Satisfaction level of employees in Thai Nguyen iron and steel joint stock corporation

equal. The results of Levene test showed that p value = 0.417 (> 0.05), so , H0 is accepted that variance of 2 groups is equal. It means that variance of job satisfaction are not difference between male and female. Table 4. 42 Results of One-Way Anova test of “sex” Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper JS Equal variances assumed .660 .417 -.107 365 .915 -.00615 .05772 -.1196 .1073 Equal variances not assumed -.106 338.6 .916 -.00615 .05795 -.1201 .1078 ANOVA JS Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups .003 1 .003 .011 .915 Within Groups 109.908 365 .301 Total 109.911 366 81 Results of One-Way Anova test (in the table) showed that “sex” have p value = 0.915 (>0.05), so, there are no difference between male and female in job satisfaction. So , H0 is accepted. 4.5.2 Difference of job satisfaction follow “Age groups”. The results of Levene test showed that p value = 0.000 (>0.05), so , H0 is rejected that variance of 2 groups is equal. It means that variance of job satisfaction are difference between different age groups. Table 4. 43 Results of One-Way Anova test of “Age groups” JS Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 6.706 3 363 .000 ANOVA JS Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 2.996 3 .999 3.391 .018 Within Groups 106.915 363 .295 Total 109.911 366 Results of One-Way Anova test (in the table) showed that “age groups” have p value = 0.018 (< 0.05), so, there are difference between different age groups. Next, Bonferroni test on Post Hoc was performed to determinate specific difference. Results of Bonferroni test showed that there are significant difference between 26-35 group and 36-45 group in job satisfaction (p = 0.009). Table 4. 44 Result of Bonferroni test of “Age groups” Multiple Comparisons Bonferroni (I) AGE (J) AGE Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound 18-25 26-35 .07420 .31598 1.000 -.9124 .7640 36-45 .13200 .31732 1.000 -.7098 .9738 46-60 .00317 .31998 1.000 -.8457 .8520 26-35 18-25 .07420 .31598 1.000 -.7640 .9124 36-45 .20620 * .06466 .009 .0347 .3777 46-60 .07737 .07663 1.000 -.1259 .2806 82 .36-45 18-25 -.13200 .31732 1.000 -.9738 .7098 26-35 -.20620 * .06466 .009 -.3777 -.0347 46-60 -.12883 .08201 .702 -.3464 .0887 46-60 18-25 -.00317 .31998 1.000 -.8520 .8457 26-35 -.07737 .07663 1.000 -.2806 .1259 36-45 .12883 .08201 .702 -.0887 .3464 *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. 4.5.3 Difference of satisfaction follow “marital status”. The results of Levene test showed that p value = 0.417 (>0.05), so , H0 is accepted that variance of 2 groups is equal. It means that variance of job satisfaction are not difference between married and single. Table 4. 45 Results of One-Way Anova test of “marital status” Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Differenc e Std. Error Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper JS Equal variances assumed .012 .914 -.205 365 .838 -.01575 .07694 -.1670 .1355 Equal variances not assumed -.201 84.0 .841 -.01575 .07848 -.1718 .1403 ANOVA JS Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups .013 1 .013 .042 .838 Within Groups 109.899 365 .301 Total 109.911 366 Results of One-Way Anova test (in the table)showed that “marital status” have p value = 0.915 (>0.05), so, there are no difference between married and single in job satisfaction. 4.5.4 Difference of satisfaction follow “education”. The results of Levene test showed that p value = 0.000 (>0.05), so , H0 is rejected that variance of 2 groups is equal. It means that variance of job satisfaction are difference between different education groups 83 Table 4. 46 Results of One-Way Anova test of “education” Test of Homogeneity of Variances JS Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 6.499 3 363 .000 ANOVA JS Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 2.890 3 .963 3.268 .021 Within Groups 107.021 363 .295 Total 109.911 366 Results of One-Way Anova test (in the table)showed that “age groups” have p value = 0.021 (< 0.05), so, there are difference between different education groups. Next, Bonferroni test on Post Hoc was performed to determinate specific difference. Results of Bonferroni test showed that there are significant difference between “graduated and postgraduated” group and “technical worker” group in job satisfaction. Table 4. 47 Result of Bonferroni test of “education” Multiple Comparisons Bonferroni (I) EDUCATION (J) EDUCATION Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound graduated and postgraduated Unskilled worker -.26421 .13451 .302 -.6210 .0926 Colleage -.14199 .07257 .307 -.3345 .0505 Technical worker -.17792 .06965 .046 -.3627 .0068 Unskilled worker graduated and postgraduated .26421 .13451 .302 -.0926 .6210 Colleage .12222 .14118 1.000 -.2523 .4967 Technical worker .08629 .13970 1.000 -.2843 .4569 Colleage graduated and postgraduated .14199 .07257 .307 -.0505 .3345 Unskilled worker -.12222 .14118 1.000 -.4967 .2523 Technical worker -.03593 .08178 1.000 -.2529 .1810 Technical worker graduated and postgraduated .17792 .06965 .046 -.0068 .3627 Unskilled worker -.08629 .13970 1.000 -.4569 .2843 84 Multiple Comparisons Bonferroni (I) EDUCATION (J) EDUCATION Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound graduated and postgraduated Unskilled worker -.26421 .13451 .302 -.6210 .0926 Colleage -.14199 .07257 .307 -.3345 .0505 Technical worker -.17792 .06965 .046 -.3627 .0068 Unskilled worker graduated and postgraduated .26421 .13451 .302 -.0926 .6210 Colleage .12222 .14118 1.000 -.2523 .4967 Technical worker .08629 .13970 1.000 -.2843 .4569 Colleage graduated and postgraduated .14199 .07257 .307 -.0505 .3345 Unskilled worker -.12222 .14118 1.000 -.4967 .2523 Technical worker -.03593 .08178 1.000 -.2529 .1810 Technical worker graduated and postgraduated .17792 .06965 .046 -.0068 .3627 Unskilled worker -.08629 .13970 1.000 -.4569 .2843 Colleage .03593 .08178 1.000 -.1810 .2529 85 CHARTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 5.1 Summary of Findings 5.1.1 Results of multiple regression analysis for general employees (n = 367) The multiple regression analysisdeterminated that job satisfication of general employees at Thai Nguyen Iron and Steel Corporation include 7 factors: Opportunity for advancement β = .118; Financial reward: β = .101; Supervisors: β =.144; Working conditions: β =.206; Co-worker β = .162; Salary: β =.143; Nature of work β =.147. JS = 0.118*OFA+ 0.101* FR + 0.144* SU + 0.206* WC+ 0.162* CoW + 0.143* SA + 0.147* NW So: Working condition was best predictor of job satisfication of general employees. Working condition (β‟=0. 206) 5.1.2 Results of multiple regression analysis for direct employees (n = 290) The multiple regression analysisdeterminated that job satisfication of direct employees at Thai Nguyen Iron and Steel Corporation include 7 factors: Opportunity for advancement β = .131; Financial reward: β = .140; Supervisors: β = .144; Working condition: β =.172; Co-workers β = .107; Salary: β = .167; Nature of work β = .150 JS = 0.131*OFA + 0.140*FR + 0.144*SU + 0. 172*WC + 0.107*CoW + 0.167*SA + 0.150*NW So: Working condition was best predictor of job satisfication of direct employees . Working condition β = .172 5.1.3 Results of multiple regression analysis for indirect employees (n =77) The multiple regression analysisdeterminated that job satisfication of indirect employeessat Thai Nguyen Iron and Steel Corporation include 7 factors: Opportunity for advancement β = .213; Financial reward: β = .175; Supervisors: β = .106; Working condition: β =.105; Co-workers β = .129; Salary: β = .201; Nature of work β =.171. JS = 0. 213*OFA + 0.175*FR + 0.106*SU + 0.105 *WC + 0.129*CoW + 0.201*SA + 0.171*NW So: Opportunity for advancement was best predictor of job satisfication of indirect employees. Opportunity for advancement β = .213 86 Table 5. 1 Coefficients three multiple regression Factors General employee Direct employee Indirect employees β Rank β Rank β Rank Opportunity for advancement 0.118 6 0.131 6 0.213 1 Financial Reward 0.101 7 0.140 5 0.175 3 Supervisors 0.144 4 0.144 4 0.106 6 Working condition 0.206 1 0.172 1 0.105 7 Co-workers 0.162 2 0107 7 0.129 5 Salary 0.143 5 0.167 2 0.201 2 Natural of work 0.147 3 0.150 3 0.171 4 Result of regression so that seven hypotheses are rejected. So there are significant relationship between employee‟s perceptions of components of job like nature of work, salary, supervisors, co-worker, opportunity for advancement, working condition, financial reward and the employee‟s job satisfaction in TISCO. 5.1.4 Mean score of Job Satisfaction of employees - Mean score of job satisfaction of direct employees: 3.550 - Mean score of job satisfaction of indirect employeess: 4.398 - Mean score of job satisfaction of general employees: 3.728 So: Mean score of job satisfaction of indirect employees are higher than direct employees. 5.1.5. Results of Independent t-test and One-Way Anova analysis to examine difference in satisfaction according to individual characteristics - According to gender: There are not a difference between male and female employees in job satisfaction. - According to marital status: There are not a difference between married and single employees in job satisfaction. - According to age group: There are a difference in job satisfaction at different age groups. - According to education level: There are a difference in job satisfaction at different education. Results of Bonferroni analysis showed that there are significant difference between “graduated and after graduated”group and “technical worker” group in job satisfaction. 87 5.2. Conclusions The findings showed in previous part have many theoretical and practical implications. This section summarizes all these implications. Firstly, the findings of this study are different from the previous studies about job satisfaction among employees. The research determined the job satisfaction level in both direct-employees and indirect-employees. Secondly, this dissertation develops a model and empirically tests their applicability in delivery of pass grassroots level. This study has tested the scales about the job satisfaction and components of job. It points out that there are 7 components when considering a job. To be compared with the previous studies, the factors and impact levels on the satisfaction of employees have some differences. Thus, we can conclude that the comment by employees is different due to different sectors. Thirdly, this study objects to understand how employee satisfaction with their job in TISCO is determined. Even when the satisfaction of employees is medium level and high, some other aspects of job which are scored low or workers are not satisfied. Fourthly, the research also shows that whether or not the differences in the satisfaction of employee according to their personal characteristics. The concern about the relationship between employee‟s perceptions of components of job like nature of work, salary, supervisors, co-worker, opportunity for advancement, working condition, financial reward and the employee‟s job satisfaction in TISCO. We also need to learn about the influence of these factors as an important part in the future improving the satisfaction of the employees. This trend requires the operational capacity of administrator and manager in TISCO and worker knowledge. Fifthly, and finally, this thesis supply helpful information for TISCO can based on to set up the polices and plans so as to enhance the satisfaction of the employee about their job. Although. The latter approach generally takes the form of employee‟s satisfaction surveys or other relevant survey data measuring quality of job or work performance by worker. Thus, the findings from the survey at TISCO have practical significance when the TISCO has made reform for a long time. 5.3 Recommendation Mean score of job satisfaction of general employeesis 3.728, that is moderate.So, the corporation should perform many solutions to increase job satisfaction of employees. Mean score of job satisfaction of direct employeesis 3.550 and mean score of job satisfaction of direct employeesis 4.398. So, the corporation should focus to increase job satisfaction of 88 direct employeesbecause their job satisfaction is low. Specially, in the factors that influence on job satisfaction, the administrator should be focus on solute “working conditions” factors of employees group first, after that solute “Advancement” of indirect employeess. Because there are two factors that is best predictors of job satisfaction of those groups. If the employees have job satisfaction, they will work more effectively and more long-term commitment to the corporation. The results of multiple regression analysis of employees and indirect employeessshowed seven factors are together influence to job satisfaction that include: Satisfaction of salary, nature of work, Co-workers, Supervisors, Financial reward, working conditions, advancement and traning opportunity, job performance evaluation. So, in this part, there are some specific solution to increase job satisfaction for both employees and indirect employees of Thai Nguyen Iron and Steel Corporation: (1) “Working condition” factor There are significant relationship between working condition and the employee’s job satisfaction in TISCO. The predictive ability of this factor to direct employees , indirect employees and general employees is β = 0.172; β = 0.105; β = 0.206 (corresponding to). Mean score of job satisfaction in this factor of direct employees , indirect employees and general employees is: Mean = 3.754; Mean = 4.101; Mean = 3.826 (corresponding to) (Appendix I, II, III) So, mean score of satisfaction about this factor is higher than gerenal job satisfaction of general employees in this company. This is also the best predictor of job satisfaction of both general employeesand indirect employeess. Consequently, the corporation shoud focus on this factor. This result is consistent with results of qualitative research of the author. When researcher asked employees that “Which is your attention in your work”, almost employee said that they concern about working condition, safety equipment, insurance. The criteria about “ Clearn and comfortable work place” have the lowest mean score (3.6076) (appendix I). Because of characteristics of wood industry, the employee have to work in working conditions which have much noise, dust, obsolete machine, so, that have more influence to employee‟s health. So, the corporation should improve working condition, such as: investing more modern machines that can reduce dust, good safety equipment. The corporation also should pay attention to safety work palace, theguideline to use machines, fire protection equipments to prevent conflagration. The corporation should concern about work time, overtime restriction, 8 hours working to help employee both work on time and care their family. If, the company can satisfy good working condition, they can improve satisfaction and long-term commitment. 89 (2) “Co-workers” factor There are significant relationship between co-worker and the employee’s job satisfaction in TISCO. The predictive ability of this factor to direct employees , indirect employees and general employees is: β = 0.107; β = 0.129; β = 0.162 (corresponding to) Mean score of job satisfaction in this factor of direct employees , indirect employees and general employees is: Mean = 3.993; Mean = 4.080; Mean = 4.012 (corresponding to) (Appendix I, II, III) So, mean score of satisfaction about this factor is higher than gerenal job satisfaction of general employees in this company . This is the 7 th effective predictor of satisfaction of direct employeesand the 5 th effective predictor of satisfaction of indirect employeess. The criteria “Your Co-workers well coordinate in work” have the low mean score (Appendix I). So, the company should help employees to improve their relationshiop by regularly perform overtime activities such as: fitness, sport, cultural festival, travelto employees have opportunity exchanging, being open and friendly, then, employees can more understand their Co-workers and can well coordinate with their Co-workers in work. In addition, the duty assignation must be clear, explicit, public to avoid internal disunity in the corporation. (3) “Nature of work” factor (β=0.147). There are significant relationship between nature of work and the employee’s job satisfaction in TISCO. The predictive ability of this factor to direct employees , indirect employees and general employees is: β = 0.150; β = 0.171; β = 0.147(corresponding to). Mean score of job satisfaction in this factor of direct employees , indirect employees and general employees is: Mean = 3.561; Mean = 3.924; Mean = 3,674 (corresponding to) (Appendix I, II, III) So, mean score of satisfaction about this factor is lower than gerenal job satisfaction of general employees in this company but is still moderate level. This is the 3rd effective predictor of job satisfaction of direct employeesand the 4 th effective predictor of job satisfaction of indirect employeess. The criteria “Your work is creative” have mean score 3.5259 and “Your work have many challenges ” have lowest mean score 3.4441(Appendix I) . So these two criteria should be further improved compared with the other criteria of the nature of work factor. The criteria “Your work have many challenges ” have mean score 3.4441. Consequently, to resolve this issue, administrators of company should help employees have more understanding about their work by introducing common and special activities of company and relation of each department and responsibilities of each department. So that, 90 the employees can imagine and do their job well. If the employees clearly understand about their work, they will be more satisfied. In addition, the recruitment division of the company also should study and explore capacity as well as a strength of each employee to assign the appropriate work. This helps employees can prove all their potential in working position. Therefore, posting recruitment must clearly describe the position as well as the necessary skills for that position. (4) “Supervisors” factors There are significant relationship between supervisors and the employee’s job satisfaction in TISCO. The predictive ability of this factor to direct employees , indirect employees and general employees is: β = 0.144; β = 0.106; β = 0. 144 (corresponding to). Mean score of job satisfaction in this factor of direct employees , indirect employees and general employees is: Mean = 3.663; Mean = 3.952; Mean = 3.723 (corresponding to) (Appendix I, II, III) The mean score of satisfaction about this factor is similar to gerenal job satisfaction of general employees in this company. This is the 4th effective predictor of job satisfaction of direct employeesand the 6 th effective predictor of job satisfaction of indirect employeess. The results of descriptive statistics showed that, the satisfaction level about “Supervisors” factors is moderate. So, Supervisors need listening opinion of employees as well as enabling workers to easily communicate and exchange more and more. Thus, the Supervisors need create good relationship with employees, and giving them the closeness in the communication and exchanging. This can be done around the time outside working hours as the meeting, parties, or it can be done within the hour as the time slot. Along with concerning, the Supervisors must deal fairly with general employees, respect competent person, encourage them to participate in the creation of jobs, and proposed good plan. (5) “Salary” factor There are significant relationship between salary and the employee’s job satisfaction in TISCO. The predictive ability of this factor to direct employees , indirect employees and general employees is: β = 0.167; β = 0.201; β = 0.143. (corresponding to) Mean score of job satisfaction in this factor of direct employees , indirect employees and general employees is: Mean = 3.537; Mean = 3.980; Mean = 3.630 (corresponding to) (Appendix I, II, III) So, mean score of satisfaction about this factor is lower than gerenal job satisfaction of general employees in this company but is still moderate level. This is the 2nd effective 91 predictor of job satisfaction of both direct employeesand indirect employeess. About salary, the important issue, which the administrators of company have todo, is making fair distribution in salary and to create good salary policy. Because this is a factor which have the lowest mean score 3.4986. The company need to reference, compare the salary of employees in their company with a salary of employees in other companies in same industrial zone, appreciate position, ability, and role of each employee, to determinate appropriate salary for each employee and ensure fair distribution of income. In addition, the company seeks to make employees aware that their salary are fairly paid. To do this, the company should provide job descriptions for each specific position to help employees find the position, role and their contribution to the company. Thus, the employees will feel that their salary are fairly paid. (6) “Opportunity for advancement” factor There are significant relationship between opportunity for advancement and the employee’s job satisfaction in TISCO. The predictive ability of this factor to direct employees , indirect employees and general employees is: β = 0.131; β = 0. 213; β = 0.118 (corresponding to). Mean score of job satisfaction in this factor of direct employees , indirect employees and general employees is: Mean = 3.444; Mean = 3.937; Mean = 3.5470 (corresponding to) (Appendix I, II, III) The mean score of satisfaction about this factor is lower than gerenal job satisfaction of general employees in this company. This is the 6th effective predictor of job satisfaction of direct employeesand the best effective predictor of job satisfaction of indirect employeess. The criteria “You have many Opportunity for advancement when you work in this company ” have the lowest mean score 3.2398 (Appendix I). Almost employees is unskilled employees, so, to do the job, the employees are required to undergo training, the training process can be done by the management employee, team Supervisorss or workers who had longtime work. Therefore, the company will have to focus on the process of training for new workers i and even longtime employeess to enhance the knowledge and skills of wood industry to be suitable with the development of the company and the demands from the society. The training not only focus on skills training, work processes but also should include training in management skills, communication skills, problem solving, ... to better equip employees skills both technical and life skills. The company should regularly organize training courses short- term or long-term about knowledge of wood industry knowledge, in addition to organize the presentations about the knowledge of life skills to help workers complete tasks and equip them with the necessat knowledge for advancement. Almost employees is unskilled employees, so they are little interested in advancement. The most of indirect employeessand 92 manager are more interested in advancement. Therefore, the company should have a clear and justice advancement policy for general employees. They will see that: if they well done and have good capacity, the company will facilitate for advancement, arrangement for head and manager must be based on the capacity of each individual. (7) “Financial reward” factor There are significant relationship between financial reward and the employee’s job satisfaction in TISCO. The predictive ability of this factor to direct employees , indirect employees and general employees is: β = 0.140; β = 0.175; β = 0.101 (corresponding to) Mean score of job satisfaction in this factor of direct employees , indirect employees and general employees is: Mean = 3.712; Mean = 4,113; Mean = 3.796 (corresponding to) (Appendix I, II, III) The mean score of satisfaction about this factor is higher than gerenal job satisfaction of general employees in this company. The criteria “The Financial reward policy of company express concerning to employees ” have the lowest mean score 3.773. Thus, the company should concern Financial reward policy to express thoughtful attention to employees. Full compliance policies on social insurance, health insurance, unemployment insurance, implement regimes for employees such as maternity Financial rewards, holiday. Trade Union should pay more attention to employees as: Happy wedding, visited ailments, accidents, condolences to families funeral workers, ... One thing to note is that for the meal of employees should be improved health of employees. Financial rewards policy is an important factor in protecting the rights of employees, better Financial reward policy will contribute to improving the employee‟s job satisfaction, when employees feel their rights is ensured,they will increase the level of satisfaction and more engaged with the company. 93 REFERENCES A. ARTICLES Adams, Gary A.; King, Lynda A.; King, Daniel W. 1996. Relationships of job and family involvement, family social support, and work–family conflict with job and life satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 81(4), Aug 1996, 411-420. Adams, J. Stacey (1963), "Toward an understanding of inequity", Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 67, pp. 422-436. Akerlof, G.A., Rose, A.K., Yellen, J.L., 1988. Job Switching and Job Satisfaction in the US Employees Market. Brookings Paper on Economic Activity, 2, 495– 594. AL-Hussami M (2008). A Study of nurses' job satisfaction: The relationship to organizational commitment, perceived organizational support, transactional Supervisorsship, transformational Supervisorsship, and level of education. European Journal Science. Resource, 22(2): 286-295. Aryee, Samuel, Thomas Wyatt, and Raymond Stone (1996), “Early Career Outcomes of Graduate Employees: The Effect of Mentoring and Ingratiation,” Journal of Management Studies, 33 (1), 95-118. Atefi N, Abdullah KL, Wong LP, Mazlom R, 2014. Factors influencing registered nurses perception of their overall job satisfaction: a qualitative study. International Nursing Review, 2014 Sep;61(3):352-60. doi: 10.1111/inr.12112. Aziri B. (2011). Job satisfaction: a literature review. Management research and practice, 3(4), 77-86. Barbara A. Sypniewska, 2013. Evaluation of Factors Influencing Job Satisfaction. Contemporary Economics; 8(1)1-118. Barriball Lu H, Zhang KL, While X, AE 2012. Job satisfaction among hospital nurses revisited: a systematic review. International Nursing Study. Aug;49(8):1017-38. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.11.009. Benjamin Ball . A summary of motivation theories. Retrieved from blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/A-summary-of-motivation-theories1.pdf Berta, D. (2005). Put on a happy face: High morale can lift productivity. Nation’s Restaurant News, 39(20), 8-10. Bidyut Bijoya Neog & Dr. Mukulesh Barua (2014), "Factors Influencing Employee's Job Satisfaction: An Empirical Study among Employees of Automobile Service Workshops in Assam", The SIJ Transactions on Industrial, Financial & Business 94 Management (IFBM), The Standard International Journals (The SIJ), Vol. 2, No. 7, Pp. 305-316. Burns, N., Grove, S., & Gray, J. (2013). The practice of nursing research: Appraisal, synthesis, and generation of evidence, (7 th ed.). St. Louis, Mo: Elsevier/ Saunders. Carpitella, Bill. (2003). Make residential construction the industry of choice [Electronic version]. Professional Builder, Oct 2003. Chau Van Toan (2009). Factors influencing job satisfaction of the office employee in Ho Chi Minh City”. MS Thesis, Ho Chi Minh University of Economics. Chen , L.H. (2008), Job satisfaction among information system (IS) personal. Computers in Human Behavior, 24:105-118. Cherrington, D.J. (1994). Organizational behavior (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. Clark, A.E., Georgellis, Y., Sanfey, P., 1998. Job Satisfaction, Wage Change and Quits. Research in Employees Economics 17, 95–121. Cocharan William G, 1977. Sampling techniques (3 rd ed). John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York. Danica Bakotic (2016). Relationship between job satisfaction and organisational performance. Davar S.C. ( 2012). Relationship between Job Satisfaction & Job Performance: A Meta- Analysis. Daljeet Singh Wadhwa,et al.,(2011),"A Study on Factors Influencing Employee Job Satisfaction -A Study in Cement Industry of Chhattisgarh", International Journal of Management & Business Studies, 2231-2463.Retrieved from www. ijmbs.com. Deborah B. Smith & Joel Shields, 2013. Factors Related to Social Service Workers' Job Satisfaction: Revisiting Herzberg's Motivation to Work. Administration in Social Work. 37,(2), 2013. Dunham R. B.., Herman J. B. (1975) published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, 60:629- 631. Dunseath, J., Beehr, T.A. and King, D.W. (1995), “Job stress-social support buffering effects across gender, education and occupational groups in a municipal workforce: implications for EAP‟s and further research”. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 15(1), pp 60-83. E.J. Lumley, M. Coetzee, R. Tladinyane & N. Ferreira, 2011. Exploring the job satisfaction and organizational commitment of employees in the information technology environment. Southern African Business Review. 15(1), 2011. Freeman, R.B., 1978. Job Satisfaction as an Economic Variable. American economic association. 68, 135– 141. 95 Freeman, Shelly, (2005). Employee satisfaction: The key to a successful company.Retrieved on March 15, 2011 articles/file/00301/008927/ title/Subject/topic/Employment George, J.M. and Jones, G.R. (2008). Understanding and Managing Organizational behavior, Fifth Edition, Pearson/Prentice Hall, New Yersey, p. 78. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley 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, 268-279. Heery, E. and Noon, M. (2001) A Dictionary of Human Resource Management, Oxford University Press. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959).The motivation to work.New York, NY:John Wiley & Sons. Jia Lin Xie and Gary Johns (2000). Interactive effects of absence culture salience and group cohesiveness: A multi-level and cross-level analysis of work absenteeism in the Chinese context. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(1), 31-52. Johns, G. (1996). Organisational behaviour: Understanding and managing life at work (4 th ed.). Harper Collins College Publishers. Johnson, P., Gill, J. (1993) Management Control and Organisational Behaviour, London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Kakyom Kima and Giri Jogaratnam (2010). Effects of Individual and Organizational Factors on Job Satisfaction and Intent to Stay in the Hotel and Restaurant Industry. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 9:318–339. Kaliski, B.S. (2007). Encyclopedia of Business and Finance, Second edition, Thompson Gale, Detroit, p. 446. Kam, L.F. (1998), “Job satisfaction and autonomy of Hong Kong registered nurses”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 27: 355-363. Kreitner, R., and Kinicki, A. (2001). organizational behavior (5th ed., 774 pages). Irwin: McGraw-Hill. Kunin, T. (1955). The construction of a new type of attitude measure. Personnel Psychology, 8, 65-78. 96 Lai Chai Hong, Nik Intan Norhan Abd Hamid and Norliza Mohd Salleh, 2013. A Study on the Factors Affecting Job Satisfaction amongst Employees of a Factory in Seremban, Malaysia. Business Management Dynamics Vol.3, No.1, Jul 2013, pp.26-40. Lane KA, Esser J, Holte B, McCusker MA (2010). A study of nurse faculty job satisfaction in community colleges in Florida. Teach Learn Nurse., 5: 16-26. Lawler, E. E. 1971, Pay and organizational effectiveness: A psychological . New York: McGraw-Hill. Lawler, Edward E and Porter Layman W, 1968. "The Effect of Performance on Job Satisfaction", Industrial Relations, pp. 20-29. A self description of their- model along with, the theories that led up to it. Le Van Nhanh (2011). Factors influencing the job satisfaction of employee in the limited liability company garment Alliance One (master‟s thesis). Nha Trang University. Lee, H., Song, R., Cho, Y.S., Lee, G.Z., Daly, B., (2003) Acomprehensive model for predicting burnout in Korean nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing 44 (5), 534–545. Louis Lévy-Garboua, (2007). Job Satisfaction and Quits, Labour Economics 14, 251-268. Lu, H., Barriball, K. L., Zhang, X. & While, A.E.. „Job satisfaction among hospital nurses revisited: A systematic review‟, International Journal of Nursing Studies, 49, 2012, pp. 10-17. Luthans Fred. 1998. Organizational Behavior, Eighth Edition, McGraw Hill International Edition, Boston, USA, p. 176. Luthans, F. (2006). Organizational Behavior. (11 th ed.). Irwin: McGraw-Hill Lyndsay Swinton. Adams Equity Motivation Theory; Put Workplace Psychology Into Action and Increase Motivation. Madison, D. (2000).Can your job make you sick? [Online] Available: Maloney, W.F., & McFillen, J.M. (1986). Motivational implications of constructionwork. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, March 1986, 137-151. Maryam Saeed Hashmi, Ahsan Hashmi and Raazia Irshad(2014) Middle-East. Journal of Scientific Research 19 (2): 172-176 Maslow Abraham H. , 1943, “A Theory of Human Motivation,” Psychological Review, Vol. 50, pp. 370-396. Maslow Abraham H, 1970. Motivation and Personality, 2d ed., Harper & Row, New York. McClelland, J. L. (1988). Connectionist models and psychological evidence. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 107-123. 97 McCloskey, J.C. and McCain B. (1987), “Satisfaction, commitment, and professionalism of newly employed nurses”, Journal of Nursing Scholarship 19 (10): 20-24. Moorhead, G., Griffin, R. (1995). Organisational Behaviour: Managing people and organisations, Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Mueller, C. W., & McCloskey, J. C. (1990). Nurses’ job satisfaction: A proposed measure. Nursing Research, 39, 113Y117. Mulinge M, Muller CW (1998). Employee Job Satisfaction in Developing Countries: The Case of Kenya. World Dev., 26(12): 2181-2199. Mullins, J.L. (2005). Management and organizational behavior, Seventh Edition, Pearson Education Limited, Essex, p. 700. Nasir Mehmood et al (2012). A study of factors affecting job satisfaction (evidence from pakistan). Interdisciplinary journal of contemporary research in business 10/2012; 4(6):673-684. Nel, P.S., Van Dyk, P.S., Haasbroek, H.D., Schultz, H.B., Sono, T., & Werner, A. (2004). Human resources management (6th ed.). Cape Town: Oxford University Press. Netemeyer RG, Boles JS, McKee DO, McMurrian R. An investigation into the antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviors in a personal selling context. J Mark 1997;61(3):85 – 98. Nguyen Thi Kim Anh (2011). Measurement of employees‟ job satisfaction at the Fresenius Kabi Bidiphar. MS Thesis, Ho Chi Minh University of Economics Nguyen Van Thuy, 2013. Factors influencing job satisfaction in work and living. Economic and development, 61-70. Nolan, M., Nolan, J., Grant, G., (1995). Maintaining nurses‟ job satisfaction and morale. British Journal of Nursing 4 (19), 1148–1154. Ostroff, C. (1992). The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance: An Organizational Level Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 963-974. PareekUdai. 2004. Understanding Organizational Behaviour, Oxford University Press, New Delhip. 102. Porter, L.W. and Lawler, E.E. (1968), Managerial Attitudes and Performance, Homewood, IL: Irwin. Price, J.L (2001), “Reflections on the Determinants of Voluntary Turnover”, International Journal of Manpower, 22 (7): 600-624. Price, M., (2002). Job satisfaction of registered nurses working in an acute hospital. British Journal of Nursing 11 (4), 275–280. 98 R. Karthik, S. Saratha & M. Sowmiya (2012), “A Study on Job Satisfaction in ITI Limited, Bangalore”, International Journal of Management in Education, Vol. 2, No. 7, Pp. 473-489. Rashid Saeed, Rab Nawaz Lodhi, Anam Iqbal, Hafiza Hafsa Nayyab, Shireen Mussawar and Somia Yaseen, 2013. Factors Influencing Job Satisfaction of Employees in Telecom Sector of Pakistan. Middle-East. Journal of Scientific Research 16 (11): 1476-1482, 2013. Robbins Stephan and Judge Timothy. 2013. Organizational Behavior, Pearson Education Inc., Fifteenth Edition, Boston, USA, p. 225. Saks, A. M. (1996). The relationship between the amount and helpfulness of entry training and work outcomes. Human Relations, 49, 429–451. Schermerhorn, J.R. (1993), management for productivity (4th ed.), Canada: John Schermerhorn, J.R., Davidson, P., Poole, D., Simon, A., Woods, P., & Chau, S.L., (2011) The Management 4 th Asia-Pacific edition, Milton Qld: John Wiley & Sons. Smith, P.C., L.M. Kendall, and C.L. Hulin (1969). The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and Retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally. Spector, P. E. (1985). Measurement of human service employee satisfaction: Development of the job satisfaction survey. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13, 693- 713. Sempane, M., Rieger, H. & Roodt, G. 2002. „Job satisfaction in relation to organizational culture‟, South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 28(2): 23–30. Spector, P.E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes and consequences, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications, Inc. Strickland, O. L., Lenz, E. R., & Waltz, C. (2010). Instrumentation and data collection. In Measurement in nursing and health research (4 th ed.). (p. 271). New York: Springer Publishing Sweney, P.D. and McFarlin, D.B. (2005). Organizational Behavior, Solutions for Management, McGraw- Hill/Irwin, New York,p. 57. Ting, Y. (1997). Determinants of job satisfaction of federal government employees. Public Personnel Management, 26, 313-334. Tran Kim Dung (2005). Measurement of job satisfaction within Vietnamese context” . Journal of Science – Technology and Development, Ho Chi Minh National University Vol 8 (12).. Tran Xuan Thach, 2015. Factors that have impacted job‟s satisfaction of the employees in Binh Dinh PISICO Corporation. Journal of Science, 5 (1), 113-120. 99 Vidal MES, Valle RS, Aragón BMI (2007). Antecedents of repatriates' job satisfaction and its influence on turnover intentions: Evidence from Spanish repatriated managers. Journal of Business Research., 60: 1272-1281. Viswesvaran, C., Deshpande, S.P., & Joseph, J. (1998). Job satisfaction as a function of top management support for ethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(4), 365- 371. Vroom, V.H. (1964), Work and Motivation, John Wiley & Sons, New York. www.die.gov.tr.16/01/2008. Willem A, Buelens M, Jonghe ID (2007). Impact of organizational structure on nurses‟ job satisfaction: A questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies., 44: 1011-1020. B. UNPUBLICED THESES Bui Thi Hien, 2010. Factors influencing job satisfaction of employee – a study of Joint Stock Company investment and development and traffic construction of 208 Charles G. Andrews, 2003. comparative analysis of management and employee job satisfaction and policy perceptions (doctoral thesis). University of north Texas. Duong Cong Vi, 2013. factors influencing job satisfaction of employees working at the people committee‟s binh gia district, lang son province (master‟s thesis). Faculty of the Graduate Program of the College of Business and Accountancy Central Philippine University, Philippines in colemployeesation with Thai Nguyen University, Vietnam. Le Quang Thach (2012). Factors influencing job satisfaction of workers in joint stock company industrial wood Truong Thanh (master‟s thesis). Nha Trang university. Nezaam luddy, 2005. Job satisfaction amongst employees at a public health institution in the western cape (mini-thesis). Faculty of Economic and Management Science, University of the Western Cape. 100 APPENDICES Descriptive Statistics Natural of work N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation 3. current job is challenge 367 1.00 5.00 3.5259 .74200 4. your choice in current job 367 1.00 5.00 3.4441 .89718 5. your skills in current job 367 1.00 5.00 3.7084 .70479 6. your job is convenient 367 1.00 5.00 3.7657 .68920 7. your current is appropriate 367 2.00 5.00 3.8638 .63845 8. current job is challenge 367 1.00 5.00 3.7411 .75460 Valid N (listwise) 367 Mean : 3.674 Descriptive Statistics Salary N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation 2.Salary from company is clear and fair 367 1.00 5.00 3.4986 .83919 3.Salary was paid in full and on time 367 1.00 5.00 3.8501 .72194 4.Bonus policy is fair and satisfactory 367 1.00 5.00 3.5150 .84877 5.The company allowance is reasonable 367 1.00 5.00 3.6567 .68700 Valid N (listwise) 367 Mean: 3.630 101 Descriptive Statistics Opportunity for advancement N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation 1.Your skills can meet the job requirements 367 1.00 5.00 3.7466 .67231 2.You have the opportunity to be trained and to improve knowledge 367 1.00 5.00 3.5777 .78500 3.Company give a chance for you to be trained and improve knowledge 367 1.00 5.00 3.6213 .81374 4.You have a lot of chance of advancement when you work at here 367 1.00 5.00 3.2398 .90067 5.Company has a fair policy to train employees 367 .30 5.00 3.2842 .87567 6.The company gives the process, specific instructions for every employee 367 2.00 5.00 3.8147 .62594 Valid N (listwise) 367 Mean: 3.5470 102 Descriptive Statistics Supervisors N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation 1.Supervisor cares about you 367 1.00 5.00 3.6730 .69887 2.Supervisor listen to your opinions 367 1.00 5.00 3.6376 .74070 3.Supervisor gives good suggestions 367 1.00 5.00 3.7847 .64443 4.You easily communicate and interface with your supervisor 367 1.00 5.00 3.7929 .69789 5.you receive equally treatment from supervisor 367 1.00 5.00 3.6485 .70837 6.Supervisor iscapabilities 367 1.00 5.00 3.8065 .69200 Valid N (listwise) 367 Mean: 3.723 Descriptive Statistics Co-workers N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation 1.Co-worker is willing to help you 367 2.00 5.00 4.0163 .43073 2.Co-worker is friendly 367 2.00 5.00 4.0518 .44970 3.You can learn from your co- workers 367 2.00 5.00 4.0218 .52746 4.Co-worker coordinates with you well 367 2.00 5.00 3.9591 .60143 Valid N (listwise) 367 Mean: 4.012 103 Descriptive Statistics Working condition N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation 1.Personal protect equipment was provided 367 1.00 5.00 3.9183 .67659 2.Workplace is sate 367 1.00 5.00 3.8501 .68703 3.Workplace is clear and convenient 367 1.00 5.00 3.6076 .82565 4.You are satisfy with the work-time 367 2.00 5.00 3.9319 .49394 Valid N (listwise) 367 Mean: 3.826 Descriptive Statistics Financial reward N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation 2.Trade union has a good policy 367 1.00 5.00 3.8474 .64752 3.Welfare of company is clear and adequate 367 1.00 5.00 3.7684 .63010 4.Welfare policy of the company expressed the consideration of company to employees 367 1.00 5.00 3.7738 .62775 Valid N (listwise) 367 Mean: 3.796 104 QUESTIONNAIRE This questionnaire is designed to collect data for the purpose of completing the doctor thesis. All the information will be kept confidently. Please, kindly fill in the questions bellows: Part I: Personal information of the respondents 1.Full name: - Gender:  Male  Female 2. Age:  18- 25  26- 35  36- 45  45- 60 3. Marital status:  Single  Married 4. Working areas: ...................................................................................................... 5. Work position:  Worker  Office employee  Manager 6. Length of employment:  less than 5 years  6-10  11-15  Over 16 years 7. . Educational level:  Graduate or higher  Vocational/ college education  High school  Primary school 8. Coefficients salary: Coefficient positions.. Allowance:.(đ) - Income per month (million VND):):  Below 3 mil  5.1 to 8 mil  3.1 to 5 mil  Over 8 mil 105 Part II: Evaluation Please read the following statements and check () in the blank that best indicates the extent of your agreement or disagreement 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly disagree Disagree Moderate Agree Strongly agree Natural of work 1 2 3 4 5 1. You understand clearly current job.      2. Your current job is simple or easy      3. Your current job is creative      4. Your current job is challenge.      5. You may decide to work some issues in their abilities      6. You can use a lot of different skills at work.      7. The work that you are doing matches with your capabilities      8. The work that you are doing is appropriate      Salary 1 2 3 4 5 1 The salary that you get from TISCO commensurate with the your capacity and contribution      2. The salary that you get from TISCO is clear and fair      3. The salary that you get from TISCO was paid in full and on time      4. Bonus policy is fair and satisfactory      5. The company allowance is reasonable      Opportunity for advancement 1 2 3 4 5 1. The skills that you was trained can meet the job requirements      2. You may have the opportunity to be trained and to improve knowledge      3. Company always give a chance for you to be trained and improve knowledge      4. You may have a lot of chance of advancement when you work at here      5. Company has a fair policy to train employees      106 6. The company gives the process, specific instructions for every employee      Supervisor 1 2 3 4 5 1. Supervisor cares about you      2. Supervisor listen to your opinions      3. Supervisor gives good suggestions      4. You easily communicate and interface with your supervisor      5. You receive equally treatment from supervisor      6. Supervisor is capable of executive      Co-worker 1 2 3 4 5 1. Co-worker is willing to help you      2. Co-worker is friendly and generous      3. You may learn experiences from your co-workers      4. Co-worker coordinates with you well      5. Your co-worker is reliable      Working condition 1 2 3 4 5 1. Personal protect equipment that was provided to you is adequate      2. Workplace is sate      3. Workplace is clear and convenient      4. You satisfied with the work-time      Financial Reward 1 2 3 4 5 1. Companies implements all of insurances for employees      2. Trade union always cares and support you when you face with some problems      3. Welfare of company is clear and adequate      4. Welfare policy of the company expressed the consideration of company to employees      Job satisfaction of employees 1 2 3 4 5 1. You satisfied with current job      2. You satisfied with current salary      107 3. You satisfied with current opportunity for advancement      4. You satisfied with current supervisor      5. You satisfied withco-worker      6 You satisfied with current working condition      7. You satisfied with current financial reward      8. You totally satisfied with current job      Thank you very much for your great cooperation!