JOB SATISFACTION AFFECT TO EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT CD....

JOB SATISFACTION AFFECT TO EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

CASE OF A.C.D. (THAILAND) CO., LTD.

METHINEE PINGMUANG

THE INDEPENDENT STUDY SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL

FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMERCE,

BURAPHA UNIVERSITY

JULY 2016

COPYRIGHT OF BURAPHA UNIVERSIT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am deeply grateful to my advisor Dr. Nont Sahaya for his invaluable

advice and his patient proofreading towards the completion of this independent study.

Besides my advisor, I would like to thank the rest of my independent study

committee: Dr. Supasit Lertbuasin, Dr. Sawitree Bintasan and Dr. Malai

Kornkaewsomnuek for their encouragement, insightful comments, and hard questions.

Special thanks go to the owners, the managers and the staffs of A.C.D.

(Thailand) co., ltd. to their kind and informative answers to the questionnaires.

Additionally, I would like to thank my parents, all my friends and those

whose names are not mentioned here but have greatly inspired and encouraged me

until this independent study comes to a perfect end.

Methinee Pingmuang

iv

57740001: MAJOR: BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION; M.B.A.

(INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM)

KEYWORDS: JOB SATISFACTION/ EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

METHINEE PINGMUANG: JOB SATISFACTION AFFECT TO

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT: CASE OF A.C.D. (THAILAND) CO., LTD.

ADVISOR: NONT SAHAYA, D.B.A. 66 P. 2015.

This research is the quantitative research that aimed to study job satisfaction

factors affecting employee. Population consisted of 142 employees who worked at

A.C.D. (Thailand) co., ltd. in Chonburi, Thailand. Employees completed

questionnaires of job satisfaction and engagement level by using a five level scale

(5 = Strongly agree, whereas 1 = Strongly disagree). Data was analyzed using

descriptive statistics and stepwise multiple regression by SPSS.

The results showed that most of the staff surveyed were female between the

ages of 31-40 years old with married status and mainly of their education level were

lower than Bachelor degree. In term of average income per month were between

10,001-20,000 baht and majority of their work experience were 1-5 years. The

employee had a 'high level' of job satisfaction ( x = 3.83) and also 'high level' of

engagement ( x = 3.83) to the company. Furthermore, there was a significant

relationship between job satisfaction (Present Pay, Relationship with co-workers and

Opportunity for Promotion) and employee engagement.

The research can be extended to study in every company. Further research

may use another framework such as, change or added other factors for extended the

hypothesis. In addition, the further research can add the data analysis instrument for

develop in term of validity and reliability of job satisfaction.

v

CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………..... iv

CONTENTS………………………………………………………………………. v

LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………... vii

LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………….. viii

CHAPTER

1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………. 1

Background and significant of the study……………………………….. 1

Objective………………………………………………………….…….. 1

Hypothesis……………………………………………………….……… 2

Scope of research……………………………………………………….. 2

Conceptual framework………………………………………………….. 3

Expected benefit………………………………………………………… 3

Definition of terms…………………………………………………….... 3

2. LITERATURE REVIEWS………………………………………………… 5

Job satisfaction theory………………………………………………...… 5

Employee engagement theory…………………………………………... 6

Company profile………………………………………………………... 9

Independent variable……………………………………………………. 11

Dependent Variable…………………………………………………….. 13

Related studies………………………………………………………….. 15

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY………………………………………….. 17

Research design……………………………………………………….... 17

Population………………………………………………………………. 17

Tools used in research………………………………………………….. 18

The methods used to test the quality of the Tools used in research……. 19

Data collection………………………………………………………….. 20

Data analysis……………………………………………………………. 20

4. RESULTS OF DATA ANALYSIS………………………………………... 21

Part 1: Statistical analysis of demographic characteristics of employee. 22

Part 2: Statistical analysis of job satisfaction factors………………….. 24

Part 3: Statistical analysis of Employee engagement………………….. 29

Part 4: Hypothesis testing……………………………………………… 33

5. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION……………………………………. 44

Conclusion…………………………………………………………….... 44

vi

CONTENTS (CONTINUE)

Page

5. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION……………………………………. 44

Discussion………………………………………………………………. 47

Recommendations………………………………………………………. 47

Recommendation for Further Researches………………………………. 48

REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………. 49

APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………….. 53

APPENDIX 1………………………………………………………………….. 54

Job Satisfaction Affect to Employee Engagement Questionnaire……… 55

APPENDIX 2………………………………………………………………….. 59

The result of data analysis process by using SPSS program……………. 60

BIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………………. 66

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Tables Page

3-1 Number of employee…………………………………………………….... 17

4-1 Reliability statistics of questionnaire………………………………….…... 21

4-2 Frequency and percentage of gender………………………………….…... 22

4-3 Frequency and percentage of marital status………………………….……. 22

4-4 Frequency and percentage of age…………………………………….……. 23

4-5 Frequency and percentage of education level………………………….….. 23

4-6 Frequency and percentage of income per month……………………….…. 23

4-7 Frequency and percentage of work experience……………………….…… 24

4-8 Mean ( x ), standard deviation (SD), and level of affecting toward

nature of work (N = 142)………………………………………….…….… 24


present pay (N = 142)…………………………………………………..…. 25


opportunities for promotion (N = 142)…………………………….…….... 26


supervision (N = 142)…………………………………………………..…. 27


relationship with co-workers (N = 142)……………………………….….. 28


overall job satisfaction (N = 142)…………………………………….…… 28


well-being (N = 142)………………………………………………….….… 29


information (N = 142)…………………………………………………..….. 30


fairness (N = 142)…………………………………………………….……. 31

LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUE)

viii

Tables Page


involvement (N = 142)……………………………………………….……. 32


overall employee engagement (N = 142)…………………………….……. 33

4-19 Stepwise multiple regression analysis of H1…………………………..…... 35





4-24 Hypothesis testing…………………………………………………….….... 42

LIST OF FIGURES

ix

Figures Page

1-1 The conceptual framework………………………………………………... 3

2-1 Maslow’s five-level hierarchy…………………………………………….. 5

2-2 Herzberg’s description of satisfiers and dissatisfies………………………. 6

2-3 The BlessingWhite model…………………………………………………. 7

2-4 AON Hewitt-employee engagement model……………………………….. 9

2-5 A.C.D. (Thailand) Co., Ltd………………………………………………… 10

2-6 Employees of A.C.D. (Thailand) Co., Ltd…………………………………. 10

4-1 The hypothesis testing diagram……………………………………………. 34

4-2 Plot of regression standardize residual between independent variable and

dependent variable…………………………………………………………. 43

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Background and significant of the study

Due to the fact that retention of highly-productive, key employees is

certainly an important task for the company. It is the creation and development of a

company that encourages retention and high levels of productivity among all

employees (Berry & Morris 2008). Many researchers (Seijts & Crim, 2006; Harter,

Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002) have used the term engagement to refer to employees who

are involved in and satisfied with their work. Disengaged employees are perform

poorly, look for another job, and say bad things about company for which they work

(Gubman, 2004). Sanford (2003) stated that disengaged employees cost their

businesses financially by lower productivity, decreased sales, decreased profits, and

lower customer satisfaction. Encouraging employee engagement in the workplace

through emphasizing high impact learning, performance and change has enormous

return on investment (ROI) potential for organizations.

In case of A.C.D. (Thailand) Co., Ltd. issues, the employee’ turnover is

costly for businesses. The company will likely be scrambling to fill essential positions

vacated. With more positions open, workers may consider to change jobs. Highly

productive, key workers are essential to the workplace. (Berry and Morris, 2008)

stated that understanding the turnover intent process and how job satisfaction and

employee engagement feed into an employee’s decision to leave can be a first-step for

company in retaining and engaging these key workers. Understanding the job

satisfaction and employee engagement not only fills a gap in the research, but also,

the knowledge can be helpful to A.C.D. in developing programs that focus on

engaging the employee to increase satisfaction and increase the retention of highly

productive workers.

Objective

1. To study job satisfaction factors has influenced to employee engagement.

2

Hypothesis

Job satisfaction has influenced to employee engagement.

H1: Job satisfaction (Nature of work, Present pay, Opportunities for

promotion, Supervision and Relationship with co-workers) affect to employee

engagement in Well-being.



engagement in Information.


Promotion, Supervision and Relationship with co-workers) affect to employee

engagement in Fairness.

H4: Job satisfaction Nature of work, Present pay, Opportunities for


engagement in Involvement.



engagement (Well-being, Information, Fairness and Involvement).

Scope of research

1. To study job satisfaction has influenced to employee engagement or not.

2. To study job satisfaction of company case study by questionnaire.

3. Conclusion the result of questionnaire.

4. To study related between job satisfaction and employee engagement by

liner regression.

Scope of area

Collect data from all employee in A.C.D. (Thailand) Co., Ltd.

Scope of research period

Timeline for collect data is May 2016.

Scope of topic

Study in term of Job satisfaction affect to employee engagement.

3

Conceptual framework

Conceptual framework in the study of “Job satisfaction affect to employee

engagement: case of A.C.D. (Thailand) co., ltd.”

Figure 1-1 The conceptual framework

Expected benefit

1. The result from this study will be useful for developing of job satisfaction

to increase employee engagement in A.C.D. (Thailand) Co., Ltd.

2. This study will be useful as research evidences for further study

concerning job satisfaction affect to employee engagement.

Definition of terms

Job satisfaction is the feeling of pleasure and achievement that you

experience in your job when you know that your work is worth doing. This feeling is

based on an individual's perception of satisfaction. Job satisfaction can be influenced

by a person's ability to complete required tasks, the level of communication in an

organization, and the way management treats employees.

4

Employee engagement is a workplace approach resulting in the right

conditions for all members of an organization to give of their best each day,

committed to their organization’s goals and values, motivated to contribute to

organizational success, with an enhanced sense of their own well-being.

Employee engagement is based on trust, integrity, two-way commitment and

communication between an organization and its members. It is an approach that

increases the chances of business success, contributing to organizational and

individual performance, productivity and well-being. It can be measured. It varies

from poor to great. It can be nurtured and dramatically increased; it can be lost and

thrown away.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEWS

Job satisfaction theory

Maslow’s needs hierarchy theory was the theory to examine the important

contributors to job satisfaction. The theory suggests that human needs form a five-

level hierarchy (Figure 2-1) including of: physiological needs, safety,

belongingness/love, esteem, and self-actualization. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs

supposes that there are essential needs that need to be met first (such as, physiological

needs and safety), before more complex needs can be met (such as, belonging and

esteem). Maslow’s needs hierarchy was developed to explain human motivation in

general. However, its main tenants are applicable to the work setting, and have been

used to explain job satisfaction. Within an organization, financial compensation and

healthcare are some of the benefits which help an employee meet their basic

physiological needs. Safety needs can manifest itself through employees feeling

physically safe in their work environment, as well as job security and having suitable

company structures and policies. When this is satisfied, the employees can focus on

feeling as though they belong to the workplace. This can come in the form of positive

relationships with colleagues and supervisors in the workplace, and whether or not

they feel they are a part of their team/organization. Once satisfied, the employee will

seek to feel as though they are valued and appreciated by their colleagues and their

organization (Maslow, 1943).

Figure 2-1 Maslow’s five-level hierarchy

6

Herzberg’s motivator-hygiene theory suggests that job satisfaction and

dissatisfaction are not two opposite ends of the same continuum, but instead are two

separate and, at times, even unrelated concepts. ‘Motivating’ factors like pay and

benefits, recognition and achievement need to be met in order for an employee to be

satisfied with work. On the other hand, ‘hygiene’ factors like working conditions,

company policies and structure, job security, interaction with colleagues and quality

of management are associated with job dissatisfaction. Because both the hygiene and

motivational factors are viewed as independent, it is possible that employees are

neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. This theory supposes that when hygiene factors are

low the employee is dissatisfied, but when these factors are high it means the

employee is not dissatisfied (or neutral), but not necessarily satisfied. Whether or not

an employee is satisfied is dependent on the motivator factors. Moreover, it is thought

that when motivators are met the employee is thought to be satisfied. This separation

may aid in accounting for the complexity of an employee’s feelings, as they might

feel both satisfied and dissatisfied at the same time; or neither satisfied nor

dissatisfied (Herzberg, 1966).

Figure 2-2 Herzberg’s description of satisfiers and dissatisfies

Employee engagement theory

The X model of employee engagement. The model of engagement

(Cook, 2008) very much surrounds the four different stages employees may feel or

experience through the employee engagement in an organization, whereas

BlessingWhite’s model defines the levels of engagement employees go through in an

organization.

Organizations want their employees to be involved in the goals of the

business. Employees in organizations need to be engaged in the organization so that

they can feel valued by the organization and get some satisfaction from the job they

7

are doing. The BlessingWhite model of engagement focuses on two things; the

employees’ “contribution to the company’s success” and the employees’ “personal

satisfaction in the role” (Blessingwhite, 2015).

BlessingWhite believe that the best way to achieve employee engagement is

to have the organization’s employees’ goals in alignment with the goals of the

organization. This helps to ensure the goals are reached as the employees know what

is expected of them and their goals are aligned with the organization so they are both

striving for the same outcome. The BlessingWhite model uses these two factors to

determine five levels of engagement, as can be seen in the diagram below

(Blessingwhite, 2015).

Figure 2-3 The BlessingWhite model

The Engaged: High contribution & high satisfaction: Employees in this

category are at the top or highest point of engagement. Their personal and

organizational goals and interests match. They are fully engaged in the organization

and their own job. They aren’t interested in being recruited by other companies as

they are fully committed to their current organization. It is important for organizations

with employees in this category to keep them motivated and engaged because if they

were to lose them the organization could suffer (Blessingwhite, 2015).

Almost Engaged: Medium to high contribution & satisfaction: The next

level is the Almost Engaged. Employees in this category are up there with The

8

Engaged, however, they don’t have a consecutive amount of fully satisfied and

engaged days but they do experience these days quite often. Organizations should

spend time and resources on these employees as they are almost at full engagement

but just need that extra help to reach it (Blessingwhite, 2015).

Honeymooners & Hamsters: Medium to high satisfaction but low

contribution: Honeymooners are employees who are new to an organization and

enjoying their time there. They are still settling in but they know what they can bring

to the organization and the best way to do it. Organizations should be eager to move

these “honeymooners” from this level and on to the next level. Hamsters are

employees who work hard but could be focusing on more important tasks than they do

as these less important tasks don’t help as much in the organization’s success. These

“hamsters” can become a real problem for organizations as other employees end up

annoyed and maybe disheartened if they have to do the other employees work

(Blessingwhite, 2015).

Crash & Burners: Medium to high contribution but low satisfaction: Crash

and Burners are great at their jobs but lack their own individual satisfaction. These

employees can be resentful towards the organization and the management teams.

Some may leave the organization, while others may stay but become less and less

engaged and slipping into the final level and this can often lead to the disengagement

of others (Blessingwhite, 2015).

The Disengaged: Low to medium contribution & satisfaction: In the

beginning The Disengaged were probably engaged in the organization and their job

but over time became less and less engaged. They are usually negative and often bring

or try to bring the people around them down as well. If the organization cannot work

with these employees to improve their engagement, then their departure from the

organization is the best thing for everyone, including themselves (Blessingwhite,

2015).

AON Hewitt-Employee Engagement Model. The AON Hewitt model of

employee engagement is based around what they think are the engagement drivers. As

can be seen in the figure 2-4 AON Hewitt-employee engagement model below, brand,

leadership, performance, the work, the basics, and company practices are what drives

engagement and results in three outcomes of say, stay, and strive.

9

Figure 2-4 AON Hewitt-employee engagement Model

The say, stay, and strive model implies that engaged employees will discuss

their organization in a positive manner to coworkers, clients, and anyone they meet.

They will feel comfortable in the organization and feel that they belong there.

Employees will be motivated to be the best at their job and do what they can to make

their job and the organization successful. The four main business outcomes of this

model are “talent, operational, customer, and financial” (Hewitt, 2015).

Company profile

A.C.D. Thailand was established in 1999. It is a crystal setting professional,

a visionary pioneer in applying the unique Pointiage™ technique. As a close partner

of Swarovski, they are renowned on the international market for offering the best and

highest quality crystal setting service. Swarovski Austria authorized A.C.D. Thailand

to be the first international company to implement the system in a manufacturing

process and exclusively use it for commercial purposes.

10

Figure 2-5 A.C.D. (Thailand) Co., Ltd.

The art of Pointiage™ in times of high tech, speed and uniformity is truly

special. A.C.D. is known throughout the industry for having an exceptional

production team. Intensively supervised and carefully monitored in a three-month

intensive training program, the novice is guided to become familiar with various

techniques and equipment. The trainee develops a sense for timing, structures, colors,

surfaces and forms. After accomplishing all demanded tasks to perfection the artist is

accepted as part of the production team. A.C.D. strongly believe that a major part of

their success is employee, who is extraordinary gifted craftspeople.

Figure 2-6 Employees of A.C.D. (Thailand) Co., Ltd.

11

A.C.D. Thailand manufactures on a made-to-order basis. They are a highly

experienced and reliable partner for jewelry mass production, with a constantly high

quality and an industry-wide over average crystal setting and production rate. Custom

made, with Swarovski crystals decorated or fully crystallized art objects are within the

range of their possibilities. They offer their customers assistance in individual

production design and guarantee absolute design and copyright protection.

Independent variable

Smith et al. (1969) define five facets for measuring job satisfaction. Based

on their instrument, job satisfaction consists of several facets, including satisfaction

with the nature of work, present pay, opportunities for promotion, supervisor and

relationship with coworkers.

Nature of work

The nature of the work performed by employees has a significant effect on

their level of job satisfaction (Luthans, 2006; Griffen and Moorhead, 2009). Robbins

et al. (2003) refer to the work itself as “the extent to which the job provides the

individual with stimulating tasks, opportunities for learning and personal growth, and

the chance to be responsible and accountable for results”. Sharma and Bhaskar

(1991) assume that most significant influence over job satisfaction of employees

appears from the nature of the work given to them. In addition, they assert job

satisfaction can be achieved by employees if the job requires sufficient variety,

discretion, challenge and scope for using an individual’s own skills and abilities. The

study that was done on Indian managers by Khaleque and Choudhary (1984) shown

that the most essential factor to verify top managers’ job satisfaction is the nature of

work. It was also found out that the job security is considered as the most significant

factor among managers of lower rank job satisfaction.

Present pay

Luthans (2006) claimed that apart from helping people to achieve and obtain

their basic needs, salaries also work to satisfy the higher level needs of people. Taylor

and West (1992) figured out that job satisfaction is affected by the payment levels

affect. It is reported that most public employees will feel less satisfy with their jobs if

they compare their salaries to those who work for the private sector. Robbins et al.

12

(2003) supposed that most employees will look for payment systems that believed to

be fair, definite, and aligned with their expectations. Satisfaction is expected to be

achieved if the payment seems to be equitable, equal with job demands, individual

skill level and community payment standards. In contrast, the findings of survey

performed by Brainard (2005) figured out that job satisfaction is less likely to be

connected with the payment and benefits.

Opportunities for promotion

Several researchers share the opinion that job satisfaction has a great

connection with is opportunities for promotion (Pergamit & Veum, 1999; Ellickson &

Logsdon, 2002). Promotion as defined by Heery and Noon (2001) refers to “the action

of shifting an employee up the organization hierarchy which will normally bring to an

increase of responsibility and status and a better remuneration package among the

individuals who are promoted”. Kreitner and Kinicki (2004) mentioned that job

satisfaction and the promotion positive relationship relies on supposed fairness by

employees. A lot of people will experience satisfaction when they think that they have

good future opportunities as supposed by Drafke and Kossen (2002). This can be

interpreted as the opportunities for progression and development in their present

workplace or providing better chances to look out for alternative employment. It is

assumed that the level of job satisfaction will go down if people think that they have

less career advancement opportunities. McCormick (2008) mentioned that job

satisfaction among employees with promotional opportunities will rely on the

promotions equity.

Supervision

Many Researches reveal that supervision and job satisfaction has a positive

relationship (Peterson et al., 2003; Koustelios, 2001; Smucker et al., 2003). According

to Heery and Noon (2001), a supervisor is defined as “a frontline manager who is

responsible for the supervision of employees”. Nel et al. (2004) regard the supervisors

as employees who regulate the activities of lower-level employees. Staudt (1997)

research has noticed that respondents are probably to feel satisfied generally with their

job if they feel satisfied with their supervisors. Supervision outlines a very important

role that has to do with employees’ job satisfaction in terms of the supervisor’s

capability to give support of emotional and technical along with direction with any

13

task that has to do with their job (Robbins et al., 2003). According to the study

performed by Packard and Kauppi (1999), the employees with supervisors showing

styles of the democratic management will experience higher job satisfaction in

compare to those working with supervisors who displayed an autocratic kind of

supervision. Brewer and Hensher (1998) mentioned that supervisors who stress

deliberation and concern for employees in their leadership normally have more

workers who feel satisfied and contented compared to those who practice task

structuring and care more for production. Normally, employee-centered supervisors

will show interest to the employees by listening to what they have to say which will

result to the increase of number of satisfied employees.

Relationship with co-workers

There are several studies that show that friendly and supportive colleagues

enhance the rate of job satisfaction in a working environment (Khaleque and

Choudhury, 1984; Johns, 1996; Viswesvaran et al., 1998; Kreitner and Kinicki, 2004;

Luthans, 2006). This area of satisfaction is measured by how well employees get

along with each other and how well they look up to their fellow employees.

Markiewicz et al. (1997) figured out that the close friendships quality was related to

both job satisfaction and career success among employees. Riordan and Griffeth

(1995) found that a positive relationship among co-workers improves the rate of job

satisfaction. Their research shows that friendship network among coworkers influence

the outcomes of workplace. It increases job satisfaction, job involvement and

organizational commitment, while reduces the intention to turnover.

Dependent Variable

The four components that Cook (2008) believes are the key components for

driving engagement are:

1. Well-being

2. Information

3. Fairness

4. Involvement

14

Well-being

The component of well-being means how an employee feels in and about the

organization and how the organization treats them. There two sides to well-being and

they are the external factors such as the corporate responsibility and employer

branding. An organization’s corporate responsibility usually concerns four places,

these are; the environment around them, the market, their workplace, and the

community they are based in (cipd, 2015). Employer branding is where an employer

knows what their customers and employees want and how they give it to them (cipd,

2015).

The internal factors include things such as the work-life balance. To many

people a steady work-life balance is very important. Previous research which has been

carried out over the years has found that a work-life balance creates a stronger level of

employee engagement. Employees are likely to be more engaged when they can do

their work but also have the time with their family thanks to their company’s HR

policies encouraging the work-life balance (Cook, 2008).

Information

Employees are likely to have a higher level of engagement if they know

what they are doing, what the company is doing and what is expected of them. If

employees are kept up to date on what the organization’s goals are, they are able to

work to reach these goals and achieve satisfaction that they have helped (Cook, 2008).

Fairness

Fairness is very important to ensure a strong level of engagement. It is

believed that this fairness starts at the very beginning at the recruitment process stage.

Fairness also comes under the performance management stage as employees need to

know what is expected of them so they can deliver the best results. As well as the

factors mentioned above, line managers and other members of management should on

a regular basis be encouraging their employees and praising their work. Personal

development plans are also a great way of engaging employees as they allow

employees to see where their careers are going. It has also been found that companies

that rank on the higher end of the employee engagement scale have fair rewards and

recognitions processes in place (Cook, 2008).

15

Involvement

The best way to achieve high levels of employee engagement is to make

sure your employees are involved in all aspects that they can be. Organizations that

realize that communication is a two-way street are more likely to have a higher

engagement level than those who don’t. The reason for this is because employees are

likely to be more motivated if their managers are listening to them and taking on

board what they have to say. Not only can involvement increase engagement, it can

also increase retention levels in an organization (Cook, 2008).

Related studies

Dugguh and Dennis (2014) - study of Job satisfaction theories: Traceability

to employee performance in organizations. Job satisfaction and the variables are

indication of how complex the concept of job satisfaction and employee performance

is. The factors (achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility, opportunity for

growth, pay, supervision, work conditions, company policies, interpersonal

relationship, status and security) that included in order to investigate job satisfaction

employee performance relationship. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to trace

the relationship between job satisfaction and employee performance in organizations

with particular reference to Nigeria. Job satisfaction plays a crucial role in terms of

employee performance, and to some extent his well-being and to the organizations in

terms of its productivity, efficiency, employee relations, absenteeism and turnover.

The theories indicate that a number of factors like achievement, recognition,

responsibility, pay, work conditions, opportunity for growth, supervision, company

policies, interpersonal relationship, status and security, have positive influence on

employee performance in organizations.

Bakar (2013) – study of understanding factors influencing employee

engagement: A study of the financial sector in Malaysia. He examines the factors that

influence and shape employee engagement in the context of the financial sector in

Malaysia. He does this by studying multilevel factors at three levels, the individual,

organizational and societal levels. The thesis focuses on three increasingly prominent

concepts: empowering leaders’ behavior, high performance work practices (HPWP)

and the possible role of religiosity. This study adopted a mixed-method approach. The

16

first method, a qualitative study of 41 interviews with employees in the financial

sector, was designed to explore the most salient factors in the employees’ levels of

engagement. The second method, a quantitative survey of 278 employees, was

designed to investigate the associations between the studied variables. This set of

analyses revealed that empowering leadership behavior was significantly related to

employee engagement. In particular, employees experience a significant level of

engagement when their leader shows concern.

The Society for human resource management (SHRM, 2013) – study of

Employee job satisfaction and engagement. The report represents the findings from

the SHRM Employee job satisfaction and engagement survey of 600 U.S. employees.

The purpose of the annual employee survey is to identify factors that influence overall

employee satisfaction and engagement in the workplace. The contribution of job

satisfaction, compensation/ pay was rated as “very important”, it is the top contributor

to overall employee job satisfaction. Both job security and opportunities to use

skills/ abilities rated as “very important” to job satisfaction. These job satisfaction

contributors were followed by the relationship with immediate supervisor, the overall

benefits package, organization’s financial stability and the work itself.

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research design

This research is the quantitative research with the topic “Job satisfaction

affect to employee engagement: case of A.C.D. (Thailand) Co., Ltd.” Researcher

studied from company information and related studies which processes as in follows:

1. Population

2. Tools used in the research

3. Method used to test the quality of tools used in research

4. Data collection

5. Data analysis

Population

This research is studying of employee of A.C.D. (Thailand) Co., Ltd. which

population is 142 persons and it can separate to each department as 1) accounting 2)

human resource 3) housekeeper 4) warehouse 5) quality control 6) crystal stock 7)

production office 8) customer service 9) information technology 10) driver 11)

technician 12) gardener 13) safety 14) research and development 15) production.

Table 3-1 Number of employee

Department Number of employee (people)

Human resource 1

Customer service 3

IT support 1

Crystal stock 4

Quality assurance 6

R & D 8

Safety 1

Housekeeper 3

Driver 1

Gardener 1

Technician 1

Warehouse 4

18

Table 3-1 (continue)

Department Number of employee (people)

Production officer 3

Production 102

Total 142

Tools used in research

Tools that used in this research is questionnaire about job satisfaction

affecting employee engagement in A.C.D. (Thailand) co., ltd. by dividing it into 3

parts;

Part 1: General information about demographic characteristics including gender, age,

education, marital status, income and year of work.

Part 2: Questionnaire about job satisfaction including Nature of work, Present Pay,

Opportunities for Promotion, Supervision and Relationship with Co-workers.

Part 3: Questionnaire about employee engagement including Well-being, Information,

Fairness and Involvement.

Questionnaire in part 2-3 defined in scoring as follows:

Level score

Very high 5

High 4

Moderate 3

Low 2

Very low 1

Method to interpret the results of the questionnaire used the average, based on the

following: (Uon, V. 2008)

Highest score – lowest score

Total level

= 5 – 1 = 0.8

5

19

Level of score Meaning

Level 5 average 4.21-5.00 scores ………. Very high

Level 4 average 3.41-4.20 scores ………. High

Level 3 average 2.61-3.40 scores ………. Moderate

Level 2 average 1.81-2.60 scores ………. Low

Level 1 average 1.00-1.80 scores ………. Very Low

The methods used to test the quality of the Tools used in research

In this research will test the validity and reliability as follows;

1. Validity: Researcher create questionnaire from literature review and give

it to professors to consider and determine the validity of content about IOC (Index of

Concordance) and the proper used of wording to improve before using it to collect

data (Rovinelli & Hambleton, 1977) after the experts have commented and suggestion

then researcher will calculate the IOC.

IOC mean consistency between questions and objectives and range between

1 to -1. If the result less than 0.5, IOC questionnaires should revise question.

Formula:

R : Total score from professors

N : Number of professor

If the result is:

1 mean the question is consistent with the objectives.

0 mean the question uncertainty consistent with the objectives.

-1 mean the question is not consistent with the objectives.

2. Reliability: Researcher will prepare 30 sets of questionnaire for try-out

with similar population by statistical software for calculate Cronbach’s Alpha by

Alpha Coefficient at 0.7. (Nunnally, 1978)

N

RIOC

20

Data collection

This research is a quantitative study, researcher got an information and

theories from 2 sources as follow:

1. Secondary sources which is from the studied of journals, articles, thesis,

technical reports, related research and information on the internet.

2. Primary sources which is a questionnaire that collect data of (142

persons) the population in A.C.D. (Thailand) co., ltd. There are 3 steps as follows:

2.1 Asking the head of each department for permission to collect data

from employees of A.C.D. (Thailand) co., ltd.

2.2 Collecting data

2.3 The period of data collection during the month of May 2016.

Data analysis

After gathering data from all questionnaires, researcher has check over the

information filled and examined the integrity of the respondents. If it incomplete

information, researcher has to cut it out. And then bring the valid questionnaires for

coding data processing by a computer which used the statistical software.

Statistical analysis, the data statistical analysis is using statistical software

SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences). The test is used to analyze the

relationship between Jobs satisfaction has influenced to employee engagement of

A.C.D. (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Which steps has analyzed as in follows:

1. Descriptive statistical used to describe information about demographic

characteristics which consist of percentage, mean and standard deviation of

respondents in part 1.

2. Inferential statistics used to test the hypothesis, which is MRA (Multiple

Regression Analysis) to study the influence of the independent variable that will

effect on the dependent variable of respondents in part 2,3.

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS OF DATA ANALYSIS

In this quantitative study, researcher has tested the validity and reliability of

content about IOC (Index of concordance: IOC) for questionnaire by 3 experts and

try-out 30 sets with similar population, then calculated on statistical software of

Cronbach’s alpha. The result was 0.925 which is higher than alpha coefficient at 0.7.

It means that the questionnaire is reliability as table 4-1 shown in follow;

Table 4-1 Reliability statistics of questionnaire

N of items

Mean

Cronbach’s alpha

Cronbach’s alpha

based on

standardized

items

27 4.079 0.952 0.952

Then researcher used the questionnaire as the instrument to collect data and

gathered from employee of A.C.D. (Thailand) Co., Ltd. In term of the relationship

between job satisfaction has influenced employee engagement will be analyzed and

summarized into 4 parts as follows;

Part 1: Statistical analysis of demographic characteristics of employee

Part 2: Statistical analysis of job satisfaction factors

Part 3: Statistical analysis of employee engagement factors

Part 4: Statistical analysis of job satisfaction affecting employee

engagement and hypothesis testing

Descriptive analysis symbols

N for Population size

x for Mean (Arithmetic average)

SD for Standard deviation

H0 for Null hypothesis

H1 for Alternative hypothesis

22

R for Correlation coefficient

R Square for Multiple correlation coefficient

Beta for Power of the test

Part 1: Statistical analysis of demographic characteristics of

employee

In this part defines the frequency and percentage of demographic

characteristics including gender, age, education level, marital status, income per

month and year of work.

Table 4-2 Frequency and percentage of gender

Personal demographics Frequency

(N = 142)

Percentage

Gender Male 15 10.6

Female 127 89.4

The results of respondents were male 15 persons, which is equal to 10.6

percent and female 127 persons equal to 89.4 percent.

Table 4-3 Frequency and percentage of marital status


(N = 142)

Percentage

Marital status Single 60 42.3

Married 77 54.2

Divorced 3 2.1

Widowed 2 1.4

The Marital status results of respondents were single 60 persons equal to

42.3 percent, married 77 persons equal to 54.2 percent, divorced 3 persons equal to

2.1 percent and widowed 2 persons equal to 1.4 percent.

23

Table 4-4 Frequency and percentage of age


(N = 142)

Percentage

Age Under 20 years’ old 1 0.7

20-30 years’ old 64 45.1

31-40 years’ old 66 46.5

41 years old or more 11 7.7

The Age results of respondents were under 20 years’ old 1 person equal to

0.7 percent, 20-30 years’ old 64 persons equal to 45.1 percent, 31-40 years’ old 66

persons equal to 46.5 percent and 41 years old or more 11 persons equal to 7.7

percent.

Table 4-5 Frequency and percentage of education level


(N = 142)

Percentage

Education level Lower than bachelor degree 111 78.2

Bachelor degree 28 19.7

Master degree 3 2.1

Higher than master degree 0 0.0

The Education level results of respondents were lower than bachelor degree

111 persons equal to 78.2 percent, 20-30 years’ old, bachelor degree 28 persons equal

to 19.7 percent, master degree 3 persons equal to 2.1 percent but higher than master

degree was 0.

Table 4-6 Frequency and percentage of income per month


(N = 142)

Percentage

Income per

month Less than 10,000 baht 33 23.2

10,001-20,000 baht 86 60.6

20,001-30,000 baht 15 10.6

Higher than 30,000 baht 8 5.6

24

The Income per month results of respondents were less than 10,000 baht

33 persons equal to 23.2 percent, 10,001-20,000 baht 86 persons equal to 60.6

percent, 20,001-30,000 baht 15 persons equal to 10.6 percent and higher than 30,000

baht

8 persons equal to 5.6 percent.

Table 4-7 Frequency and percentage of work experience


(N = 142)

Percentage

Work

experience Below 1 year 22 15.5

1-5 years 61 43.0

6-10 years 24 16.9

Over 10 years 35 24.6

The Work experience results of respondents were below 1 year 22 persons

equal to 15.5 percent, 1-5 years 61 persons equal to 43.0 percent, 6-10 years 24

persons equal to 16.9 percent and Over 10 years 35 persons equal to 24.6 percent.

Part 2: Statistical analysis of job satisfaction factors

This part is a Likert scale as an interval scale ranging from 1-5. It shows

overall component of job satisfaction factors that included Nature of work, Present

pay, Opportunities for promotion, Supervision and Relationship with co-workers. The

statistical analysis in this part was analyzed and demonstrated by Mean ( x ),

Standard deviation (SD), and level of affecting in each component of job satisfaction.

Table 4-8 Mean ( x ), standard deviation (SD), and level of affecting toward nature

of work (N = 142)

Nature of work

Level of affecting

x SD Level Rank

25


Nature of work

Level of affecting

x SD Level Rank

1. My job makes good use of my skills

and abilities. 4.25 0.62

Very

high 2

2. My Job is important to the Company. 4.44 0.71 Very

high 1

3. I like the type of work that I do. 4.27 0.70 Very

high 3

Total 4.32 0.52 Very

high

The result from the table 4-8 shows that employees were very high satisfied

with their nature of work since mean value for overall employees’ satisfaction was

4.32, SD = 0.52. It can be rank by the affecting level as follows: “My Job is important

to the Company” was the first rank in very high level by mean value ( x = 4.44), the

second was “I like the type of work that I do” in very high level ( x = 4.27) and the

third was “My job makes good use of my skills and abilities” which is also in very

high level ( x = 4.25) respectively.

Table 4-9 Mean ( x ), standard deviation (SD), and level of affecting toward

Present pay (N = 142)

Present pay

Level of affecting

x SD Level Rank

1. My pay matches my job

performance. 3.53 0.89 High 2

2. I'm satisfied with company’s benefits

package. 3.65 0.84 High 1

26


Present pay

Level of affecting

x SD Level Rank

3. My company offers better benefits

than other companies. 3.43 0.87 High 3

Total 3.54 0.79 High

The result from the table 4-9 shows that employees were high satisfied with their

present pay since mean value for overall employees’ satisfaction were 3.54,

SD = 0.79. It can be rank by the affecting level as follows: “I'm satisfied with

company’s benefits package” was the first rank in high level ( x = 3.65), the second

was “My pay matches my job performance” in high level ( x = 3.53) and the third was

“My company offers better benefits than other companies” in high level ( x = 3.43)

respectively.


opportunities for promotion (N = 142)

Opportunities for promotion

Level of affecting

x SD Level Rank

1. Job promotions are awarded fairly

and without bias. 3.47 0.89 High 3

2. I have many opportunities to learn

new things. 4.03 0.83 High 1

3. I trust that if I do good work, my

company may consider me for a

promotion.

3.53 0.82 High 2


The result from the table 4-10 shows that employees were high satisfied with

their opportunities for promotion since mean value for overall employees’ satisfaction

27

were 3.68, SD = 0.66. It can be rank by the affecting level as follows: “. I have many

opportunities to learn new things” was the first rank in high level ( x = 4.03), the

second was “I trust that if I do good work, my company may consider me for a

promotion” in high level ( x = 3.53) and the third was “Job promotions are awarded

fairly and without bias” in high level ( x = 3.47) respectively.


supervision (N = 142)

Supervision

Level of affecting

x SD Level Rank

1. My supervisor acknowledges when I

do my work well. 3.44 0.93 High 3

2. My supervisor enables me to perform

at my best. 3.64 0.85 High 1

3. My supervisor is open to hearing my

opinion or feedback. 3.62 0.94 High 2



their supervision since mean value for overall employees’ satisfaction is 3.57,

SD = 0.80. It can be rank by the affecting level as follows: “My supervisor enables

me to perform at my best” was the first rank in high level ( x = 3.64), the second was

“My supervisor is open to hearing my opinion or feedback” in high level ( x = 3.62)

and the third was “My supervisor acknowledges when I do my work well” in high

level

( x = 3.44) respectively.

28


relationship with co-workers (N = 142)

Relationship with co-workers

Level of affecting

x SD Level Rank

1. I feel I am part of the team. 3.92 0.78 High 3

2. We work together to solve problems. 4.00 0.82 High 2

3. I have good working relationships

with my co-workers 4.23 0.71

Very

high 1



their relationship with co-workers since mean value for overall employees’

satisfaction were 4.05, SD = 0.63. The employees rank the affecting level as follows:

“I have good working relationships with my co-workers” for the first rank in very

high level

( x = 4.23), the second was “We work together to solve problems” in high level

( x = 4.00) and the third was “I feel I am part of the team” in high level ( x = 3.92)

respectively.

Table 4-13 Mean ( x ), standard deviation (SD), and level of affecting toward overall

job satisfaction (N = 142)

Job satisfaction

Level of affecting

x SD Level Rank

1. Nature of work 4.32 0.52 Very

high 1

2. Present pay 3.54 0.79 High 5

3. Opportunities for promotion 3.68 0.66 High 3


29

Job satisfaction

Level of affecting

x SD Level Rank

4. Supervision 3.57 0.80 High 4

5. Relationship with co-workers 4.05 0.63 High 2


According to the table 4-13, The summarize of job satisfaction statistical

analysis could be concluded that all Job satisfaction factors, the employees rank the

affecting level from nature of work as the highest degree comparing with others by

mean value ( x = 4.32), the second was relationship with co-workers ( x = 4.05)

follows by opportunities for promotion ( x = 3.68), supervision ( x = 3.57), and the

last was present pay ( x = 3.54). Therefore, average of overall job satisfaction factors

ware weighted at high level with x = 3.83.

Part 3: Statistical analysis of Employee engagement

This part is an interval scale ranging from 1-5 which is the statistical

analysis of Employee engagement consists of Well-being, Information, Fairness and

Involvement. The statistical analysis in this part was analyzed and demonstrated by

Mean ( x ), Standard deviation (SD), and level of affecting in each component of

Employee engagement.


well-being (N = 142)

Well-being

Level of affecting

x SD Level Rank


30

Well-being

Level of affecting

x SD Level Rank

1. The company care about their

employees’ well-being. 3.82 0.86 High 3

2. The company emphasizes workplace

safety. 4.18 0.74 High 1

3. My work environment is pleasant and

calm. 4.02 0.83 High 2



their overall well-being since mean value for employees’ engagement were 4.00,

SD = 0.66. The employees rank the affecting level as follows: “The company

emphasizes workplace safety” for the first rank in high level ( x = 4.18), the second

was “My work environment is pleasant and calm” in high level ( x = 4.02) and the

third was “The company care about their employees’ well-being” in high level ( x =

3.82) respectively.


information (N = 142)

Information

Level of affecting

x SD Level Rank

1. I understand the long-term strategy of

company. 3.39 0.92 Moderate 3

2. I am clear on my job expectations

and role. 3.72 0.72 High 2

3. I understand the importance of my

role to the success of the company. 3.82 0.63 High 1


31

Information

Level of affecting

x SD Level Rank


The result from the table 4-15 shows that employees were high satisfied with their

overall information since mean value for employees’ engagement were 3.65,

SD = 0.64. The employees rank the affecting level as follows: “I understand the

importance of my role to the success of the company” for the first rank in high level

( x = 3.82), the second was “I am clear on my job expectations and role” in high level

( x = 3.72) and the third was “I understand the long-term strategy of company” in

moderate level ( x = 3.39) respectively.

Table 4-16 Mean ( x ), standard deviation (SD), and level of affecting toward fairness

(N = 142)

Fairness

Level of affecting

x SD Level Rank

1. Employees are treated fairly here

regardless of race, gender, age, religion

or sexual orientation.

3.79 0.94 High 2

2. I receive recognition when I perform

above expectations. 3.70 0.79 High 3

3. I am rewarded for exceeding my

goals. 3.92 0.78 High 1



their overall fairness since mean value for employees’ engagement were 3.80,

SD = 0.63. The employees rank the affecting level as follows: “I am rewarded for

exceeding my goals” for the first rank in high level ( x = 3.92), the second was

“Employees are treated fairly here regardless of race, gender, age, religion or sexual

32

orientation” in high level ( x = 3.79) and the third was “I receive recognition when I

perform above expectations” in high level ( x = 3.70) respectively.


involvement (N = 142)

Involvement

Level of affecting

x SD Level Rank

1. I proud to be an employee of the

company. 4.27 0.68

Very

high 1

2. The company values the contribution

I make. 3.68 0.84 High 2

3. I am involved in decisions that affect

my work. 3.63 0.86 High 3



their overall involvement since mean value for employees’ engagement were 3.86,

SD = 0.66. The employees rank the affecting level as follows: “. I proud to be an

employee of the company” for the first rank in very high level ( x = 4.27), the second

was “The company values the contribution I make” in high level ( x = 3.68) and the

third was “I am involved in decisions that affect my work” in high level ( x = 3.63)

respectively.

Table 4-18 Mean ( x ), standard deviation (SD), and level of affecting toward overall

employee engagement (N = 142)

33

Employee engagement

Level of affecting

x SD Level Rank

1. Well-being 4.00 0.66 High 1

2. Information 3.65 0.64 High 4

3. Fairness 3.80 0.63 High 3

4. Involvement 3.86 0.66 High 2


According to the table 4-18, The summarize of employee engagement

statistical analysis could be concluded that all employee engagement factors, the

employees rank the affecting level from well-being as the highest degree comparing

with others by mean value ( x = 4.00), the second was involvement ( x = 3.86) follows

by fairness ( x = 3.80), and the last was information ( x = 3.65). Therefore, average of

overall employee engagement factors ware weighted at high level with

x = 3.83.

Part 4: Hypothesis testing

This part is hypothesis test that examined the statistical analysis to conclude

whether the null hypothesis is accepted or rejected. Consequently, the statistical

analysis which used for this research were inferential statistics as MRA (Multiple

Regression Analysis) to study influence of Job satisfaction affect to Employee

engagement by choosing stepwise tactic for data analysis process. The result will

consider in term of Sig. Value and R-value, the analysis was used for proving and

testing the hypothesis.

34

Figure 4-1 The hypothesis testing diagram

Job satisfaction has influenced to employee engagement.

For the conditions of hypothesis testing which were indicated by MRA

(Multiple Regression Analysis), when hypothesis testing result has significant level

less than 0.05 (Significant level 95%), the H0 will be rejected but when hypothesis

testing result has significant level more than 0.05 (Significant level 95%), the H0 will

be accepted. The data analysis process by using SPSS program with the multiple

linear regression indicated in term of hypothesis testing as in follow;



engagement in Well-being.

H0: Job satisfaction not affect to employee engagement in Well-being.

H1: Job satisfaction affect to employee engagement in Well-being.

The statistics used in the analysis is stepwise multiple regression analysis

Equation; Ŷ = a + b1X1 + b2X2 + b3X3…+ bkXk + e

Ŷ = Employee engagement in Well-being

a = Constant

b(1-k) = Coefficient

X1 = Nature of work

X2 = Present pay

X3 = Opportunities for promotion

Job satisfaction

1. Nature of work

2. Present pay

3. Opportunities for

promotion

4. Supervision

5. Relationship with

co-workers

(Smith et al.,1969)

Employee engagement

1. Well-being

2. Information

3. Fairness

4. Involvement

(Cook, 2008)

H1

H2

H5

H4

H3

35

X4 = Supervision

X5 = Relationship with co-workers

e = Error

Table 4-19 Stepwise multiple regression analysis of H1

Job satisfaction

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients Sig.

B Std.

Error

Beta

(Model 2) Constant 1.350 0.282 0.000

1. Pay 0.485 0.055 0.581 0.000

2. Relationship 0.232 0.068 0.222 0.001

R

R Square

Adjusted R2

0.688

0.473

0.465

Dependent Variable: Well-being

The correlation coefficient(R) between independent variable “job

satisfaction” and dependent variable “employee engagement in well-being”, which is

equal to 0.688 that mean job satisfaction relate to “employee engagement in well-

being”. A coefficient of determination (R square) equal to 0.473 means if change

“employee engagement in well-being”, job satisfaction will change 47.3 percent with

adjusted (adjusted R square) equal to 0.465. Also it indicated that job satisfaction is

Sig. = 0.000, which is less than the significant level of 0.05 indicates that there is at

least one factor of job satisfaction that can predict the effect of changes in employee

engagement in well-being. Therefore, it could be summarized that H0 and accept H1.

The parameters of the data collection questionnaire and analyze using

statistical analysis to process and selected variables were associated with an increase

in employee engagement in well-being. Multiple regression equation after tested show

in below;

Unstandardized Ŷ = 1.350 + 0.485X2 + 0.232X5 + e

Standardized Ŷ = 0.581X2 + 0.222X5 + e

When Ŷ = Employee engagement in well-being

X2 = Present pay

36




engagement in Information.

H0: Job satisfaction not affect to employee engagement in Information.

H1: Job satisfaction affect to employee engagement in Information.

The statistics used in the analysis is Stepwise multiple regression analysis


Ŷ = Employee engagement in Information

a = Constant


X1 = Nature of work

X2 = Present pay


X4 = Supervision


e = Error


Job satisfaction

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients Sig.

B Std.

Error

Beta

(Model 3) Constant 0.825 0.290 0.005

1. Promotion 0.237 0.092 0.245 0.011

2. Relationship 0.298 0.075 0.296 0.000

3. Pay 0.210 0.070 0.262 0.003

R

R Square

Adjusted R2

0.655

0.429

0.417

Dependent Variable: Information


satisfaction” and dependent variable “employee engagement in information”, which is

equal to 0.655 that mean job satisfaction relate to “employee engagement in

information”. A coefficient of determination (R square) equal to 0.429 means if

37

change “employee engagement in information”, job satisfaction will change 42.9

percent with adjusted (adjusted R square) equal to 0.417. Also it indicated that job

satisfaction is Sig. = 0.005, which is less than the significant level of 0.05 indicates

that there is at least one factor of job satisfaction that can predict the effect of changes

in employee engagement in Information. Therefore, it could be summarized that reject

H0 and accept H1.



in employee engagement in Information. Multiple regression equation after tested

show in below;

Unstandardized Ŷ = 0.825 + 0.237X3 + 0.298X5 + 0.210X2 + e

Standardized Ŷ = 0.245X3 + 0.296X5 + 0.262X2 + e

When Ŷ = Employee engagement in Information



X2 = Present pay



engagement in Fairness

H0: Job satisfaction not affect to employee engagement in Fairness.

H1: Job satisfaction affect to employee engagement in Fairness.



Ŷ = Employee engagement in Fairness

a = Constant


X1 = Nature of work

X2 = Present pay


X4 = Supervision


e = Error

38


Job satisfaction

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients Sig.

B Std.

Error

Beta

(Model 3) Constant 1.088 0.290 0.000

1. Promotion 0.303 0.092 0.317 0.001

2. Relationship 0.241 0.075 0.242 0.002

3. Pay 0.177 0.070 0.222 0.013

R

R Square

Adjusted R2

0.646

0.418

0.405

Dependent Variable: Fairness


satisfaction” and dependent variable “employee engagement in Fairness”, which is


Fairness”. A coefficient of determination (R square) equal to 0.418 means if change

“employee engagement in Fairness”, job satisfaction will change 41.8 percent with

adjusted (adjusted R square) equal to 0.405. Also it indicated that job satisfaction is

Sig. = 0.000, which is less than the significant level of 0.05 indicates that there is at

least one factor of job satisfaction that can predict the effect of changes in employee

engagement in Fairness. Therefore, it could be summarized that reject H0 and accept

H1.



in employee engagement in Fairness. Multiple regression equation after tested show

in below;



When Ŷ = Employee engagement in Fairness



X2 = Present pay

39



engagement in Involvement.

H0: Job satisfaction not affect to employee engagement in Involvement.

H1: Job satisfaction affect to employee engagement in Involvement.



Ŷ = Employee engagement in Involvement

a = Constant


X1 = Nature of work

X2 = Present pay


X4 = Supervision


e = Error


Job satisfaction

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients Sig.

B Std.

Error

Beta

(Model 3) Constant 0.502 0.255 0.051

1. Pay 0.350 0.062 0.420 0.000

2. Relationship 0.372 0.066 0.357 0.000

3. Promotion 0.168 0.081 0.168 0.041

R

R Square

Adjusted R2

0.767

0.589

0.580

Dependent Variable: Involvement


satisfaction” and dependent variable “employee engagement in Involvement”, which

is equal to 0.767 that mean job satisfaction relate to “employee engagement in

Involvement”. A coefficient of determination (R square) equal to 0.589 means if

change “employee engagement in Involvement”, job satisfaction will change 58.9

percent with adjusted (adjusted R square) equal to 0.580. Also it indicated that job

40

satisfaction is Sig. = 0.051, which is equal to the significant level of 0.05 indicates

that there is at least one factor of job satisfaction that can predict the effect of changes

in employee engagement in Involvement. Therefore, it could be summarized that

reject H0 and accept H1.



in employee engagement in Involvement. Multiple regression equation after tested

show in below;



When Ŷ = Employee engagement in Involvement

X2 = Present Pay






H0: Job satisfaction not affect to employee engagement (Well-being,

Information, Fairness and Involvement).

H1: Job satisfaction affect to employee engagement (Well-being,

Information, Fairness and Involvement).



Ŷ = Employee engagement

a = Constant


X1 = Nature of work

X2 = Present pay


X4 = Supervision


e = Error

41


Job satisfaction

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients Sig.

B Std.

Error

Beta

(Model 3) Constant 0.943 0.176 0.000

1. Pay 0.307 0.043 0.461 0.000

2. Relationship 0.287 0.046 0.344 0.000

3. Promotion 0.173 0.056 0.216 0.002

R

R Square

Adjusted R2

0.833

0.694

0.688

Dependent Variable: Employee engagement


satisfaction” and dependent variable “employee engagement”, which is equal to 0.833

that mean job satisfaction relate to “employee engagement”. A coefficient of

determination (R square) equal to 0.694 means if change “employee engagement”, job

satisfaction will change 69.4 percent with adjusted (adjusted R square) equal to 0.688.

Also it indicated that job satisfaction is Sig. = 0.000, which is less than the significant

level of 0.05 indicates that there is at least one factor of job satisfaction that can

predict the effect of changes in employee engagement. Therefore, it could be

summarized that reject H0 and accept H1.



in employee engagement. Multiple regression equation after tested show in below;



When Ŷ = Employee engagement in Involvement

X2 = Present pay



42

Table 4-24 Hypothesis testing

Hypothesis statement Statistic

Tools

Sig.Value R.

Value

Result of

Hypothesis

H1 = Job satisfaction (Present pay

and Relationship with co-workers)

affect to employee engagement in

Well-being.

MRA 0.000 0.688 significant

(Accept)

H2 = Job satisfaction (Opportunities

for promotion, Relationship with

co-workers and Present pay) affect to

employee engagement in Information.


(Accept)

H3 = Job satisfaction (Opportunities

for promotion, Relationship with

co-workers and Present pay) affect to

employee engagement in Fairness.


(Accept)

H4 = Job satisfaction (Present pay,

Relationship with co-workers and

Opportunities for promotion) affect to

employee engagement in

Involvement.


(Accept)

H5 = Job satisfaction (Present pay,

Relationship with co-workers and

Opportunities for promotion) affect to

employee engagement (Well-being,

Information, Fairness and

Involvement).


(Accept)

According to data analysis process, there is significant influence between

job satisfaction and employee engagement by measuring MRA (the multiple

regression analysis) with indicating to the significant level less or equal 0.05.

43

From the result of hypothesis testing could be conclude that the independent

variable in term of job satisfaction has significant influence with employee

engagement. The normal P-P plot of regression standardize residual which show from

the figure 4-2 which can indicate that all hypotheses have normality in term of linear

equation.

Figure 4-2 Plot of regression standardize residual between independent variable and

dependent variable

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

Conclusion

The purpose of this research is the study the affecting of job satisfaction to

the employee engagement. Questionnaires were collected from a total 142 employees

who are working at a company case study. The questions distributed consist of 3 parts

as follows; First, general information about demographic characteristics of the

respondents, Second, the questions about job satisfaction and Third, the questions

about employee engagement. Data analysis process was used SPSS (Statistical

package for the social sciences) program for measured and analyzed the research

hypothesis by MRA (Multiple Regression Analysis). In term of demographic

characteristics of employee analysis were summarized by descriptive statistics as

frequency and percentage. In additional, job satisfaction and employee engagement

was analyzed and demonstrated by Mean ( x ), Standard Deviation (SD), and level of

affecting in each component.

Part 1: In demographic factors of this research which used collect data

consist of gender, age, marital status, income per month, education levels and work

experiences. The result can be summarized that

1. The study of frequency and percentage of gender are male 15 persons

(10.6%) and female 127 persons (89.4%).

2. The study of frequency and percentage of marital status are single

60 persons (42.3 %), married 77 persons (54.2%), divorced 3 persons (2.1%) and

widowed 2 persons (1.4%).

3. The study of frequency and percentage of age are under 20 years’ old

1 person (0.7%), 20-30 years’ old 64 persons (45.1%), 31-40 years’ old 66 persons

(46.5%) and 41 years old or more 11 persons (7.7%).

4. The study of frequency and percentage of education level are lower than

bachelor degree 111 persons (78.2%), 20-30 years’ old, bachelor degree 28 persons

(19.7%) and master degree 3 persons (2.1%).

45

5. The study of frequency and percentage of income per month are less than

10,000 baht 33 persons (23.2%), 10,001-20,000 baht 86 persons (60.6%),

20,001-30,000 baht 15 persons (10.6%) and higher than 30,000 baht 8 persons (5.6%).

6. The study of frequency and percentage of work experience are below

1 year 22 persons (15.5%), 1-5 years 61 persons (43%), 6-10 years 24 persons

(16.9%) and over 10 years 35 persons (24.6%).

Part2: In job satisfaction factors analysis could be concluded that all Job

satisfaction factors, the employees rank the affecting level from Nature of work as the

highest degree comparing with others by mean value ( x = 4.32), the second was

Relationship with Co-workers ( x = 4.05) follows by Opportunities for Promotion

( x = 3.68), Supervision ( x = 3.57), and the last was Present Pay ( x = 3.54).

Therefore, average of overall Job satisfaction factors ware weighted at high level with

x = 3.83.

Part3: The summarize of Employee engagement statistical analysis could be

concluded that all Employee engagement factors, the employees rank the affecting

level from Well-being as the highest degree comparing with others by mean value

( x = 4.00), the second was Involvement ( x = 3.86) follows by Fairness ( x = 3.80),

and the last one was Information ( x = 3.65). Therefore, average of overall Employee

Engagement factors ware weighted at high level with x = 3.83.

In term of hypothesis test of this research which used collect data by

questionnaire and analyze by SPSS. After analysis process, the researcher found that

1. Job satisfaction in term of present pay and relationship with co-workers’

effect employee engagement in Well-being at significance level of 0.05 and the

correlation coefficient(R) between independent variable “job satisfaction” and

dependent variable “employee engagement in Well-being”, which is equal to 0.688

that mean job satisfaction relate to “employee engagement in Well-being”. A

coefficient of determination (R square) equal to 0.473 means if change “employee

engagement in Well-being”, job satisfaction will change 47.3 percent with adjusted

(adjusted R square) equal to 0.465.

2. Job satisfaction in term of opportunities for promotion, relationship with

co-workers and present pay effect employee engagement in information at

46

significance level of 0.05 and the correlation coefficient(R) between independent

variable “job satisfaction” and dependent variable “employee engagement in

Information”, which is equal to 0.655 that mean job satisfaction relate to “employee

engagement in Information”. A coefficient of determination (R square) equal to 0.429

means if change “employee engagement in Information”, job satisfaction will change

42.9 percent with adjusted (adjusted R square) equal to 0.417.

3. Job satisfaction in term of opportunities for promotion, relationship with

co-workers and present pay effect employee engagement in Fairness at significance

level of 0.05 and the correlation coefficient(R) between independent variable “job

satisfaction” and dependent variable “employee engagement in Fairness”, which is


Fairness”. A coefficient of determination (R square) equal to 0.418 means if change

“employee engagement in Fairness”, job satisfaction will change 41.8 percent with

adjusted (adjusted R square) equal to 0.405.

4. Job satisfaction in term of present pay, relationship with co-workers and

opportunities for promotion effect employee engagement in involvement at

significance level of 0.05 and the correlation coefficient(R) between independent

variable “job satisfaction” and dependent variable “employee engagement in

Involvement”, which is equal to 0.767 that mean job satisfaction relate to “employee

engagement in Involvement”. A coefficient of determination (R square) equal to

0.589 means if change “employee engagement in Involvement”, job satisfaction will

change 58.9 percent with adjusted (adjusted R square) equal to 0.580.

5. Job satisfaction in term of present pay, relationship with co-workers and

opportunities for promotion effect employee engagement at significance level of 0.05

and the correlation coefficient(R) between independent variable “job satisfaction” and

dependent variable “employee engagement”, which is equal to 0.833 that mean job

satisfaction relate to “employee engagement”. A coefficient of determination (R

square) equal to 0.694 means if change “employee engagement”, job satisfaction will

change 69.4 percent with adjusted (adjusted R square) equal to 0.688.

47

Discussion

To develop strategies for improvement of engagement in overall perspective

is the challenge which entrepreneur and managers should focus on the objective to

achieve the goal in sustainable business growth. In this research concentrated to study

about job satisfaction because researcher has the hypotheses that it is affecting to the

employee engagement consistent with the research conclusions of Dugguh, S. I. and

Dennis, A., who study of job satisfaction theories which concluded that the factors

like achievement, recognition, responsibility, pay, work conditions, opportunity for

growth, supervision, company policies, interpersonal relationship, status and security,

have positive influence on employee performance in organizations. And the research

of The society for human resource management (SHRM), who study of employee job

satisfaction and engagement which concluded that compensation/pay was rated as

“very important” to overall employee job satisfaction from literature reviews which is

that mentions about the significant influence of job satisfaction which affect to

employee engagement. The result from this study could demonstrate for demographic

characteristics of respondent who were the population as employee engagement so

this information will be useful to improve and develop of job satisfaction to fulfill the

employee engagement and satisfaction and happiness of the job they do. Moreover,

the result from statistical analysis also shows the significant level of employee

perceive on the components of job satisfaction that consist of Present pay,

Relationship with co-workers and Opportunity for promotion and all components of

employee engagement consist of Well-being, Information, Fairness and Involvement.

For this matter, could be applied to improve strategies which based on the factors

from the result which have high level of affecting on employee engagement in order

to increase satisfaction and more importantly, increase the retention of highly

productive workers in A.C.D. (Thailand) Co., Ltd.

Recommendations

Regarding to the research result the job satisfaction affects employee

engagement. The researcher suggests to increase an engagement of employee in

A.C.D. (Thailand) co., ltd. that the manager and entrepreneur should use this

48

information and highly focus on present pay, opportunity for promotion and the

relationship with co-workers to create the management strategies below;

1. Present pay by designing a reward program like pay for performance can

be tied to the performance of the company or the results of a business unit. Also it can

take bonus programs and one-time awards for significant accomplishments. Good

incentive pays packages. They are rewarding accomplishments above and beyond an

individual or group's basic functions. Profit sharing by taking a stated percentage of

a company's profits. The amount given to an employee is usually equal to a

percentage of the employee's salary, a benefit for a company offering this type of

reward is that it can keep fixed costs low.

2. Opportunity for promotion. To consider the seniority that there is a

positive correlation between the length of work in the same job and the amount of

knowledge and the level of skill acquired by an employee in an organization. This

system is also based on the custom that the first in should be given first chance in all

benefit and privileges. A promotion is always a change to a higher grade and should

not be confused with periodic within grade increases, quality step increases, salary

increases within the scheduled step rates of the grade.

3. Relationship with co-workers. To work on team building through a little

competition such as take some time to pickup game of basketball or volleyball can

help tighten trust between colleagues and blow off a little steam after work hours.

Volunteering, allocate some time each quarter to a volunteer group that gets employee

out of the office in order for employee to spend a day outside working in planting

trees, or cleaning canyon roads.

Recommendation for Further Researches

The research can be extended to study in every company. Further research

may use another framework such as, change or added other factors for extended the

hypothesis. In addition, the further research can add the data analysis instrument for

develop in term of validity and reliability. This study is only focus on interpreting

employee engagement on their job satisfaction through quantitative methods.

Therefore, it’s very recommended if the future studies can develop the similar

research by combining quantitative and qualitative methods.

REFERENCES

AON (2015). AON Thought Leadership. Retrieved from http://www.aon.com/human-

capital-consulting/thought-leadership/talent/aon-hewittmodel-of-employee-

engagement.jsp

Bakar, R.A. (2013). Understanding factors influencing employee engagement:

A study of the financial sector in Malaysia. Doctoral dissertation, School of

Management, RMIT University.

Berry, M.L., & Morris, M.L. (2008). The impact of employee engagement factors and

job satisfaction on turnover intent. Master’s thesis, The University of

Tennessee, Knoxville.

BlessingWhite (2015). The X model of employee engagement. Retrieved from

http://blessingwhite.com/business-issues/employee-engagement/the-x-

modelof-employee-engagement/.

Brainard, J. (2005). Postdoctoral researchers value structured training over pay,

survey says. Chronicle of Higher Education, April, 51(32), 21-28.

Brewer, A. M., & Hensher, D. A. (1998). The importance of organizational

commitment in managing change: Experience of the NSW private bus

industry. Transportation research part E: Logistics and Transportation

Review, 34(2), 117-130.

CIPD (2015).Employer Brand. Retrieved from

http://www.cipd.co.uk/hrresources/factsheets/employer-brand.

Cook, S. (2008). The essential guide to employee engagement London, Kogan page.

Drafke, M.W., and Kossen, S. (2002). The Human Side of Organizations (8th ed.).

New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Dugguh, S.I., & Dennis, A. (2014, May). Job satisfaction theories: Traceability to

employee performance in organizations. Journal of Business and

Management, 16(5), 11-18.

Ellickson, M. C., & Logsdon, K. (2002). Determinants of job satisfaction of

municipal government employees. Public Personnel Management, 31(3),

343-358.

http://www.aon.com/human-

http://blessingwhite.com/business-issues/employee-engagement/the-x-modelof-

http://blessingwhite.com/business-issues/employee-engagement/the-x-modelof-

50

REFERENCES (CONTINUE)

Griffen, R.W., and Moorhead, G. (2009). Organizational Behavior. (9th ed.). Boston:

South-Western College.

Gubman, E. (2004). From engagement to passion for work: The search for the missing

person. Human Resource Planning, 29(3), 25-26.

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., Hayes, T. L. (2002) Business-unit-level relationship

between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business

outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268279.

Heery, E., & Noon, M. (2001). A Dictionary of Human Resource Management:

Oxford University Press Inc.

Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the Nature of Man, World Pub. Co, Cleveland.

Johns, G. (1996). Organizational behavior: Understanding and managing life

at work. Kansas City: HarperCollins College Publishers.

Khaleque, A., & Choudhury, N. (1984). Job facets and overall job satisfaction of

industrial managers. Indian journal of industrial relations, 20(1), 55-64.

Koustelios, A. D. (2001). Personal characteristics and job satisfaction of Greek

teachers. International journal of Educational Management, 15(7), 354-

358.

Kreitner, R., and Kinicki, A. (2004). Organizational behavior (5th ed.). New York:

Mc Graw-Hill Inc.

Luthans, F. (2006). Organizational Behavior. (11th ed.). Irwin: McGraw-Hill.

Markiewicz, D., Devine, I., & Kausilas, D. (2000). Friendships of women and men

at work: Job satisfaction and resource implications. Journal of Managerial

Psychology, 15(2), 161-184.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological review, 50(4),

370-396.

McCormick, E. J. (2008). Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Prentice-Hall.

Nel, P.S., van Dyk, P.S., Haasbroek, G.D., Schultz, H.B., Sono, T.J. and Werner, A.

(2004). Human Resource Management. (6 th ed.). Cape Town: Oxford.

51


Oshagbemi, T. (2000). Gender differences in the job satisfaction of university

teachers. Women in Management Review, 15(7), 331-343.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Packard, S. H., & Kauppi, D. R. (1999). Rehabilitation Agency Leadership Style.

Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 43(1), 5.

Pergamit, M. R., & Veum, J. R. (1999). What is a Promotion? Industrial and Labor

Relations Review, 581-601.

Peterson, D. K., Puia, G. M., & Suess, F. R. (2003). " Yo Tengo La Camiseta (I Have

the Shirt On)": An exploration of job satisfaction and commitment among

workers in Mexico. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(2),

73-88.

Riordan, C. M., & Griffeth, R. W. (1995). The opportunity for friendship in the

workplace: An underexplored construct. Journal of business and

psychology, 10(2), 141-154.

Robbins, S.P.,Odendaal, A., and Roodt, G. (2003). Organizational Behavior. Global

and Southern African Perspectives (9th ed.). Cape Town: Pearson

Education.

Rovinelli, R. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (1977). On the use of content specialists in the

assessment of criterion-referenced test item validity. Dutch Journal of

Educational Research, 2, 49-60.

Sanford, B. (2003). Building a highly engaged workforce: How great managers

inspire virtuoso performance. The Gallup Management Journal. Retrieved

February 15, 2007, from www.Gallupjournal.com.

Seigts, G. H., & Crim, D. (March/April 2006). What engages employees the most or,

the ten c’s of employee engagement. Ivey Business Journal. Retrieved

February 15, 2007 from www.iveybusinessjournal.com

Sharma, B. R., & Bhaskar, S. (1991). Determinants of job satisfaction among

engineers in a public sector undertaking. ASCI Journal of Management,

20(4), 217-233.

http://www.gallupjournal.com/

http://www.iveybusinessjournal.com/

52


Smith, P.C., Kendall, L. M., and Hulin, C.L. (1969). The Measurement of Satisfaction

in Work and Retirement. Chicago: Rand Mc Nally.

Smucker, M. K., Whisenant, W. A., & Pedersen, P. M. (2003). An investigation of job

satisfaction and female sports journalists. Sex roles, 49(7), 401-407.

Staudt, M. (1997). Correlates of Job Satisfaction in School Social Work. Social Work

in Education, 19(1), 43-51.

Taylor, G. S., & Vest, M. J. (1992). Pay comparisons and pay satisfaction among

public sector employees. Public Personnel Management, 21, 445-445.

The Society for Human Resource Management. (2014). Employee job satisfaction and

engagement. Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/trends-and-

forecasting/research-and surveys/Documents/140028%20JobSatEngage_

Report_FULL_FNL.pdf

Uon, V. (2008). Business research and information search. Bangkok: Print at me.

Viswesvaran, C., Deshpande, S. P., & Joseph, J. (1998). Job satisfaction as a function

of top management support for ethical behavior: A study of Indian

managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(4), 365-371.

https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/trends-and-forecasting/research-and%20surveys/Documents/140028%20JobSatEngage_%20Report_FULL_FNL.pdf



APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1

Questionnaire

Job Satisfaction Affect to Employee Engagement Questionnaire

แบบสอบถามเรอง ความภมใจในงานทมผลตอความผกพนของพนกงาน

กรณศกษา บรษท เอ.ซ.ด. (ไทยแลนด) จ ากด

วตถประสงค เพอศกษาปจจยความภมใจในงานทซงมอทธพลและผลกระทบตอความผกพนของพนกงาน ตอนท1 แบบสอบถามเกยวกบขอมลทวไป

ค ำแนะน ำ โปรดท าเครองหมาย หนาขอความทตรงกบขอมลของทานมากทสดเพยงขอเดยว

1. เพศ (Gender)

ชาย (Male) หญง (Female)

2. สถานภาพสมรส (Marital status)

โสด (Single) สมรส (Married)

หยา (Divorced) หมาย (Widowed)

3. อาย (Age)

ต ากวา 20 ป (Under 20 years old) 20-30 ป (20-30 years old)

31-40 ป (31-40 years old) 41 ปขนไป (41 years old or more)

4. ระดบการศกษา (Education level)

ต ากวาปรญญาตร (Lower than bachelor degree) ปรญญาตร (Bachelor degree)

ปรญญาโท (Master degree) สงกวาปรญญาโท (Higher than master degree)

5. รายไดตอเดอน (Income per month)

ต ากวา 10,000 บาท (Less than 10,000 baht) 10,001-20,000 บาท (10,001-20,000 baht)

20,001-30,000 บาท (20,001-30,000 baht) สงกวา 30,000 บาท (Higher than 30,000 baht)

6. ระยะเวลาการปฏบตงาน (Work experience)

ต ากวา 1 ป (Below 1 year) 1-5 ป (1-5 years)

6-10 ป (6-10 years) 10 ปขนไป (Over 10 years)

56

ตอนท 2 แบบสอบถามเกยวกบปจจยดานความพงพอใจในงาน ค ำแนะน ำ โปรดท าเครองหมาย ลงในชองทตรงกบความคดเหนและประสบการณของทานมากทสด ค าถามเหลานไมม

ขอความใดถกหรอผด ขนอยกบทศนะของแตละบคคล โดยระดบความคดเหนของทานมความหมายดงตอไปน

5 = เหนดวยอยางยง 4 = เหนดวย 3 = ไมแนใจ 2 = ไมเหนดวย 1 = ไมเหนดวยอยางยง

ควำมพงพอใจในงำน ระดบควำมคดเหน

5 4 3 2 1

1) ลกษณะของกำรท ำงำน (Nature of work) งานททานท าอยไดใชทกษะและความช านาญในการท างาน (My job makes good use of my skills and abilities)

งานททานท ามความส าคญตอบรษท (My Job is important to the Company)

ทานชอบงานททานท า (I like the type of work that I do)

2) กำรจำยเงน (Present pay) คาจางทไดรบเหมาะสมกบงานของทาน (My pay matches my job performance)

ทานพงพอใจกบสวสดการทไดรบจากบรษท (I'm satisfied with company’s benefits package)

บรษทของทานไดเสนอสวสดการทดกวาบรษทอนๆ (My company offers better benefits than other companies)

3) โอกำสส ำหรบกำรเลอนต ำแหนง (Opportunities for promotion) การเลอนขนเปนไปอยางยตธรรม ไมล าเอยงหรออคต (Job promotions are awarded fairly and without bias)

ทานมโอกาสทจะเรยนรสงใหมๆอยเสมอ (I have many opportunities to learn new things)

ทานเชอวาถาทานท างานไดด บรษทอาจจะพจารณาเลอนขนใหทาน (I trust that if I do good work, my company may consider me for a

promotion)

4) กำรดแลหรอกำรจดกำร (Supervision) ทานไดรบค าชมเชยจากผบงคบบญชา เมอทานท างานประสบผลส าเรจ (My supervisor acknowledges when I do my work well)

ผบงคบบญชาของทานเปดโอกาสใหทานน าแนวคดของทานไปใชในการท างาน (My supervisor enables me to perform at my best)

ผบงคบบญชาของทานรบฟงความคดเหนของทานหรอมการตอบกลบ (My supervisor is open to hearing my opinion or feedback)

5) ควำมสมพนธกบเพอนรวมงำน (Relationship with co-workers) ทานรสกเปนสวนหนงในทม (I feel I am part of the team)

57

ตอนท 3 แบบสอบถามเกยวกบความผกพนของพนกงาน ค ำแนะน ำ โปรดท าเครองหมาย ลงในชองทตรงกบความคดเหนและประสบการณของทานมากทสด ค าถามเหลานไมม

ขอความใดถกหรอผด ขนอยกบทศนะของแตละบคคล โดยระดบความคดเหนของทานมความหมายดงตอไปน

5 = เหนดวยอยางยง 4 = เหนดวย 3 = ไมแนใจ 2 = ไมเหนดวย 1 = ไมเหนดวยอยางยง

ความผกพนของพนกงาน ระดบความคดเหน

5 4 3 2 1

1) สวสดภาพ, ความอยดมสข (Well-being) บรษทดแลเอาใจใสในสวสดภาพและความเปนอยทดของพนกงาน (The company care about their employees’ well-being)

บรษทใหความส าคญกบความปลอดภยในสถานทท างาน (The company emphasizes workplace safety)

สภาพแวดลอมในการท างานของทานนาอยและสงบ (My work environment is pleasant and calm)

2) การใหความร, ขอมล (Information) ทานเขาใจกลยทธหรอแผนการในระยะยาวของบรษท (I understand the long-term strategy of company)

ทานมความเขาใจเกยวกบบทบาทหนาทและการคาดหวงในการท างานอยางชดเจน (I am clear on my job expectations and role)

ทานเขาใจถงความส าคญของบทบาทหนาทของทานทจะน าไปสความส าเรจของบรษท (I understand the importance of my role to the success of the company)

3) ความเปนธรรม, ความยตธรรม (Fairness) พนกงานไดรบการปฏบตอยางเทาเทยมโดยไมค านงถงเชอชาต เพศ อาย ศาสนา หรอรสนยมทางเพศ (Employees are treated fairly here regardless of race, gender, age, religion or sexual orientation)

ควำมพงพอใจในงำน(ตอ) ระดบควำมคดเหน

5 4 3 2 1

5) ควำมสมพนธกบเพอนรวมงำน (Relationship with co-workers) ทานและเพอนรวมงานไดชวยกนแกปญหา (We work together to solve problems)

ทานมความสมพนธทดในการท างานกบเพอนรวมงานของทาน (I have good working relationships with my co-workers)

58

ความผกพนของพนกงาน(ตอ) ระดบความคดเหน

5 4 3 2 1

3) ความเปนธรรม, ความยตธรรม (Fairness) ทานไดรบการยอมรบและจดจ าเมอทานท างานส าเรจเกนความคาดหมาย (I receive recognition when I perform above expectations)

ทานไดรบรางวลเมอทานท างานส าเรจตามเปาหมาย (I am rewarded for exceeding my goals)

4) ความเกยวของพวพนกน (Involvement) ทานภมใจทไดเปนพนกงานในบรษท (I proud to be an employee of the Company)

บรษทเลงเหนคณคาในผลงานของทาน (The company values the contribution I make)

ทานมสวนรวมในการตดสนใจทมผลตองานของทาน (I am involved in decisions that affect my work)

APPENDIX 2

Result of data analysis

The result of data analysis process by using SPSS program

Hypothesis 1: Job satisfaction affect to employee engagement in Well-being.

Model Summaryc

Model R R

Square

Adjusted

R Square

Std. Error

of the

Estimate

Change Statistics Durbin-

Watson R Square

Change

F

Change

df1 df2 Sig. F

Change

1 .655a .429 .425 .50183 .429 105.297 1 140 .000 2 .688b .473 .465 .48401 .044 11.499 1 139 .001 1.827

a. Predictors: (Constant), Present pay

b. Predictors: (Constant), Present pay, Relationship

c. Dependent Variable: Well-being

ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1

Regression 26.518 1 26.518 105.297 .000b

Residual 35.257 140 .252

Total 61.775 141

2

Regression 29.211 2 14.606 62.346 .000c

Residual 32.563 139 .234

Total 61.775 141

a. Dependent Variable: Well-being

b. Predictors: (Constant), Present pay

c. Predictors: (Constant), Present pay, Relationship

Coefficientsa

Model Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig. Collinearity Statistics

B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF

1 (Constant) 2.067 .193 10.687 .000

Pay .548 .053 .655 10.261 .000 1.000 1.000

2

(Constant) 1.350 .282 4.786 .000

Pay .485 .055 .581 8.883 .000 .887 1.127

Relationship .232 .068 .222 3.391 .001 .887 1.127

a. Dependent Variable: Well-being

61

Hypothesis 2: Job satisfaction affect to employee engagement in Information.

Model Summaryd

Model R R

Square

Adjusted

R Square

Std. Error

of the

Estimate


Watson R Square

Change

F

Change

df1 df2 Sig. F

Change

1 .573a .328 .323 .52372 .328 68.397 1 140 .000

2 .626b .392 .384 .49987 .064 14.678 1 139 .000 3 .655c .429 .417 .48619 .037 8.928 1 138 .003 1.472

a. Predictors: (Constant), Promotion

b. Predictors: (Constant), Promotion, Relationship

c. Predictors: (Constant), Promotion, Relationship, Present pay

d. Dependent Variable: Information

ANOVAa


1

Regression 18.760 1 18.760 68.397 .000b

Residual 38.399 140 .274

Total 57.159 141

2

Regression 22.427 2 11.214 44.879 .000c

Residual 34.731 139 .250

Total 57.159 141

3

Regression 24.538 3 8.179 34.602 .000d

Residual 32.621 138 .236

Total 57.159 141

a. Dependent Variable: Information

b. Predictors: (Constant), Promotion

c. Predictors: (Constant), Promotion, Relationship

d. Predictors: (Constant), Promotion, Relationship, Present pay

Coefficientsa


Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients



1 (Constant) 1.612 .250 6.456 .000

Promotion .553 .067 .573 8.270 .000 1.000 1.000

2

(Constant) .945 .295 3.202 .002 Promotion .409 .074 .424 5.532 .000 .744 1.345

Reletionship .295 .077 .294 3.831 .000 .744 1.345

3

(Constant) .825 .290 2.845 .005

Promotion .237 .092 .245 2.566 .011 .452 2.211

Relationship .298 .075 .296 3.975 .000 .743 1.345

Pay .210 .070 .262 2.988 .003 .540 1.853

a. Dependent Variable: Information

62

Hypothesis 3: Job satisfaction affect to employee engagement in Fairness

Model Summaryd

Model R R

Square

Adjusted

R Square

Std. Error

of the

Estimate


Watson R Square

Change

F

Change

df1 df2 Sig. F

Change

1 .590a .348 .344 .51071 .348 74.834 1 140 .000

2 .625b .391 .382 .49544 .043 9.767 1 139 .002 3 .646c .418 .405 .48621 .027 6.323 1 138 .013 2.021

a. Predictors: (Constant), Promotion

b. Predictors: (Constant), Promotion, Relationship

c. Predictors: (Constant), Promotion, Relationship, Present pay

d. Dependent Variable: Fairness

ANOVAa


1

Regression 19.519 1 19.519 74.834 .000b

Residual 36.516 140 .261

Total 56.034 141

2

Regression 21.916 2 10.958 44.643 .000c

Residual 34.118 139 .245

Total 56.034 141

3

Regression 23.411 3 7.804 33.010 .000d

Residual 32.624 138 .236

Total 56.034 141

a. Dependent Variable: Fairness

b. Predictors: (Constant), Promotion

c. Predictors: (Constant), Promotion, Relationship

d. Predictors: (Constant), Promotion, Relationship, Present pay

Coefficientsa


Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients



1 (Constant) 1.729 .244 7.099 .000

Promotion .564 .065 .590 8.651 .000 1.000 1.000

2

(Constant) 1.190 .293 4.066 .000 Promotion .448 .073 .469 6.107 .000 .744 1.345

Relationship .239 .076 .240 3.125 .002 .744 1.345

3

(Constant) 1.088 .290 3.754 .000

Promotion .303 .092 .317 3.280 .001 .452 2.211

Relationship .241 .075 .242 3.215 .002 .743 1.345

Pay .177 .070 .222 2.515 .013 .540 1.853

a. Dependent Variable: Fairness

63

Hypothesis 4: Job satisfaction affect to employee engagement in Involvement.

Model Summaryd

Model R R

Square

Adjusted

R Square

Std. Error

of the

Estimate


Watson R Square

Change

F

Change

df1 df2 Sig. F

Change

1 .653a .427 .423 .50134 .427 104.234 1 140 .000

2 .759b .576 .570 .43275 .149 48.896 1 139 .000 3 .767c .589 .580 .42776 .013 4.265 1 138 .041 1.980



c. Predictors: (Constant), Present pay, Relationship, Promotion

d. Dependent Variable: Involvement

ANOVAa


1

Regression 26.199 1 26.199 104.234 .000b

Residual 35.188 140 .251

Total 61.387 141

2

Regression 35.356 2 17.678 94.395 .000c

Residual 26.031 139 .187

Total 61.387 141

3

Regression 36.136 3 12.045 65.829 .000d

Residual 25.251 138 .183

Total 61.387 141

a. Dependent Variable: Involvement



d. Predictors: (Constant), Present pay, Relationship, Promotion

Coefficientsa


Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients



1 (Constant) 1.936 .193 10.017 .000

Pay .544 .053 .653 10.210 .000 1.000 1.000

2

(Constant) .613 .252 2.431 .016 Pay .430 .049 .516 8.793 .000 .887 1.127

Relationship .427 .061 .410 6.993 .000 .887 1.127

3

(Constant) .502 .255 1.966 .051

Pay .350 .062 .420 5.645 .000 .540 1.853

Relationship .372 .066 .357 5.644 .000 .743 1.345

Promotion .168 .081 .168 2.065 .041 .452 2.211

a. Dependent Variable: Involvement

64

Hypothesis 5: Job satisfaction (Nature of work, Present Pay, Opportunities for

Promotion, Supervision and Relationship with Co-workers) affect to employee


Model Summaryd

Model R R

Square

Adjusted

R Square

Std. Error

of the

Estimate


Watson R Square

Change

F

Change

df1 df2 Sig. F

Change

1 .723a .523 .519 .36628 .523 153.256 1 140 .000

2 .820b .673 .668 .30415 .151 64.043 1 139 .000 3 .833c .694 .688 .29519 .021 9.567 1 138 .002 1.813



c. Predictors: (Constant), Present pay, Relationship, Promotion

d. Dependent Variable: Engagement

ANOVAa


1

Regression 20.561 1 20.561 153.256 .000b

Residual 18.783 140 .134

Total 39.344 141

2

Regression 26.486 2 13.243 143.155 .000c

Residual 12.858 139 .093

Total 39.344 141

3

Regression 27.319 3 9.106 104.508 .000d

Residual 12.025 138 .087

Total 39.344 141

a. Dependent Variable: Engagement



d. Predictors: (Constant), Present pay, Relationship, Promotion

65

Coefficientsa


Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients



1 (Constant) 2.123 .141 15.034 .000

Pay .482 .039 .723 12.380 .000 1.000 1.000

2

(Constant) 1.059 .177 5.973 .000 Pay .390 .034 .585 11.356 .000 .887 1.127

Relationship .344 .043 .412 8.003 .000 .887 1.127

3

(Constant) .943 .176 5.360 .000

Pay .307 .043 .461 7.190 .000 .540 1.853

Relationship .287 .046 .344 6.303 .000 .743 1.345

Promotion .173 .056 .216 3.093 .002 .452 2.211

a. Dependent Variable: Engagement

Plot of regression standardize residual between independent and dependent variable.

66

BIOGRAPHY

Name Ms. Methinee Pingmuang

Date of birth January 28, 1992

Place of birth Udonthani, Thailand

Present address 49/90 Moo.2 Nongplalai, Banglamung,

Chonburi Province, Thailand 20150

Position held

2014–Present Customer Service at A.C.D. (Thailand) Co., Ltd.

Chonburi Province, Thailand.

Education

2010–2013 Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), School of Liberal Arts,

Sripatum University, Chonburi Campus,

Thailand.

2014–2016 Master of Business Administration (M.B.A.),

International Program,

Graduate School of Commerce,

Burapha University,

Chon Buri Province, Thailand.

JOB SATISFACTION AFFECT TO EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT CD....

Documents

Transcript of JOB SATISFACTION AFFECT TO EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT CD....