Relationship Between Job Satisfaction & Job Performance
Relationship Between Job Satisfaction & Job Performance
Relationship Between Job Satisfaction & Job Performance
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23509839?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Shri Ram Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Resources is collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Indian Journal of Industrial Relations
Introduction
290 The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 48, No. 2, Octobe
ing from a mean "true score" correlation It is a way to summarize, integrate and
of 0.06 for pay satisfaction to 0.29 for interpret selected descriptive statistics
overall job satisfaction. For their primary (e.g., sample correlations) produced by
analysis they averaged the facets per- sample studies or experimental outcomes
formance correlations and reported an (e.g., d- statistics). There are different
average true score correlation of 0.17 methods of meta- analysis. The frame
between job satisfaction and job perfor- work of Rosenthal and Rubin's (1978),
manee. In discussing their findings, the Hunter, Schmidt and Jackson (1982),
authors only made reference to the 0.17 Hedges and Olkin (1985); Davar(2004).
correlation, concluding that job satisfac- Hunter, Schmidt and Jackson (1982) is a
tion and job performance were "Only popular method used to compute true
slightly related to each other". variance i.e. observed variance net of the
measurement error, sampling error and
Because of limitations in the prior range-restriction. Davar (2004) modified
analysis, Judge et al. (2001) conducted a the formulas given by HSJ (1982) frame
new meta analysis on 312 samples. The work and provided us with 'An Improved
true correlation between overall job sat- Version' of HSJ ( 1982). The formulas for
isfaction and job performance was esti- two models are given below:
mated to be 0.30. Meta analysis was
conducted by five facets in the job de- The formulas
scriptive index (Smith, Kendall & Hulin,
1969) and found that the average cor- Chart -A:
rected correlation was 0.18 a figure iden
tical to Laffaldano and Muchinsky's The formulas for true variance models
(1985) overall estimate. Even with up Hunter,
Hunter,Schmidt and
Schmidt Davar
Davar
and (2004) (2004)
dated meta analysis the facet substan Jackson
Jackson(1982) (1982)
tially underestimate the relationship of framework
framework
overall job satisfaction to job perfor
mance. ..Z[Ntrt]
IIM ZM
IM
rrZ IN,
Nt k
What is Meta-analysis ?
22ZM(fi-r)2]
I[N,(r,- r)2]
A meta-analysis is used to synthesize Jr
JrZ NtIN,
the results of different studies relating to
the relationship between job satisfaction
a2 ~--
/T2
2=i0¡- py
Swft-
and job performance. Glass (1976) de °r
k
fined meta-analysis as "The statistical
analysis of a large collection of studies
results for the purpose of integrating the
_2 (1 ~f2)2/k
N
findings". Meta-analysis is regarded as
a° N
an accurate and objective way to assimi
late research findings in the present era.
292 The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 48, No. 2, October 2012
lation which has been ignored for two by taking the figure of mean correlations
reasons. First, we cannot find the logic as computed with Davar (2004) and HSJ
for a negative relationship between job (1982) procedure,
satisfaction and job performance. Sec- Tab,e ,Table
Mean Corre)ation
1 Mean Coefficieilts
Correlation forfor
Coefficients thethe
ond, it is incorrect to perform mathemati- Relationship between
Relationship Job Satisfaction
between and Joband Job
Job Satisfaction
cal operations on bipolar coefficients for Performance
Performance
294 The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 48, No. 2, Octob
Mean Correlation
(non-wei-ghted)
(non-wei- ghted) 0.25083 0.29729
0.25083 0.29729 Davar Davar
(2004)(2004)
Mean
Mean Correlation
Correlation (weighted)
(weighted) 0.24818 0.24818 0.29222 HSJ(1982)
0.29222 HSJ (1982)
Observed
Observed Variance Variance 0.02639 0.02639 0.03772
0.03772 Davar(2004)
Davar(2004)
0.0191 0.02649
0.0191 0.02649 HSJ(1982)
HSJ (1982)
Sampling
Sampling Error Error
Variance Variance
0.01829 0.01829 0.01731 Davar
0.01731 (2004)
Davar (2004)
0.00409 0.00388
0.00409 0.00388 HSJ(1982)
HSJ(1982)
True
True VarianceVariance0.0081 0.0081 0.02041 0.02041 Davar (2004)
Davar (2004)
0.01501 0.02261
0.01501 0.02261 HSJ(1982)
HSJ(1982)
The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 48, No. 2, October 2012 295
Number of Studies 14 3 14 9 7
Mean Correlation 0.35705 0.29721 0.23635 0.3516 0.27234
Observed Variance 0.05898 0.00154 0.03239 0.03393 0.00801
0.05438
Sampling Error Variance 0.32747 0.04165 0.08534 0.07417
True Variance 0.0046 -0.32593 -0.00926 -0.05141 -0.06616
Table
Table5 Moderator Analysis: Variable Analysis:
5 Moderator Used for Variable Used for measuring job satisfaction cannot be
Measuring Job Satisfaction taken as moderator variable for the rela
Measuring Job Satisfaction
Overall
tionship between job satis
Overall
Facet Facet c
Satisfaction
Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction performance
Number
Number of Studies
of Studies 21 21 27
27
Mean
Mean Correlation0.35801
Correlation 0.35801 0.25007
0.25007
Variable used for measuring job
Observed
Observed Variance
Variance 0.06495 0.01145
0.06495 0.01145
satisfaction cannot be taken as
Sampling Error
v^aPncegErr0r
Variance 0.03619 0.03619
0.03255 0.03255 moderator variable for t
True
True Variance-0.0632
Variance -0.0632 -0.0211
-0.0211 tionship between job satisfaction
and job performance. action j
satisfaction and job performance. Table
5 shows that both the subsets generate Measurement Scales
negative true variance i.e. -0.0632 for
overall job satisfaction and -0.0211 for The studies measured job satisfac
facet satisfaction. It reveals that both the tion with JSQ, JDI, JSS and MSQ. Both
subsets show insignificant relationship MSQ and JDI show different values of
between job satisfaction and job perfor- mean correlations. True variance is posi
mance. Therefore, variable used for tive only when job satisfaction is mea
Numbers of Studies 10 12 12 7 3 4
Mean Correlation 0.26730 0.19242 0.39926 0.27234 0.29721 0.42471
Observed Variance 0.01198 0.01176 0.06477 0.00801 0.00154 0.09419
Sampling error variance 0.08622 1.56358 0.05888 0.12245 0.27705 0.16794
True variance 0.07424 -1.55182 0.00589 -0.11444 -0.27551 -0.07375
JSQ(PORTER)- Porter(l 96l)'s job satisfaction questionnaire, measure need satisfaction, contained
12 items based upon Maslow's theory of motivation.
MSQ- Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire contained 20 items measure overall satisfaction and
intrinsic versus extrinsic satisfaction.
JD1(S, K&H) - Job Description Index developed by Smith, Kendall and Hullin(1969) measure job
satisfaction with five facets of the job: the work itself, their supervisor, pay, promotion opportuni
ties and co-workers. The scores on the five sub scale can be summed to obtain an overall measure of
job satisfaction.
JSS (P&A) -Pelz and Andrew's (1966) job satisfaction scale measure satisfaction through different
aspects of the job satisfaction.
JSS (B&R) -Brayfield - Rothe Scale measures overall job satisfaction.
JAS (J&B) - Job Attitude Scale of Jayan and Balachandran (2004) contains three domains of Job
Attitude: Job Involvement, Job Commitment and Job Satisfaction-The items are designed to include
intrinsic attributes of the job as well as extrinsic attributes.
JSS (Likert) - Likert's five point scale measures both intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction.
INDSALES (C, F &W) - INDSALES, a scale created by Churchill, Ford and Walker (1974) measures
job satisfaction over several dimensions.
The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 48, No. 2, October 2012 297
sured through JSS scale. And it is nega- other scales. As one subset in the last
tive for all other subsets i.e. -0.07424 column of Table 6, scales for two stud
when job satisfaction is measured with ies are not known and for other two stud
JSQ scale, -1.55182 with JDI scale, - ies, JAS (J&B) & INDSALES (C, F&W)
0.11444 withMSQ scale, -0.27551 with scales were used respectively,
both MSQ and JDI and -0.07375 with
298 The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 48, No. 2, Octo
Bagozzi. R. P. (1980), "Performance and Satis Judge, Thimothy A., Thoreson C.J., Bono J.E.&
faction in an Industrial Sales Force: An Ex Patton G.K. (2001), "The Job Satisfaction
amination of Their Antecedents and Simul Job Performance Relationship: A Qualita
taneity", Journal of Marketing, 44: 65-77. tive and Quantitative Review", Psycho
logical Bulletin, 127(3): 376-407
Bhuyan, B. & Choudhary, M. (2002), "Corre
lates of Job Satisfaction among College Keaveney, S. M. & Nelson, J. E. (1993), "Coping
Teachers", Indian Journal of Psychometry with organizational Role Stress: Intrinsic
and Education, XXXIII (2): 143-46. Motivational Orientation, Perceived Role
Benefits, and Psychological Withdrawal",
Biswas, P.C. & De, T. (1994), "A Study of Job
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sci
Satisfaction of Secondary Teachers in Re ence, 21:113-24.
lation to Variables", Journal of Educational
Research and Extension, 33: 153-63 Khaleque, A. (1981), "Job Satisfaction Perceived
Effort and Heart Rate in Light Industrial
Brief, (1998) cited in Weiss, H.M (2002), Work", Ergonomics, 24:735- 42.
"Deconstructing Job Satisfaction Separat
ing Evaluations, Beliefs and Affective Ex Khaleque, A. (1984), Job Satisfaction and Work
periences", Human Resources Management in Industry, (5th edition), Dhaka, Alamgir
Review, 12: 173-94. Art Press.
Brody, M. (1945), The Relationship between Kornhauser, A (1965). Mental Health of the In
Effciency and Job Satisfaction, Unpub dustrial Worker, New York: John Wiley
lished Master's Thesis. New York Univer
sity, New York. Kotharai. C.R. 1(985), Research Methodology:
Methods and Techniques: New Delhi:
Chandraiah, K. (1994), "Effects of Age on Job Wiley Eastern Limited. Laffaldano,
Satisfaction among College Teachers", The
Creative Psychologist, VI (1&2): 53-56.Landy, F. J. (1989), Psychology of Work Behav
ior, Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Davar, S.C. (2004). "Meta Analysis: An Improved
Version of Hunter, Scmidt and Jackson Locke, A.A. (1976),The Nature and Causes of
( 1982) Framework", Decision, 31 (2): 210
Job Satisfaction. In M.D. Dunnette (ed.),
38. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Publisher & Place of Publica
Davar, S.C. (2006), "Meta-Analysis of Sample tion?
Correlations: The Validity of Hunter,
Schmidt and Jackson (1982) Framework", Michelle T. & Muchinsky P.M. (1985), "Job Sat
isfaction & Job Performance: A Meta
Decision, 33(2): 111-40.
analysis". Psychological Bulletin, 97(2):
Fried, Y. & Ferris, G.R. (1987), "The Validity of 251-73.
the Job Characteristics Model: A Review
Manjunath L.,Tyagarajan S., Kumar Vasant J. &
and Meta-analysis", Personnel Psychology,
Ansari M.R. (2008), "Determinants of Sci
40(2): 287-322.
entific Productivity of Agricultural Scien
Glass Gene V. (1976), "Primary, Secondary and tists", Journal of Agriculture Science,
Meta-analysis of Research", Educational 21(3): 466-68.
Researcher, 5: 3-8.
Pal, Yash & S.C. Davar (2001). "Meta-analysis
Hunter, John E, Frank L. Schmidt & Gregg B. in Research-An Introduction", in P.P. Arya
Jackson (1982), Meta-analysis: Cumulat Yash Pal (ed), Research Methodology In
ing Research Finding across Studies, New Management, New Delhi, Deep & Deep
Delhi, Sage Publication India Pvt. Ltd. Publications.
The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 48, No. 2, October 2012 299
Petty M.M., Mcgee G.W., Cavender J.W. (1984),Sharma, M. & Ghosh, A. (2006), "Perception of
"A Meta Analysis of the Relationships Organizational Climate and Job Satisfac
between Individual Job Satisfaction and tion in Nursing Staff Personnel", Indian
Individual Performance, Academy of Man Journal of Social Work, 67(3): 263-74.
agement Review, 9(4): 712-21.
Siegel. J. P.& Bowen, D. (1971), "Satisfaction
Ravindran C. (2007), "Study of Factors Influ and Performance: Causal Relationships and
encing The Work Output of Human Re Moderating Effects", Journal of Vocational
source in Revised National Tuberculosis Behavior, I: 263-69.
Control Program" (RNTCP)", Pulmón,
9(3): 88-96. Strauss, G. (1968), "Human Relations—1968
Style", Industrial Relations,7: 262-76.
Schmidt, L. & Hunter, J.E. (1999), "Comparison
Vroom, V. H. (1964), Work and Motivation, New
of Three Meta-analysis Methods Revisited:
York: Wiley.
An Analysis of Johnson, Mullen and Salas",
Journal of Applied Psychology, 84:144-48.
300 The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 48, No. 2, October 2012
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 B0
00 c c c c c c c c c e K
u v- .S C3 3 3 3 3 c0 5 3 3 i O
3 <♦-« 3 ba b t-c b* u b ba ba ba
e<3 b u ba b ba ba ba
-o u U b
© 6 6 © 0 O O C o
.§
> 38 E§ ©
a.
V
cu
©
Cu
0
ft
©
0
O
fib
©
&
O
a*
P
Ox fiu
o
C C
O ©
>» >»
c bo
« Ui
f t_.r"
c
I <2 5
3 "3 go; C/5 (75 C/3C/3 t/3 Cfl C/3C/3 C/3C/3
a. cu Qua. cu a. a. a. a, a.
J5 S 15
♦x
C 00
c o u.
g - .£ U U b U b U ba ba
/—s
ba ba
3^3 G o 00 00
^t-yC -ut ^ t O' o v o ^0C/0
rv S C
►5
±3
C 38Egn-,«!
"OO'oO'o
S O'oO'o
co a, w Oh w o. co a, co o. co Qh
•—* ►—» W •—» W N-» »—» >W •—>
a, co 0,
w >-» w
a
CO
0
Ou
'w'
g|!
»"■»«. W
8 s* 8 8 8 6«1 8 8 5*-g S 8 B« 5
• 5 SPig *£■§ S?3 8P|a SP:§
ES^g-Sssisg-Sei^g-issS^g-isi^g-i
3 O
o •a
£ ca
O a. ESStSSESSfSSESSfSStZSSfSSESSfSS
C c c
C
00 &
C c
00 S) 5) op 00 00 S)
op
2 § 'p 2 2 8 p 2 '§ g
O
0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0
bx bx ba bx ba bx ba
U bx bb bx
nnexure I e c c c c c c c c c
u a * * * *
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
oo ^ 0
c c c
c c c
« >> c c c c
M a*
M M a*
Jf "?
00 6 u c c C c a C c c e
C
D D D D D D D D D D
■3 < < ba Ua ba bx b. ba ba
a bx bx bx
a *6 # <* #
2 2 s s s s s s s 2
<u
s r r r 1^ r r r r
00
r
00
r
00
<2. oj 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
© © © © © © © © ©
0
T3
© © © © © © © © ©
0
-o <2 ^
^ *CO 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
X
© © © © © ©
u> © © © ©
o r OS r SO On 00 OS
co
CN fO
a . a-a x-x a-a a-x <N x rn
©
© © © © ©
o* © © © ©
CO ro
m
r <N fN r <N
r» (N r <N
00 00
Z 00 00 00
xh b b ba bx b bx wS bx bx ba'
••—» •—1 •■n —>
•—» •—> *—) •»—>
<w
£ 6 ^ £ /—V
£ /—, £ E >—S E E ^ E E
3 r* 3 3
1t
a>x
3
«x
3
^■X
3
•—<
3 3
p Is
8
r
8
r r 0
8
r
J
r 0 0
8
0
g On O Os OS Os 0 Os On Os O Os On
3 3 w 55 GO CO CO co C CO w CO
2 co CO >w' •w'
s
o
g Z
3 ©
«rj so 00 Os
so — <N
The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 48, No. 2, October 2012 301
w CO
C/î
y¡ w
JO
CO w CO
Vh u. *H *Ih Ih »H Ih Ih Ih
O O O o O O O O O o
M CO to CO CO
2 to CO CO C/î
> *>Ih *> > *> F '> '> *> > > >
i- bû
ft 00 fe ûû ft Où ft ûû ft où
Ih
ft
V OJO 1)
00
S M fe W> 00 fe
U {H <u
« Q.
C S.2 C 8 .2
c
H
.Sc
o. CU o. .S D. .5 8. .s a. .S CL .5 CL
c v c
CL .5 o CL
3
5B 5B 52 51 51 5 1
3
CO 2 CO
ca
Ih 52 CO
03
Ih 5B
c
C C o
O O £
•-
O .g
O 2
D 2
O-g
r
■g
ur" S
•? Ss,
v L-í
il. ■-*
t_ fe
r\
1*1"!
¿W O -i >!> 2 2 Í
O. CU Oh£0- ¿=
O £ ¿ oC/5
U £ £
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
QhOmOhOh CU Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh
_ KKK^K^xa: X
fvûfvKAis ^ <y ^ «y ^ ^
C c c c C C C C C C C C
00 00 00 00
.00 .00 00
.00 .00 op 00 .oo
'S "S
8 8 s Ih Ih
'C
Ih
'C
Ih
'C
Ih
S
Ih
S
Ih
'S
Ih
'S
Ih
o o o O O O O O O O O O
Uh Uh Uh Uh Uh Uh Uh Uh Uh Uh Uh Uh
c c C
* £ £
o o o
c c c
JX .*
c C c
D D D N" N" Tf 5 5
Uh Uh Uh Uh Uh Uh Uh Uh Uh
<*J <a •y <% <%
S s s S S S S S 2
NO NO NO NO vO NO NO nO
00 00 00 ON ON CO ON ON ON ON ON On
O O o d d c O d d d d d
Tf "«t Tj"
00 OO 00
NO m cd ON ON ON
00 00 d 00 O
00
d 00 00 00
C o
o o © #
*
o * * d d d
♦ * *
CO
♦ HH m <N
HH
00 Ü 00 Tf HH HH
m fN CN ro o CN CN CN
O > q »-H
CN
O O O O o 2 O O O o O d
NO NO NO NO
o O O HH »-H H H-H HH H HH HH HH
00 00 00 *T) •—1
«r> m
HH —
«n
© —• CN
CN CN CN
u.
O
1A
«■s «'s ^«g-s «¡«g* ?§?
>
l
O
00
i 1.2 -S 11.2 -S I f S ! -g i i 8 ! -g i ! s !
C
Q.
3
C/3 1
c
.2
O ü 4) V 4) 4>
*>
w. 00 00 00 00 op 00
<u R 03 çd ÇQ Cd Çd
O. fe. fe. fe. fe. fe. fe. 53
3 >1/3 >00 > C/3 > O) >t/3 > C/3 >
W3
^ o o o o o1 o o
o. 0. O. 0. O. 0-. Oh Oh
S¡ ^ ^
^<<<< < < <
* y) ÇA ÇA ÇA ÇA
Q ça ÇA a, ÇA Cu ÇA Cu CA CU ÇA CU ÇA CU <A CU
•—» h-» ■—» >—» w -W *"» '
c c
£ ° vi 2 .2 2 .
. ¿ kL 4> c/2 fli W c/5 fli H
H« S e •§ Si 82 -S g-Ë ¡¡
~
2 E
W s s « "g
><0£ s *H•§
W S >J2
0¿ S ><5
o H 0¿ «i
o
00 e e c ç c c
.1
'S c3 cj ed ra ra _ra
u
O
"O •3 *5 -5 "5 "o -o
c c e c e c c
Cu
c c c = c ç ç
£ í S ï S ï î
o o o o o o o
c c c c e ç c
III I ■ 1
G c c c c c c
D D 3 D D 3 3
tu tu b. U. 0- Oh Oh O.
i*j =¡a <*5 =¡3 ■ü
s S S S S 2 S 2
r- ^ £•
os 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
o o o o o o o o
Os t
°°
o
£
• r-
t- r-
r-
^o
Pr£ r
♦ ° © © * o o
* * * ♦
vO <N c**> **0 * <N 00
ÍN (N "t ÍN CN «Ti «O —;
o o o o o o o o
vo SO
tfr fS —' ^
n ín »— <n es
ryv ^rt* V) VO 00 Os O
(N (N CN <N <N fN <N ^
3 «Ë =1 3 I 3 I al s I > I 8 3 I ^ T3 «
cuw a-w c« 2 («2 to 2 c«2<2o.c«2c/2 w 3 oo
<%
u u c e c o .2
« 8)
03 03= 2 7Ï
co 2 72
2 a75gH « p p C z p
o - o S . <£« « íí¡ u t ¿ ü. <u t ¿ «
> C/2
< >
—;C/5 >00
o Q <250
Q5 o o
<2 J <2
ü g.SXw> Oh
<*> O-;
>00 -u
£ XO>-;
S ¿ Séo
J «IglffíiS Q 1? ? Í e o i
o* o* ¿ t/5>oûo^®c/3uS<y 5/5 3 § 1/3 3 « P* "S S ■
S; 2; d £:è§oS^£:o^S fe £ t S; a » S; £ o- §
c/5
ce u
® s s S ^ d ^
<*J 3S ,-v o o
C/)
<
<%
<
S ^ ^ <*> 2 -5 •* j-já qU.
ffl 5 ¿ 5
C/3
C/5
•—>
Cu C/3
0;_ •—»
w «¡0
"* u
in
5 5 8 J z u
c o v
c/i
O tfl V U V o
V
h» >» >» >» >» u +~> • c
'S
o -o O 00 fe o -o o <s çn
4> 1)
-C C
u.
Ô. H o. c £ o. S & « 5 =
Cd
c .5 e co £ en •- E ¡i « S.
■*-*
60
.1
•5
1
73 'S
O
U* Indian Indian Indian Indian Foreigi
e C C
z
0 0 0
c C c
1
M
1
24
1 2 Foreigi 2 Foreigi 2 Foreigi
c C C OO OO OO CO © © r
D D D <N es <N rf Tt Tf ro ?
Uo U. u* Uh U U, tu tu tu tu
<% <% <% <% <% <%
S S S 2 2 2 S 2 2 2 2
r r Os r r
00 00 00 00 00 Os 00 00 00 00 00
0 0 © © © © © © © © ©
r ro
00 ro 00
r-> 00 00 00 T} sO Os
00
r © VO SO s© 00 © r 00
0 0 ©
* © © © © # © ©
« * *
Os w-» "*t 00 ♦ ro
O SO © © © •n r © tN
O O © © © © © © © © ©
VO
© «0 «O
24 22 440 00 00 80 204 ro 65 r
<<
03 C
* u.
u. cd
i¡5
CO "77 /—v "Tí TÎ 03 . , 03
3C /-"v
3 "D/—Vií~o «— /— «a b
« -So 730 -fe © 3 o . a g1!
o 5
je _ï ^ Ï « S'fe^o ^.S^lJSi^c©
Ja!
- o
©
u r
r " co
G
«s m -t <r> \o p» oc © ©
ro ro ro ro ro ro co ro
00
oo 00 00 00 00\ 00 G e
.c a c G G G
£
2 eG
k
<*-*
1 ci
1
«M
2
M
o
G
— <£ 73
73
—
73 73 73 73 73 CO
C
CO CO CO CO CO CO D
.£•
ll § Ss
Le
XA
G
— •- o .© « O
M , ,
!<«§• 2 «Cu¡2
Oh§O■§
JJG
73 >
O •—» CO «-i o¡$ e o
c
*
o
<<<<<<< C
CLCUCUCUOuû-ÛhD ÍN
o a a a a a O 0¿
c/n 00 co on on on on CO «tí
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 22 œ
C/) (A XA t/J ws tA
1> t> Ü u o M «
M (A C/i «A tfl XA t/i o
W Ut 1 U» «M Ut t->
u
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 X
z z z Z Z Z Z tú
G G G
00 00 M §> S 00 s»
s
o
"S
o o
s s
o
S
o
s
o
Si
o
T3
c
lU lu lu u tu ÜH lu
m co co co CO CO
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 C
dû
o o o o o o o o
f
00 00 r r 00 00 »r»
00 00 00 r
o o o o
o O o O
* * ♦ *
* * * * # * ♦ *
V~t
rf * 00 * <N r Os
CO <N <N o <N CO <N s©
o O O o O o o O
co co CO m CO CO O
<N fS es <N es <S es *n
Os Os Os Os Os Os Os
— ... —
S
'S
dû
csmTí-»nsor^00Os
The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 48, No. 2, October 2012 305