Submitted to: Submitted by:

shreekrishna sir Prabin (BBA,5th sem)

Background of the study
Job satisfaction is one of the most studied constructs in the fields of organizational and
industrial psychology (Geyer & Daly, 1998; Hartzell, 1988; Howard & Frink, 1996; Tett & Meyer,
1993; Varona, 1996). Studies in the last three decades have shown conflicting evidence about
the factors that are most important in employee satisfaction. While some findings suggest the
dominance of extrinsic rewards (Butler, 1982; Gruenburg, 1980; Locke, Fitzpatric, & White,
1983; Seybolt, 1976), other studies show the importance of intrinsic factors for motivating
employees (Holdaway, 1978; Minor, 1980). Unlike workers in the 1970s and 1980s who valued
interesting work above everything else, the results of current studies (Karl & Sutton, 1998)
suggest that today's workers place the highest value on extrinsic factors, such as good salaries
and job security. A short review of the history of work motivation revealed that pay was
believed to be the most important factor of job satisfaction around the turn of the century.
Several decades later the Hawthorne Studies revealed a larger set of values in which quality of
supervision replaced pay as the most instrumental factor (Mayo, 1933; Roethlisberger &
Dickson, 1939). About a decade later security and advancement were identified as the top
priorities (Jurgensen, 1947). The same survey concluded in 1975 that type of work followed by
security and advancement were the most important factors (Jurgensen, 1978). Pay was only
ranked average in both studies. A similar survey given to industrial workers in 1981 and 1986
ranked interesting work first, followed by appreciation of work and feeling of being "in" on
things (Kovach, 1987). Certainly the economic, social, technological, and political conditions of
the 1990s characterized by massive layoffs (Cameron, 1994) and increasing health care costs
(Samuelson, 1994) may have caused a shift regarding the perception of the most important job
satisfaction factors back towards the extrinsic domain. Jennings (2000) stated at the turn of the
century that money and lifestyle issues had become the primary motivators for individuals
between 21 and 35. In this context job factors of importance were flexible schedules, shorter
commuting distance, interesting work culture, prestige, titles, and amenities, such as offices, in-
house gyms, and day-care centers. According to Simon (2003), September 11, 2001, caused
many workers to take another look at their daily lives, in the workplace and at home. Simon
(2003) stated that the selfless efforts that were demonstrated on 9/11 and afterwards
stimulated additional cooperation in all walks of life including the workplace. For instance, after
September 11, 47% of those in the public sector said “people help each other,” compared to
36% prior. It was indicated that people between the ages of 31 and 40 consistently reported
more positive opinions after 9/11 than before, while those under 30 and over 50 tended to
show more negative opinions.
Objectives of the study
The purpose of this study was to identify the most important factors related to job satisfaction
and dissatisfaction for Andrews University employees. It was investigated whether there were
significant differences between levels of overall, intrinsic, and extrinsic job satisfaction as well
as organizational commitment as a result of demographic variables such as: occupational area,
age, gender, length of employment, and educational level. Further, the investigation studied
the relationship between overall, intrinsic, and extrinsic job satisfaction and organizational
commitment. It was then examined if there was a linear relationship between organizational
commitment and Herzberg’s 15 jobsatisfaction factors including religious commitment. Finally,
the examination determined if religious commitment had a mediating effect on the relationship
between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. The results of this study had a strong
potential to provide valuable information for maintaining or improving job satisfaction and
organizational commitment.

Significance of the study

Despite the fact that job satisfaction and organizational commitment have been two of the
most frequently studied phenomena in the areas of industrial and organizational psychology for
decades, relatively few of these studies involved faculty in higher education (Locke et al., 1983).
Only a few studies have paid attention to intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction and
organizational commitment at private, religious institutions. In addition, the investigation of a
possible mediating effect of religious commitment on job satisfaction and organizational
commitment was seen as a potential contribution to the field of organizational psychology
Although some studies have investigated differences in job satisfaction and organizational
commitment between different groups of professionals, this area seemed to need further
exploration. In addition, researchers have also suggested further clarification regarding the
importance of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards and their relationship to organizational
commitment (Cohen, 1992). This study provides valuable information about how to maintain
and increase job satisfaction and organizational commitment at Andrews University. The results
can be used to further improve the work climate for University employees and to further lower
labor turnover. This in return is a potential help for saving time and funds that are otherwise
needed for recruitment and training of new employees.
Literature review
Job satisfaction
According to Locke et al. (1983) job satisfaction has been one of the most frequently studied
constructs in organizational and industrial psychology for several decades. Locke (1969) defined
job satisfaction as a pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job as
achieving or facilitating the achievement of one’s values. Job dissatisfaction was described as
the unpleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job as frustrating or
blocking the attainment of one’s job values or as entailing disvalues. In summary, job
satisfaction and dissatisfaction were seen as a function of the perceived relationship between
what one wants from one’s job and what one perceives it is offering or entailing. More recently
researchers defined job satisfaction as an overall evaluation of one's job, operationalized as a
global construct as well as the sum of various facets (Feldman & Thompson, 1993; Nauman,
1992). Cranny et al. (1992) concluded that job satisfaction is a combination of cognitive and
affective reactions to the differential perceptions of what an employee wants to receive
compared with what he or she actually receives. From an employee's standpoint, job
satisfaction is a desirable outcome in itself. From an organizational and managerial standpoint,
job satisfaction is important because of its impact on absenteeism (Dow & Taylor, 1985),
turnover (Tett & Meyer, 1993), and pro-social "citizenship" behavior, which manifests itself in
helping coworkers and customers, and being more cooperative (Bateman & Organ, 1983).
According to results of the 2001 Randstad North America Employment Review (Roper Starch
Worldwide, 2001), about half of the surveyed American and Canadian employees (N= 2,600)
were very satisfied with their current job and the company they worked for. The survey
concluded that satisfied employees improve customer service and reduce employee turnover,
which positively impacts a company’s bottom line.
Organizational commitment
Organizational commitment was explained by March and Simon (1958) as an exchange
relationship—each party making certain demands upon the other while providing something in
return. Contributions on the part of employees were described as taking two general forms,
production and participation. It was argued that the more effective the organization is in
providing opportunities for employees to meet their multiple needs, the higher would be the
propensity for the employee to participate and be productive. Etzioni (1961) distinguished
among three forms of responses for organizational directiveness for participation: moral,
calculative, and alienative involvement. Moral involvement reflected an identification with and
internalization of an organization’s values and goals. Calculative involvement meant a positive
orientation to the source of authority, but was less intense because it was based on a rational
exchange of benefits and rewards between the parties. Alienative involvement was a negative
orientation to authority, found in relationships characterized by exploitation. Porter et al.
(1974) defined organizational commitment as the relative strength of an individual's
identification with and involvement in a particular organization. It was characterized by at least
three factors: (a) a strong belief in and acceptance of the organization's goals and values; (b) a
willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization; and (c) a strong desire to
maintain membership in the organization. Mowday, Porter, and Steers (1982) attempted to
reconcile the differing concepts by distinguishing attitudinal and behavioral forms of
commitment. Attitudinal commitment was described as focusing on the process by which
people think about their relationship with an organization. Behavioral commitment related to
the process by which the individual becomes locked into an organization and the means
through which they deal with the situation. Mowday suggested that the mentioned two forms
of organizational commitment were closely related and represent different points along the
same continuum.
Finding .
In the current climate of turbulent changes, companies have begun to realize that the
employees represent their most valuable asset (Glen, 2006; Govaerts et al., 2011; Fulmer and
Ployhart, 2014; Vomberg et al., 2015; Millar et al., 2017). Satisfied and motivated employees
are imperative for contemporary business and a key factor that separates successful companies
from the alternative. When considering job satisfaction and work motivation in general, of
particular interest are the distinctive traits of these concepts in transition economies. ob
satisfaction is one of the most researched phenomena in the domain of human resource
management and organizational behavior. It is commonly defined as a “pleasurable or positive
emotional state resulting from the appraisal of oneś job or job experiences” (Schneider and
Snyder, 1975; Locke, 1976). Job satisfaction is a key element of work motivation, which is a
fundamental determinant of one's behavior in an organization.

Organizational commitment, on the other hand, represents the degree to which the employees
identify with the organization in which they work, how engaged they are in the organization
and whether they are ready leave it (Greenberg and Baron, 2008). Several studies have
demonstrated that there is a strong connection between organizational commitment, job
satisfaction and fluctuation (Porter et al., 1974), as well as that people who are more
committed to an organization are less likely to leave their job. Organizational commitment can
be thought of as an extension of job satisfaction, as it deals with the positive attitude that an
employee has, not toward her own job, but toward the organization. The emotions, however,
are much stronger in the case of organizational commitment and it is characterized by the
attachment of the employee to the organization and readiness to make sacrifices for the
organization.