF

FACTORS

OF

JOB

SATISFACTION IN PHARMACEUTICAL UNITS UNDERSTUDY In this study, the researcher tested for the significance of the difference among the sample means through, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). This was done by F-test for testing the significance of the difference of one factor in all six Pharmaceutical units understudy. The results of the analysis through this test using SPSS (as per appendix: 9) have been explained below: Table 5.3 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of factor ‘Team Working and Supportive Culture’ of Job Satisfaction in Pharmaceutical Units understudy. Sources

of Sum

of Degree

of Mean

Variation

squares

Freedom

Square

Between

71.773

5

14.355

groups

511.096

178

2.871

Total

582.870

183

F-Value

Significance (0.05)

4.999

0.00

groups Within

Hypothesis:

H 0 : X A = X AP = X D = X K = X VM = X SBL ; H0 accepted, when probability is ≥ 0.05 H 1 : X A ≠ X AP ≠ X D ≠ X K ≠ X VM ≠ X SBL ; H1 accepted, when probability is < 0.05 Where XA, XAP, XD, XK, XVM, XSBL are the Mean of Team Working and

Supportive

Culture of AC, APS, DDP, KP, VM &SBL. The inference is that the averages of the factor i.e. Team Working and Supportive Culture for these six pharmaceutical units understudy are significantly different. This difference is not by sampling or chance. Hence, from the above analysis it is inferred, that in all the

178

Job Satisfaction and HR Practices six pharmaceutical units understudy the Team Working and Supportive Culture factor of Job Satisfaction is not the same.

Table 5.4

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of factor ‘Working

Conditions’ of

Job Satisfaction in pharmaceutical Units understudy. Sources

of Sum

of Degree

of Mean

Variation

Squares

Freedom

Square

Between

25.550

5

5.110

300.190

178

1.686

325.739

183

F-Value

Significance (0.05)

3.030

.012

groups

Within groups

Total

Hypothesis: H 0 : X A = X AP = X D = X K = X VM = X SBL ; H0 accepted, when probability is ≥ 0.05 H 1 : X A ≠ X AP ≠ X D ≠ X K ≠ X VM ≠ X SBL ; H1 accepted, when probability is < 0.05 Where XA, XAP, XD, XK, XVM, XSBL are the Mean of working conditions of AC, APS, DDP, KP, VM &SBL. For this factor, the probability is 00.05 at 5% level of significance. As the value for the factor, Exit Policy was more than 0.05, thus, the Exit Policy factor of HR Practices was excluded in the next step of regression analysis. Also by applying stepwise multiple regression it was evident that the perceived appropriateness of factor Employee Schemes had a significance value of 0.459>0.05 at

185

Job Satisfaction and HR Practices 5% level of significance. As the value for the factor, Employee Schemes was more than 0.05, thus, the Employee Schemes factor of HR Practices was excluded in the next step of regression analysis. Similarly, by applying stepwise multiple regression it was evident that the perceived appropriateness of factor Promotions & Transfers had a significance value of 0.100>0.05 at 5% level of significance. As the value for the factor, Promotions & Transfers was more than 0.05, thus, the Promotions & Transfers factor of HR Practices was excluded in the next step of regression analysis. The new equation then derived by performing step-wise multiple regressions is presented below: Y = 0.365 + .059X1 + .106 X2 Thus, the perceived appropriateness of these factors of HR Practices in order of the importance of their impact on the level of Job Satisfaction of the managerial employees is as Procurement & Development and Employee Benefits. Therefore, if we increase any one of these factors by one unit keeping the other one factor as constant, the level of Job Satisfaction will increase considerably. These factors of HR Practices i.e. Procurement & Development and Employee Benefits are having maximum impact on the level of Job Satisfaction among employees at managerial level in the six pharmaceutical units understudy. So, we can conclude that if a positive change is made in the Procurement & Development and Employee Benefits factors of HR Practices than there is also an enhancement in the Job Satisfaction levels.

5.7 SUMMING UP The preceding analysis of the six pharmaceutical units understudy enables us to examine impact of the appropriateness of HR practices as perceived by the managerial employees on their level of Job Satisfaction. To analyze the findings in a systematic manner, factor analysis was performed by calculating Eigen values of Variance – Covariance matrix of the ten statements of Job Satisfaction in the questionnaire. The ten variables of Job Satisfaction were clubbed under five factors, namely, Team Working and Supportive

186

Job Satisfaction and HR Practices Culture, Working Conditions, Quality of Work Life, Supervisory Style and Skill Enhancement using factor analysis. From the above analysis, it may be concluded that the factors Supervisory Style and Skill Enhancement are important factors leading towards Job Satisfaction of the employees. However, Quality of Work Life and Working Conditions in the organizations are also integral factors that lead to Job Satisfaction. The overall observation of the detailed analysis above is that DDP has highly satisfied employees. They have full confidence in their management and trust their organization for not favoring incompetent employees. They are satisfied with the various welfare activities provided by the organization and appreciate the way promotions are given to the employees. DDP believes in promotions as per the employees’ qualifications, experience and merit. This provides the employees with a high team spirit at work, good advancement and better prospects in their career. The average of the factors of Job Satisfaction in all the six units under study showed that the level of Job Satisfaction is varying in the units under study. It has been explained in detail earlier in this chapter. To test the significance of the difference among the sample means, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was done. This was done for testing the significance of the difference between two variables. The analysis was done individually for the five factors i.e. Team Working and Supportive Culture, Working Conditions, Quality of Work Life, Supervisory Style and Skill Enhancement under study; and it was observed that all the five factors showed probability less than 0.05. Hence, at the 5% level of significance these factors were significantly different for all the six Pharmaceutical units i.e. AC, ACP, DDP, KP, VM and SBL under study. It was also observed that this difference was not by sampling or chance. Therefore, Job Satisfaction among employees in all the six units was different. The correlation between appropriateness of factors of HR practices as perceived by the managerial employees and the factors of Job Satisfaction was calculated to determine the linear relationship between them. The result showed a positive correlation between them. The inference drawn from the correlation analysis was that HR Practices, if perceived appropriate, increase the level of Job Satisfaction of the employees. Multiple regression analysis was also performed to find out the relationship among various variables under appropriateness of the prevalent HR Practices and Job Satisfaction. It was observed that the factors of HR Practices having maximum impact on the level of Job Satisfaction among employees were Procurement & Development and Employee Benefits. Therefore,

187

Job Satisfaction and HR Practices a positive change in these factors can lead to higher Job Satisfaction. The researcher concluded from the overall analysis that the HR practices positively impact the level of Job Satisfaction of the managerial employees at all the six Pharmaceutical units under study.

Thus, the Hypothesis “H2: HR Practices, if perceived appropriate, enhance the level of Job Satisfaction of the employees at the managerial level in the Pharmaceutical units’ understudy.” is established as accepted.

188