UNIVERSITY OF JORDAN

EFFECT OF ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE ON JOB SATISFACTION IN IT COMPANIES IN JORDAN

Submitted by: Diala Khawaldeh MBA-Management Student ID: 8090018 Subject: Instructor: Huda Jaouni International Business Student ID: 8090514 Organizational Behavior Dr. Ziad Al Bakhit

Contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 3 CHAPTER I Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 4 Problem Statement ............................................................................................................................. 5 Significance of the study ..................................................................................................................... 5 Research questions and hypotheses................................................................................................... 5 CHAPTER II Background ....................................................................................................................... 7 Literature review................................................................................................................................. 7 Theoretical Model ............................................................................................................................... 9 Variables and Operational Definition ............................................................................................... 10 CHAPTER III Methodology .................................................................................................................. 11 Research purpose and investigation type......................................................................................... 11 Population and sampling .................................................................................................................. 11 Sources of data and Instrumentation ............................................................................................... 12 Analysis plan ..................................................................................................................................... 13 Validity and reliability ....................................................................................................................... 14 CHAPTER IV Results ............................................................................................................................ 15 Demographic profile ......................................................................................................................... 15 Descriptive statistics ......................................................................................................................... 16 Inferential statistics........................................................................................................................... 20 CHAPTER V Summary, Recommendations, and Limitations ............................................................. 22 Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 22 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 22 Limitations ........................................................................................................................................ 23 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 24 APPENDIX-A The Questionnaire (English and Arabic Versions) ............................................................ 25 APPENDIX-B SPSS Descriptive and Inferential Analysis Detailed Reports ............................................ 39 Descriptive Analysis Detailed Reports .............................................................................................. 40 Inferential Analysis............................................................................................................................ 46

Abstract
Factors affecting employees behavior in an organization has always drawn the attention and focus of organizational behaviorists and human resources professionals. And one of the most integral behaviors of employees is job satisfaction in the workplace. Most individual behaviors are found to be affected by two types of factors, internal factors that lay within the intrinsic nature of the individual, and external factors such as the work environment, and the way tasks and levels are structured in the workplace, and job satisfaction is no exception to this fact. The relation understudy in this research is the effect of the external factor Organizational Structure, on the individual behavior Job Satisfaction. Research indicates that there is a strong correlation between the two, however, the views about which organizational structure is best are diverse. The studies that have operationalized the organizational structure by the length of its chain of command, have split into 3 groups; some have advocated the flat structured organizations (ones with few managerial levels) at all rates, while some have said the flat Vs structure debate depends on what needs the organization is looking to fulfill, and finally, the final group prefers the flat structures up to a certain organization size, after which the structure loses its influence on job satisfaction. The current study attempts to measure the influence the organizational structure might have on the satisfaction of employees in IT companies in Jordan. Job satisfaction is sub-scaled to 20 dimensions, each of which represents a need that contributes to the overall job satisfaction of the individual once fulfilled. The study takes place in selected IT organizations of tall and flat structures in Amman, Jordan, from which 100 employees have agreed to participate and provide data about themselves and their organizations for further analysis. In this study, it was found that organizational structure had significant effect on 4 dimensions of job satisfaction: Company Policies and Practices, Social Service, Variety, and working conditions. According to the available data and the statistical analysis, working conditions are more satisfying in flat IT organizations, while Company Policies and Practices, Social Service, and Variety are more satisfying in tall IT organizations. For future exploration of this relation, it is recommended in the coming studies that organizational structure is operationalized by including more dimensions, such as formality, and degree of centralization. It is also recommended that this relation is explored in different settings and industries, scanning a larger sample size.

CHAPTER I Introduction
Introduction
Organizational behaviorists and human resources professionals have long been curious about the best way to structure a work environment in order to influence employee outcomes. While it is widely recognized that both dispositional and environmental factors jointly affect behavior, there is a movement towards a focus on environmental factors because these are the factors that can be influenced by professionals. One main goal kept in mind for changing these factors, is enhancing a very important individual behavior variable that is frequently measured by organizations: Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction describes how content an individual is with his or her job. The importance of this variable is ascribed to its strong relation to several other individual and organizational characteristics, such as job performance, employee motivation, customer satisfaction, absenteeism and turnover, in addition to the overall organizational performance and productivity. Research in psychology and organizational behavior indicates that characteristics of the work environment (e.g. organizational structure) may interact with employees' personal characteristics, and there by affect individual job satisfaction. Specifically speaking, and for the purpose of the current study, the work environment characteristic of focus is the categorization of organizations into two types: tall, and flat (or vertical and horizontal respectively as referred to in some texts). A flat organization structure is defined as an organizational structure in which there are relatively few levels of management with respect to the organizations size, whereas a tall organization structure contains relatively many levels of supervision with respect to the organizations size. Each has its own characteristics that are expected to be of great influence on the employees job satisfaction under its structure. Research indicates that organizations operating in dynamic conditions would gain great benefits by adopting a flat organizational structure, due to its low levels of formalization and centralization, which fosters higher levels of creativity and innovation. In contrast, organizations operating in more stable conditions would still call for more formalization and centralization levels. Information Technology (IT) companies make a great example of organizations operating in dynamic operations. The IT industry is a continuously and rapidly changing one, and its as far as it could be from stable. This requires IT managers of all levels to be ready at all times for coping with change and embracing it, and that is one reason due to which most IT companies are now restructuring internally to a flat structure. In this study, the effect of structure type in IT companies in specific, on job satisfaction of IT employees, will be explored.

Problem Statement
There are aspects of an organization that can affect the job satisfaction of its employees, which is a frequently measured individual characteristic and is of great importance to managers, and IT managers are no exception. The main asset in the IT industry is knowledge, and day after day, IT organizations are paying their knowledge workers higher and higher salaries, and are sparing no effort to keep them on the job. This study is intended to add to what is known about what IT workers need in order to have job satisfaction, and provide the results to IT managers and business owners to realize what is necessary to keep and attract knowledge workers to their environments. This goal was achieved by selecting a number of IT companies of both organizational structure types (tall and flat), and then measuring job satisfaction of employees in these organizations by means of a questionnaire, and then analyzing the collected data statistically to verify direction and strength of this relation.

Significance of the study

The findings of this research will provide guidance for top managers and business owners of IT companies towards the proper organizational structure that will provide a better environment for the employees and promote higher levels of satisfaction. This study will also pave the way for future researches to take place focusing on more aspects of both variables in the present study (organizational structure and job satisfaction) that will add to the literature and findings relevant to this relation.

Research questions and hypotheses

This research is proposed to study job satisfaction as a function of organizational structure. Most of the literature votes in favor of flat organizations when it comes to satisfaction of the workers, but in organizational behavior, we cant generalize. Hence, this research is formulated around the following questions: What is the direction of the relation between organizational structure and each dimension of job satisfaction, and the overall job satisfaction? And which organizational structure is more satisfying for the workers? This question could be broken down to the following hypotheses: The null hypothesis H0: There is no difference between the job satisfaction of employees in flat and tall organizations. The alternative hypothesis HA: There is a difference between the job satisfaction of employees in flat and tall organizations.

In mathematical terms:

H 0: HA:
Where

f= f

t t t is the mean job

f is the mean job satisfaction level in flat organizations, and

satisfaction level in tall organizations.

CHAPTER II Background
Literature review
The organizational structure literature suggests that organizational structure affects employees and perceptions and, thus, plays an important role in human resources issues. Organizational structure also affects judgments and perceptions in that unstructured firms offer relatively little structured guidance or other mechanisms to encourage control and uniformity, whereas structured firms impose more specific guidance and control mechanisms to enhance consistency and uniformity (Prawitt, 1993). Narrowing down our focus to the literature on "tall" versus "flat" organizational structures, we found a considerable amount of faith and advocacy of flat organizations. Much of this advocacy is based on Worthy's study (1950) of nearly 100,000 employees of Sears Roebuck over a period of 12 years. This study was among the first extensive studies of the possible effects of flat and tall organization structures and was the most widely cited reference in similar researches. The basic argument of Worthy and other advocates of flat structures are that such structures result in greater individual initiative and job responsibility which consequently lead to improved attitudes toward the job. All of these comprise a higher level of job satisfaction. What worthy did in his study was a comparison between large and small organizations of the same type. The main finding of this comparison was that large (i.e. tall) organizations had lower employee morale (team spirit) and lower individual output. This leads to the following possible generalizations: 1- The taller the organization gets, the more this fosters centralization of authority and job specialization, which eventually leads to low group morale, low performance, and failure to develop managerial talents. 2- A flat organizational structure could give the advantages underlying in tall organizations without these dysfunctional consequences. Similar studies supporting worthys finding include Richardson and Walker (1948). In their study, two levels of management were gradually eliminated from the company understudy over a period of time during which the size of the company doubled (less management levels and flatter organization) without adverse effects on morale and productivity. Harrel Carpenter (1971) compared tall, intermediate, and flat structures as well in six public school systems, with respect to the level of job satisfaction of 120 classroom teachers. He found that teachers in flat organizations enjoyed higher job satisfaction than teachers in medium and tall organizations.

Up to this point, all researches are spotting the lights on the flat organization as a wise choice for easing communication and enhancing the employees satisfaction, however, there has been some scientific evidence that raises doubts about the validity of Worthy's conclusions and all his advocates. The study of Porter and Lawler (1964) on job satisfaction of managers indicated that a tall structure was better in fulfilling security and social needs, while a flat structure was better for fulfilling autonomy and selfactualization needs. They suggested that a flat structure was not superior to a tall one at all rates, and that there is no absolute choice, taking into consideration the priorities of the needs that the organization prefers to fulfill. Moreover, Porter and Siegel (1965) studied about 3,000 middle and top-level managers in a wide variety of sizes and types of organizations in 13 countries. They found that in organizations of less than 5,000 employees, flat structures were correlated with greater satisfaction; in organizations of 5,000 employees and over, there was no difference between manager satisfaction fulfillment levels and tall and flat structures. Taking a look at more recent literature exploring this relation, it states that organizational structure does influence the employees' job satisfaction. In 1995, Chia contended that in a decentralized organization, the perceived employee job satisfaction level can be enhanced when he or she can take action and make decisions to further his or her self-interests. In a 1993 study, knoop considered the relationship between work values and job satisfaction by measuring each of these variables separately and then concurrently. Job satisfaction was measured based on 5 subscales: work itself, pay, and opportunities for promotion, supervision, and co-workers. These 5 determinates include internal and external factors. As a result of knoop's study, job satisfaction was finally defined as a person's general attitude toward the job and toward the specific aspects of the job such as the nature of the work or relations with co-workers". Based on this definition, the fit between the individual and the job, with both its parts (the job environment itself, and the individual factors) has been shown to be an important influence on employee job satisfaction. Another study conducted in 2005 by Kuong Ah Lee in the University of Oklahoma, explored the relation between organizational structure and job satisfaction of hotel management employees. This study showed that locus of control and organizational structure respectively affect job satisfaction, and further suggests that there is a significant interaction between locus of control and organization structure in relations to job satisfaction. In 2007, Stacey R. Kessler examined the effects of the structure of an academic department on faculty members job performance, job satisfaction, and prevalence of counterproductive work behavior (CWB), or harmful behaviors while at work. The results of her study suggest that the structure of an academic department is related to outcomes for faculty members. Most notably, faculty members working in more organically structured departments (those having the least hierarchy and specialization of functions) have higher levels of job satisfaction.

Taking the conclusions and findings of old and recent studies all together, they provide us with great diverse insights. In the current study, we will control the industrys effect on the variables of interest by limiting our study to Information Technology organizations. And we will study the direction and significance of the relationship (if it exists) in these organizations between the structure from one side, and job satisfaction and from the other side.

Theoretical Model
Figure 1 below illustrates the variables of interest in this study:

Ability Utilization
Advancement

Achievement

Activity

Authority

Company policies & practices

Compensation

Co-workers

Creativity

Organizational structure

Independence

Moral values

Recognition

Responsibility

Security

Social service

Social status

Supervisionhuman relation

Supervisiontechnical

Variety

Working conditions

Job Satisfaction
Figure-1 Theoretical Model

Variables and Operational Definition

The variables in Figure 1 are explained below: The Independent Variable: Organizational Structure: This is the independent variable of the study. Operational definition of this variable considered length of chain of command (number of managerial levels) in the organization to categorize it as a flat or a tall organization as follows: Organizations having 1-3 levels are considered flat Organizations with having more than 3 levels are considered tall Organizations selected for this study were all of small to moderate size to justify this assumption and alienate the effect of size on the relation. The Dependent Variable: Job Satisfaction: As defined by knoop, job satisfaction is a person's general attitude toward the job and toward the specific aspects of the job such as the nature of the work or relations with co-workers. Job satisfaction is measured my breaking it down to the 20 subscales in the figure as guided by the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ), the job satisfaction measurement tool used in this research that will be discussed in more detail in the coming chapter. The relation between organizational structure and each subscale of the job satisfaction will be measured separately, and then the relation between organizational structure and the overall job satisfaction will be measured for both types of structures.

CHAPTER III Methodology

Research purpose and investigation type
Research purpose in this study is hypothesis testing. Type of investigation done in this study is a casual investigation, that aims at comparing the overall job satisfaction in tall and flat IT organizations in Jordan. Extent of researcher interference is minimal. The study setting is a non-contrived field experiment. Finally, the unit of analysis is employees in IT companies in Jordan.

Population and sampling

The Population of interest we wish to investigate consists of all employees in all IT companies in Jordan, including top managers, mid-level managers, and regular employees. For the sake of this research in specific, we have taken a sample of 100 employees distributed among a number of IT Companies in Jordan. The sampling procedure was a multi-staged process; we have first investigated the Jordanian directory for IT companies, and picked a number of tall and flat organizations. The second step was a random sampling of the employees of the organization under study, to whom the questionnaire measuring our variables was distributed, making sure we get an equal share per organizational structure type. The table below illustrated the types of organizations and the number of samples per organization

Table-1 Participating IT Organizations

Organization Name Progressoft STS Optimiza Method ExcellentTrain Masterpieces Knowledge Horizon Total Organization type Flat Tall Tall Flat Flat Flat Tall Number of samples 35 50 10 10 15 5 25 150

Sources of data and Instrumentation

Major sources of data for this study included: Secondary data: Sources of data that already existed and were ready for use, such as organizational records and archives. Primary data: Data that was yet to be sought and collected from the samples subjects under study. The data collection method in this study was a questionnaire developed to measure the variables in the theoretical model. The distributed questionnaire consisted of 2 parts; the first part was directed towards measuring the organizational variables of interest, which are size, and length of chain of command, along with some demographical data about the respondent. The second part is directed towards measuring the employees job satisfaction in the current organizational structure using a standard widely used questionnaire under the name The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ). MSQ was developed by Weiss, Dawis, English, and lofquist (1967) to measure the individual's satisfaction with twenty different aspects of the work environment and is one of the most popular measures of job satisfaction. The MSQ is a 100-item, self-report instrument. It measures job satisfaction across 20 different dimensions mentioned in the theoretical model section, with five questions for each dimension, on a 5-point likert scale. Those dimensions are listed again in the table below, with a brief explanation of each, and the question numbers measuring each dimension

Table-2 Job Satisfaction MSQ Subscales

Job Satisfaction Dimension 1. Ability utilization 2. Achievement 3. Activity 4. Advancement 5. Authority 6. Company Policies and Practices 7. Compensation 8. Co-workers 9. Creativity Explanation The chance to do something that makes use of my abilities The feeling of accomplishment I get from the job. Being able to keep busy all the time. The chances for advancement on this job. The chance to tell other people what to do. The way company policies are put into practice. My pay and the amount of work I do.
The way my co-workers get along with each other. The chance to try my own methods of work

Question numbers 7, 27, 47, 67, 87 19, 39, 59, 79, 99 20, 40, 60, 80, 100 14, 34, 54, 74, 94 6, 26, 46, 66, 86 9, 29, 49, 69, 99 12, 32, 52, 72, 92 16, 36, 56, 76, 96 2, 22, 42, 62, 82

10. Independence 11. Moral values 12. Recognition 13. Responsibility 14. Security 15. Social service 16. Social status 17. Supervisionhuman relation 18. Supervisiontechnical 19. Variety 20. Working conditions Advantages of MSQ:

The chance to work alone on the job. Being able to do things that don't go against my conscience. The praise I get for doing a good job. The freedom to use my own judgment. The way my job provides for steady employment. The chance to do things for other people. The chance to be "somebody" in the community. The way my boss handles his men. The competence of my supervisor in making decisions. The chance to do different things from time to time. The working conditions.

4, 24, 44, 64, 84 3, 23, 43, 63, 73 18, 38, 58, 78, 98 17, 37, 57, 77, 97 11, 31, 51, 71, 91 1, 21, 41, 61, 81 8, 28, 48, 68, 88 10, 30, 50, 70, 90 15, 35, 55, 75, 95 5, 25, 45, 65, 85 13, 33, 53, 73, 93

Reliable, valid measure of job satisfaction. Easy to use, easy to understand. Applicable to any organization. Applicable for managers, supervisors, and employees.

However, one drawback of MSQ is that its a bit too long. A full English and Arabic versions of the questionnaire are found in Appendix A.

Analysis plan
The questionnaire was distributed among the employees of the selected IT organizations and recollected. Table 3 below is a replica of Table 1 showing the number of respondents per organization.

Table-3 Samples and respondents per organization

Organization No. Progressoft STS Optimiza Method ExcellentTrain Masterpieces Knowledge Horizon Total Organization type Flat Tall Tall Flat Flat Flat Tall Number of samples 35 50 10 10 15 5 25 150 Number of respondents 31 20 9 6 7 5 22 100

After all filled questionnaires were retrieved; all data were entered on SPSS to go through the statistical analysis. The Collected data included demographical Info, organizational structure type and the answers to the 100 questions of the MSQ. First of all, descriptive analysis were conducted for the 20 subscales of JOB satisfaction, followed by an independent samples two-tailed t-test at a 5% significance level to check if there was a mean difference between the job satisfaction level in the flat organizations sample and the tall organizations sample for each subscale of the 20 job satisfaction subscales, and the overall job satisfaction level, and whether this mean difference was due to the organizational structure, or sampling error.

Reliability test
Cronbach's Alpha was used to test the reliability of the scale used in data collection, and as shown in the table below, it was found that Alpha = .967 which is good because it is greater than .80, the threshold for acceptable reliability Table-4 Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .967 100

CHAPTER IV Results
This chapter will discuss the analysis results for the collected data. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 15.0 for Windows (SPSS, 2006) was used for all analyses. The primary research question, "What is the relationship between organizational structure and job satisfaction? was addressed using independent samples two-tailed ttests between the independent variable and the dependent variables 20 dimensions at a 5% significance level.

Demographic profile
The study included 100 employees, 38% of this sample was comprised of females, and 62% were males. As for the age range of the respondents, a high majority (88%) were aged between 20-30 years old, 11% were aged between 31 and 40 years old, while only one respondent was aged above 41 and below 50. The demographic statistics are summarized in the Tables 5 and 6 below. Table-5 Gender Frequency Percent Valid female male Total 38 62 100 38.0 62.0 100.0 Valid Percent 38.0 62.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 38.0 100.0

Table-6 Age Frequency Percent Valid 20-30 31-40 41-50 Total 88 11 1 100 88.0 11.0 1.0 100.0 Valid Percent 88.0 11.0 1.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 88.0 99.0 100.0

Descriptive statistics
100 employees in different IT organizations of different structures went through the study. 49% of the samples worked at flat structures, while 51% worked at tall structures. Tables 7 and 8 below show the distribution of employees among different structures, and the number of respondents per IT organization participating in the study.

Table-7 Respondents frequencies per structure type

Structure type Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent flat tall Total 49 51 100 49.0 51.0 100.0 49.0 51.0 100.0 49.0 100.0

Table-8 Respondents frequencies per organization

Organization name Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Excellent Train Knowledge Horizon Method MasterPieces Optimiza Progressoft STS Total 7 22 6 5 9 31 20 100 7.0 22.0 6.0 5.0 9.0 31.0 20.0 100.0 7.0 22.0 6.0 5.0 9.0 31.0 20.0 100.0 7.0 29.0 35.0 40.0 49.0 80.0 100.0

As for the job satisfaction levels among the samples under study, Table-9 below shows the mean, standard deviation, and the minimum and maximum values for each subscale of the job satisfaction subscales for the 100 samples in all organizational structures, being flat or tall. The job satisfaction scores had a narrow range, as the values laid between a minimum score of 3.368 out of 5 for the Compensation dimension, which is the amount of pay in exchange of work done, and a maximum score of 3.798 out of 5 for Co-workers dimension, which refers to the way the co-workers get along in the work place.

Table-9 Job satisfaction Descriptive Statistics

Job satisfaction Dimension Ability Utilization Achievement Activity Advancement Authority Company Policies and Practices Compensation Co-workers Creativity Independence Moral Values Recognition Responsibility Security Social Service Social Status Supervision-HR skills Supervision-Technical skills Variety Working conditions Job Satisfaction N 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Minimum Maximum 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.00 1.80 1.20 1.40 2.00 1.60 2.00 2.20 1.20 1.80 1.80 2.00 2.00 1.80 1.40 1.80 1.80 2.44 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.80 4.80 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.80 5.00 5.00 4.80 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.80 4.80 5.00 4.63 Mean 3.5240 3.6180 3.6940 3.4000 3.5900 3.3680 3.3680 3.7980 3.5800 3.7340 3.7900 3.4140 3.6560 3.6260 3.7440 3.4540 3.6200 3.4780 3.4660 3.6440 3.5783 Std. Deviation .80593 .68761 .65471 .76910 .61390 .78250 .91175 .58292 .71774 .58951 .52676 .74522 .64828 .62646 .60106 .63428 .76621 .74989 .64764 .67365 .48114

Now what about job satisfaction among employees of a certain organizational structure? We will take a look at each subscale, and compare its value for the samples tall structure and flat structure. The 4 tables below (Tables 10 to 13) display the means for each job satisfaction subscale in both tall and flat organizations, and point out the winning structure for each subscale in particular.

As can be seen from these statistics, the mean job satisfaction level in flat structure outscored the tall structure for the following subscales: 1. Ability Utilization 2. Achievement 3. Activity 4. Compensation 5. Co-workers 6. Creativity 7. Independence 8. Moral Values 9. Recognition 10. Responsibility 11. Security 12. Social Service 13. Social Status 14. Working conditions While the tall structure mean job satisfaction level has outscored the flat structure for the following subscales: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Advancement Authority Company Policies and Practices Supervision-HR Supervision-Tech Variety

Table-10 Satisfaction levels in different structures (Part 1)

Structure Type Flat Mean Min Max Tall Mean Min Max Satisfaction Higher At Difference Ability Utiliz. 3.5306 1.80 5.00 3.5176 1.80 5.00 Achieve -ment 3.6653 1.80 5.00 3.5725 1.80 4.60 Advancement 3.3510 1.00 5.00 3.4471 2.20 4.60 Company Policies and Practices 3.2082 1.20 4.40 3.5216 1.60 4.80

Activity 3.7061 1.80 5.00 3.6824 2.00 4.80

Authority 3.5837 1.80 4.80 3.5961 2.40 4.80

Flat Flat Flat Tall Tall Tall 0.0130 0.0928 0.0238 0.0960 0.0124

0.3134

Table-11 Satisfaction levels in different structures (Part 2)

CoStructure Type Compensation Workers Creativity Independence Flat Mean 3.4816 3.8367 3.5878 3.7592 Min 1.40 2.00 1.80 2.00 Max 5.00 5.00 4.80 5.00 Tall Mean 3.2588 3.7608 3.5725 3.7098 Min 1.40 2.20 1.60 2.00 Max 4.80 5.00 5.00 4.80 Satisfaction Higher At Flat Flat Flat Flat Difference .08 .02 .05 0.2228 Moral Values Recognition 3.8490 3.4408 2.20 1.20 4.80 5.00 3.7333 3.3882 2.40 1.40 4.60 5.00 Flat .12 Flat .05

Table-12 Satisfaction levels in different structures (Part 3)

Social Service 3.8898 2.80 5.00 3.6039 2.00 5.00 Social SupervisionStatus Hr Skills 3.4980 3.5347 2.20 1.80 5.00 5.00 3.4118 3.7020 2.00 2.00 4.60 5.00 Supervision Technical Skills 3.3755 1.40 4.60 3.5765 2.00 4.80

Structure Type Flat Mean Min Max Tall Mean Min Max Satisfaction Higher At Difference

Responsibility Security 3.6857 3.6367 2.20 2.20 5.00 4.80 3.6275 3.6157 1.80 1.80 4.80 4.80 Flat .06 Flat

Flat Flat Tall Tall .02 0.2859 0.0862 0.1673

0.201

Table-13 Satisfaction levels in different structures (Part 4)

Structure Type Variety Flat Mean 3.3184 Minimum 1.80 Maximum 4.20 Tall Mean 3.6078 Minimum 2.00 Maximum 4.80 Satisfaction Higher At Tall Flat Difference 0.2895 Working Conditions 3.7878 2.40 5.00 3.5059 1.80 4.60 Job Satisfaction 3.5863 2.46 4.63 3.5706 2.44 4.47 Flat 0.2819 0.0157

A detailed list for all statistics of the overall job satisfaction levels and its subscales categorized by the organizations name and structure can be found in Appendix B. As for the overall job satisfaction, as listed in Table 10. In flat structures, it reached around 3.58 out of 5 as compared to a score of 3.57 in tall structures. The question is, is this difference in job satisfaction and all its 20 subscales significant enough? And could it be due to the organizational structure? Is it due to sampling associated errors? The answer to these questions can be achieved by performing inferential statistical analysis on the available data. These will be discussed in the next section.

Inferential statistics
We will now analyze the data in hand to decide whether the difference in job satisfaction subscales levels and the overall job satisfaction among tall and flat organizations are significant, and whether this difference is due to the organizational structure, or a sampling error. The suitable statistical test in this case, is the independent samples t-test, since the employees in tall organizations lie in a separate group of the employees in the flat organizations. As for the type of t-test, it will be a two-tailed t-test since our alternative hypothesis is non-directional, and doesnt state which organizational structure has a higher level of job satisfaction. The chosen significance level for this test is 5% The t-test will first be conducted for testing the relation between organizational structure, and each subscale of the 20 job satisfaction subscales, and determining whether the organizational structure has a relation with certain job satisfaction dimensions. Another t-test will then be performed to determine the relation between the organizational structure and the overall job satisfaction. The results of the 20 t-tests for job satisfaction subscales are summarized in Table 14 below:

Table-14 t-test results

Job Satisfaction Subscale Ability Utilization Achievement Activity Advancement Authority Significance level from a 2-tailed t-test 0.937 0.503 0.857 0.537 0.920 Sig< (0.05)? No No No No No Comment Alternative hypothesis is not supported Alternative hypothesis is not supported Alternative hypothesis is not supported Alternative hypothesis is not supported Alternative hypothesis is not supported

Company Policies and Practices Compensation Co-workers Creativity Independence Moral Values Recognition Responsibility Security Social Service Social Status Supervision-HR Supervision-Tech Variety Working conditions

0.046 0.223 0.518 0.916 0.678 0.274 0.727 0.655 0.867 0.016 0.500 0.278 0.182 0.025 0.035

Yes No No No No No No No No Yes No No No Yes Yes

Alternative hypothesis is supported Alternative hypothesis is not supported Alternative hypothesis is not supported Alternative hypothesis is not supported Alternative hypothesis is not supported Alternative hypothesis is not supported Alternative hypothesis is not supported Alternative hypothesis is not supported Alternative hypothesis is not supported Alternative hypothesis is supported Alternative hypothesis is not supported Alternative hypothesis is not supported Alternative hypothesis is not supported Alternative hypothesis is supported Alternative hypothesis is supported

Based on these results, we can conclude that: 1- Employees in tall IT organizations are more satisfied with respect to the job satisfaction dimensions: Company Policies and Practices, Social Service, and Variety, than employees in flat organizations. 2- Employees in flat IT organizations are more satisfied with respect to working conditions than employees in tall organizations. As for the overall job satisfaction, the significance level obtained from the t-test equality of means was 0.871, and the degrees of freedom=97.363. the significance level doesnt lay below the accepted significance level of the test (=5%), as a result, we can say: The t-test with df = 97.363 was not significant; we must retain the possibilities that the difference between the two groups is zero. Hence, H0 is accepted, and HA is rejected.
A detailed list for all t-tests parameters and outputs is available in Appendix B

CHAPTER V Summary, Recommendations, and Limitations

Summary
This study was undertaken to explore the relation between organizational structure of IT companies in Jordan, and the level of job satisfaction of their workers. A sample of 100 employees working at IT organizations of one of the two structure types: flat or tall, went under the study and expressed the way they feel towards different aspects of their jobs. Their input was analyzed and interpreted following proper research methods and using statistical analysis. It was found that the organizational structure for this setting only has effect on 4 out of 20 job satisfaction dimensions: Company Policies and Practices, Social Service, Variety, and working conditions. Where the first 3 dimensions are more satisfying in tall organizations and the last is more satisfying in flat organizations. On the other hand, organizational structure had no effect on the rest of the job satisfaction subscales, and the overall job satisfaction level of employees in the selected IT companies. These results could be due to the fact that IT companies might not be applying the organizational structures properly, some violations could occur and the workflow dictated by the structure is not always followed. One final note to be made, is that the mean job satisfaction levels among the entire sample subjects had a narrow range (a minimum 3.368 of and a maximum of 3.798), which indicates that the satisfaction among IT workers doesnt vary that much over the organizations. Moreover, these scores are not that high, and from here we can make an initial observation here, that IT workers are not very satisfied. These findings call for a study that goes more in depth in these variables, and more in breadth of samples and other industries,. In addition, it would be useful to explore other factors that might boost up the job satisfaction of IT workers in specific.

Recommendations
For future studies, it is highly recommended to enhance the operational definition for the organizational structure variable to include more dimensions, such as size, formalization, and centralization. It is also recommended to study the effect of the organizational structure on other individual organizational behavior variables such as communication, performance, productivity, absenteeism and turnover. Holding the type of companies constant, it will be of great value if more variables that could affect job satisfaction could be studied.

It would be a great benefit as well to conduct similar studies in other industries such as manufacturing and education.

Limitations
The current research went through the following limitations and obstacles: 1- Time provided for conducting the research was inadequate 2- Most IT companies refused to give out their data 3- Some IT companies refused returning back the questionnaires after accepting participating in the study 4- Personal bias in filling the questionnaire 5- Human error might have occurred in data entry due to the large size of the data retrieved

REFERENCES
1- Relation of Organizational Structure to Job Satisfaction, Anxiety-Stress, and Performance. John M. Ivancevich and Jannes H. Donnelly, Jr. 2- Worthy, James C. 1950 "Organizational structure and employee morale." American Sociological Review, 24: 169-179. 3- Richardson, F. L W., Jr., and Charles R.Walker.1948 Human Relations in an expanding Company. New Haven: Labor and Management Center, Yale University. 4- Carpenter, Harrel H. 1971 "Formal organizational structural factors and perceived job satisfaction of classroom teachers." Administrative Science Quarterly, 16: 460-465 5- Ghiselli, Edwin E., and Jacob P. Siegel 1972 "Leadership and managerial success in tall and flat organization structures." Personnel Psychology, 25: 617-624. 6- The relationship between organizational structure and integration: the effects on manufacturing performance. Tafael Teixeira. Department of Management, Clemson university 7- Organization Structure and Communications. Jerald Hage, Michael Aiken and Cora Bagley Marrett. American Sociological Review, Vol. 36, No. 5 (Oct., 1971), pp. 860-871 8- Relationships of tall and flat organization structures to the satisfactions of foreign managers Lyman W. Porter and Jacob Siegel. University of California, Berkeley 9- Organizational Structure and the Performance and Job Satisfaction of Physiologists. Leo Meltzer and James Salter. American Sociological Review, Vol. 27, No. 3 (Jun., 1962), pp. 351-362 10- Douglas Frank Prawitt , a comparison of human resource allocation across auditing firms: The effects of structured .audit technology and environment, 1993 11- Knoop, R. (1995). Influence of participative decision-making on job satisfaction and organizational commitment of school principals. 12- Stacey R. Kessler, The Effects of Organizational Structure on Faculty Job Performance, Job Satisfaction, and Counterproductive Work Behavior, 2007

APPENDIX-A The Questionnaire (English and Arabic Versions)

University Of Jordan

A questionnaire about The effect of organizational structure on job satisfaction in IT companies

This research aims at measuring job satisfaction as a function of the organizational structure. Please read thoroughly and objectively answer the questions included in this questionnaire on the attached scale, keeping in mind that all information you submit will be confidentiality dealt with and just for the purpose of this research. This research is conducted as a partial fulfillment of the course Organizational Behavior requirements and is supervised by Dr. Ziad Al Bakhit.

Prepared by: Diala Khawaldeh MBA/ Management Student ID: 8090018 Huda Jaouni International Business Student ID: 8090514

Part 1: individual and organizational structure basic information

Instructions: Please fill the table below with reference to yourself and the IT organization you are currently employed at. 1- Individual Basic Information: 1. Gender 2. Age Male 20-30 31-40 Female 41-50 Above 50

3. Job level

Top Middle manager level Team manager leader

Other Employee (specify) . .

2. The organizations basic information: 1. Size of the organization (number of employees) 2. Number of managerial levels in the organization

1-20

2050

50100

100500

500- 1000+ 1000

5 or more

Part 2 Measuring Job Satisfaction

Instructions: The purpose of this part of the questionnaire is to give you a chance to tell how you feel about your present job, what things you are satisfied with and what things you are not satisfied with. On the following pages you will find statements about your present job, please do the following: -Read each statement carefully. -Decide how satisfied you feel about the aspect of your job described by the statement. Keeping the statement in mind: If you feel that your job gives you more than you expected, check the box under "Very Sat." (Very Satisfied). If you feel that your job gives you what you expected, check the box under "Sat." (Satisfied). If you cannot make up your mind whether or not the job gives you what you expected, check the box under "N (Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied). If you feel that your job gives you less than you expected, check the box under "Dissat."(Dissatisfied). If you feel that your job gives you much less than you expected, check the box under "Very Dissat." (Very Dissatisfied). -Do this for all statements. Please answer every item. -Be frank and honest. Give a true picture of your feelings about your present job.

Minnesota Job Satisfaction Questionnaire:

Satisfaction subscale
1- The chance to be of service to others 2- The chance to try out some of my own ideas 3- Being able to do the job without feeling it is morally wrong 4- The chance to work by myself 5- The variety in my work 6- The chance to have other workers look to me for direction 7- The chance to do the kind of work that I do best 8- The social position in the community that goes with the job 9- The policies and practices towards employees of this company 10- The way my supervisor and I understand each other 11- My job security 12- The amount of pay for the work that I do 13- The working conditions (heating, lighting, ventilation, etc..) on this job 14- The opportunities for advancement in this job 15- The technical know-how of my supervisor 16- The spirit of cooperation among my co-workers 17- The chance of being responsible of planning my work 18- The way I am noticed when I do a good job 19- Being able to see the results of the work I do 20- The chance to be active much of the time 21- The chance to be of service to people 22- The chance to do new and original things on my own 23- Being able to do things that dont go against my religious beliefs

Very Dissat. Dissat.

Sat. Very Sat.

24- The chance to work alone on the job 25- The chance to do different things from time to time 26- The chance to tell other workers how to do things 27- The chance to do work that is well suited to my abilities 28- The chance to be somebody in the community 29- Company policies and the way in which they are administered 30- The way my boss handles his/her employees 31- The way my job provides for a secure future 32- The chance to make as much money as my friends 33- The physical surroundings where I work 34- The chance of getting ahead on this job 35- The competence of my supervisor in making decisions 36- The chance to develop close friendships with my co-workers 37- The chance to make decisions on my own 38- The way I get full credit for the work I do 39- Being able to take pride in a job well done 40- Being able to do something much of the time 41- The chance to help people 42- The chance to try something different 43- Being able to do things that dont go against my conscience 44- The chance to be alone on the job 45- The routine in my work 46- The chance to supervise other people 47- The chance to make use of my best abilities 48- The chance to rub elbows with important people 49- The way employees are informed about company policies

50- The way my boss backs up his/her employees (with top management) 51- The way my job provides for steady employment 52- How my pay compares with that for similar jobs in other companies 53- The pleasantness of the working conditions 54- The way promotions are given out on this job 55- The way my boss delegates work to others 56- The friendliness of my co-workers 57- The chance to be responsible for the work of others 58- The recognition I get for the work I do 59- Being able to do something worthwhile 60- Being able to stay busy 61- The chance to do things for other people 62- The chance to develop new and better ways to do the job 63- The chance to do things that dont hurt other people 64- The chance to work independently of others 65- The chance to do something different everyday 66- The chance to tell people what to do 67- The chance to do something that makes use of my abilities 68- The chance to be important in the eyes of others 69- The way company policies are put into practice 70- the way my boss takes care of the complaints of his/her employees 71- how steady my job is 72- My pay and the amount of work I do 73- The physical working conditions of the job 74- The chances for advancement on this job 75- The way my boss provides help on hard problems

76- The way my co-workers are easy to make friends with 77- The freedom to use my own judgment 78- The way they usually tell me when I do my job well 79- The chance to do my best at all times 80- The chance to be "on the go" all the time 81- The chance to be of some small service to other people 82- The chance to try my own methods of doing the job 83- The chance to do the job without feeling I am cheating anyone 84- The chance to work away from others 85- The chance to do many different things on the job 86- The chance to tell others what to do 87- The chance to make use of my abilities and skills 88- The chance to have a definite place in the community 89- The way the company treats its employees 90- The personal relationship between my boss and his/her employees 91- The way layoffs and transfers are avoided in my job 92- How my pay compares with that of other workers 93- The working conditions 94- My chances for advancement 95- The way my boss trains his/her employees 96- The way my co-workers get along with each other 97- The responsibility of my job 98- The praise I get for doing a good job 99- The feeling of accomplishment I get from the job 100- Being able to keep busy all the time

" "

. .
: : 4858988 : : 8888988 : 0102/9002 : .

 8 :
: . 1. : 02-03 13-04 14-05 05 () ................ ................ 2. : 1. 2.

3. *

8888 +

885- 8888

88- 82- 5- 888- 82 85 88 885

4 3 2 8

1. ( ) 2.

 2:
: . : 8- . 2- . : ( ) () ( ) ( ). ( ).

3- . . 4- .

8- 2- 3- 4- 5- 6- 7- 8- 9- 88- 88- 28- 38- ( ...) 41- 58- 61- 78- 88- 91- 82- 82- 22- 32- 42- 52- 62- 72- 82- 92- 03- 83- 23- 33- 43- 53-

63- - 73- - 83- - 93- 84- 84- 24- 34- 44- 54- 64- 74 - 84 - 94- 85 85- 25- 35- 45- 55- 65- 75- 85- 95- 86- 86- 26- 36- 46- 56- 66- 76- 86- 96- 87- 87- 27- 37- 47-

57- 67- 77- 87- 97- 88- 88- 28- 38- 48- 58- 68- 78- 88- 98- 89- 89- 29- 39- 49- 59- 69- 79- 89- 99- 888-

APPENDIX-B SPSS Descriptive and Inferential Analysis Detailed Reports

Descriptive Analysis Detailed Reports

This section lists the detailed reports for all descriptive analysis mentioned in the documentation. Tables B1-5 list the arithmetic means for all job satisfaction dimensions and the overall job satisfaction categorized by structure type and organization name:

Table B1 Job Satisfaction levels in the organizations (Part-1)

Str. type flat Ability Achieve Utilization -ment 3.6286 3.7714 7 4.3000 6 4.4000 5 3.2194 31 3.5306 49 3.6727 22 3.4000 9 3.4000 20 3.5176 51 3.6286 7 3.6727 22 4.3000 7 4.2667 6 4.2800 5 3.4258 31 3.6653 49 3.7091 22 3.2222 9 3.5800 20 3.5725 51 3.7714 7 3.7091 22 4.2667 Advancement Authority 3.7714 3.9714 7 4.3000 6 3.4800 5 3.0516 31 3.3510 49 3.6818 22 3.3556 9 3.2300 20 3.4471 51 3.7714 7 3.6818 22 4.3000 7 4.0000 6 3.8800 5 3.3677 31 3.5837 49 3.7091 22 3.4444 9 3.5400 20 3.5961 51 3.9714 7 3.7091 22 4.0000

Organization name ExcellentTrai Mea n n N Method Mea n N MasterPieces Mea n N Progressoft Mea n N Total Mea n N tall knowledge Mea Horizon n N optimiza Mea n N STS Mea n N Total Mea n N Tota ExcellentTrai Mea l n n N knowledge Mea Horizon n N Method Mea n

Activity 3.6857 7 3.9667 6 4.2800 5 3.5677 31 3.7061 49 3.8182 22 3.9111 9 3.4300 20 3.6824 51 3.6857 7 3.8182 22 3.9667

N MasterPieces Mea n N optimiza Mea n N Progressoft Mea n N STS Mea n N Total Mea n N

6 4.4000 5 3.4000 9 3.2194 31 3.4000 20 3.5240 100

6 4.2800 5 3.2222 9 3.4258 31 3.5800 20 3.6180 100

6 4.2800 5 3.9111 9 3.5677 31 3.4300 20 3.6940 100

6 3.4800 5 3.3556 9 3.0516 31 3.2300 20 3.4000 100

6 3.8800 5 3.4444 9 3.3677 31 3.5400 20 3.5900 100

Table B2 Job Satisfaction levels in the organizations (Part-2)

Compan y Policies and Practice s 3.5714 7 4.1667 6 3.6800 5 2.8645 31 3.2082 49 3.7818 22

Str. type flat

tall

organization name ExcellentTra Mea in n N Method Mea n N MasterPiece Mea s n N Progressoft Mea n N Total Mea n N knowledge Mea Horizon n N

CoCompensati worker Creativit on s y 3.9143 3.7714 3.4571 7 4.1000 6 3.0400 5 3.3355 31 3.4816 49 3.7182 22 7 4.3333 6 3.6400 5 3.7871 31 3.8367 49 3.7636 22 7 4.3000 6 3.9200 5 3.4258 31 3.5878 49 3.7909 22

Independen ce 3.8857 7 4.0000 6 4.1200 5 3.6258 31 3.7592 49 3.9273 22

optimiza STS

Total

Tota ExcellentTra l in knowledge Horizon Method MasterPiece s optimiza

Progressoft

STS

Total

Mea n N Mea n N Mea n N Mea n N Mea n N Mea n N Mea n N Mea n N Mea n N Mea n N Mea n N

3.2000 9 3.3800 20 3.5216 51 3.5714 7 3.7818 22 4.1667 6 3.6800 5 3.2000 9 2.8645 31 3.3800 20 3.3680 100

3.1111 9 2.8200 20 3.2588 51 3.9143 7 3.7182 22 4.1000 6 3.0400 5 3.1111 9 3.3355 31 2.8200 20 3.3680 100

3.8222 9 3.7300 20 3.7608 51 3.7714 7 3.7636 22 4.3333 6 3.6400 5 3.8222 9 3.7871 31 3.7300 20 3.7980 100

3.4222 9 3.4000 20 3.5725 51 3.4571 7 3.7909 22 4.3000 6 3.9200 5 3.4222 9 3.4258 31 3.4000 20 3.5800 100

3.5778 9 3.5300 20 3.7098 51 3.8857 7 3.9273 22 4.0000 6 4.1200 5 3.5778 9 3.6258 31 3.5300 20 3.7340 100

Table B3 Job Satisfaction levels in the organizations (Part-3)

Moral Values Responsibility Security 3.6571 3.8000 3.9143 7 7 7 4.0333 4.3667 4.3333 6 6 6 3.7200 3.8400 4.2400 5 5 5 3.8774 3.4258 3.7419 31 31 31 3.8490 3.6367 3.8898 49 49 49 3.8273 3.7091 3.8091 22 22 22 3.4667 3.4889 9 9 3.6667 9 3.5800 3.4300 3.6600 20 20 20 3.6157 3.6039 3.7333 51 51 51 3.8000 3.9143 3.6571 7 7 7 3.7091 3.8091 3.8273 22 22 22 4.3667 4.3333 4.0333 6 6 6 3.8400 4.2400 3.7200 5 5 5 3.4667 3.4889 3.6667 9 9 9 3.4258 3.7419 3.8774 31 31 31 3.6600 3.5800 3.4300 20 20 20 3.7900 3.6260 3.7440 100 100 100

Str. type flat

tall

Total

organization name Recognition ExcellentTrain Mean 3.4857 N 7 Method Mean 4.2333 N 6 MasterPieces Mean 4.0000 N 5 Progressoft Mean 3.1871 N 31 Total Mean 3.4408 N 49 knowledge Mean 3.5273 Horizon N 22 optimiza Mean N 3.2000 STS Mean 9 N 3.3200 Total Mean 20 N 3.3882 ExcellentTrain Mean 51 N 3.4857 knowledge Mean 7 Horizon N 3.5273 Method Mean 22 N 4.2333 MasterPieces Mean 6 N 4.0000 optimiza Mean 5 N 3.2000 Progressoft Mean 9 N 3.1871 31 3.3200 STS Mean N 20 Total Mean 3.4140 N 100

Table B4 Job Satisfaction levels in the organizations (Part-4)

Social Service 3.6571 7 4.1667 6 3.4400 5 3.3419 31 3.4980 49 3.5364 22 3.4222 9 3.2700 20 3.4118 51 3.6571 7 3.5364 22 4.1667 6 3.4400 5 3.4222 9 3.3419 31 Social Status 4.0000 7 4.3667 6 4.0400 5 3.1871 31 3.5347 49 3.7545 22 3.5778 9 3.7000 20 3.7020 51 4.0000 7 3.7545 22 4.3667 6 4.0400 5 3.5778 9 3.1871 31 SupervisionHR 3.5429 7 4.3000 6 4.3200 5 3.4968 31 3.6857 49 3.8727 22 3.4889 9 3.4200 20 3.6275 51 3.5429 7 3.8727 22 4.3000 6 4.3200 5 3.4889 9 3.4968 31 SupervisionTech 3.7429 7 4.2333 6 3.8800 5 3.0452 31 3.3755 49 3.7182 22 3.3111 9 3.5400 20 3.5765 51 3.7429 7 3.7182 22 4.2333 6 3.8800 5 3.3111 9 3.0452 31

Str. type flat

tall

Total

organization name ExcellentTrain Mean N Method Mean N MasterPieces Mean N Progressoft Mean N Total Mean N knowledge Mean Horizon N optimiza Mean N STS Mean N Total Mean N ExcellentTrain Mean N knowledge Mean Horizon N Method Mean N MasterPieces Mean N optimiza Mean N Progressoft Mean N

STS Total

Mean N Mean N

3.2700 20 3.4540 100

3.7000 20 3.6200 100

3.4200 20 3.6560 100

3.5400 20 3.4780 100

Table B5 Job Satisfaction levels in the organizations (Part-5)

Working conditions 3.6857 7 4.3333 6 3.6400 5 3.7290 31 3.7878 49 3.8273 22 3.1111 9 3.3300 20 3.5059 51 3.6857 7 3.8273 22 4.3333 6 3.6400 5 3.1111 9 3.7290 31 3.3300 20 3.6440 100 Job Satisfaction 3.7200 7 4.2100 6 3.8800 5 3.3881 31 3.5863 49 3.7555 22 3.4278 9 3.4315 20 3.5706 51 3.7200 7 3.7555 22 4.2100 6 3.8800 5 3.4278 9 3.3881 31 3.4315 20 3.5783 100

Str. type flat

tall

Total

organization name Variety ExcellentTrain Mean 3.4857 N 7 Method Mean 4.1000 N 6 MasterPieces Mean 3.7600 N 5 Progressoft Mean 3.0581 N 31 Total Mean 3.3184 N 49 knowledge Mean 3.9545 Horizon N 22 optimiza Mean 3.3556 N 9 STS Mean 3.3400 N 20 Total Mean 3.6078 N 51 ExcellentTrain Mean 3.4857 N 7 KH Mean 3.9545 N 22 Method Mean 4.1000 N 6 MasterPieces Mean 3.7600 N 5 optimiza Mean 3.3556 N 9 Progressoft Mean 3.0581 N 31 STS Mean 3.3400 N 20 Total Mean 3.4660 N 100

Inferential Analysis
This section lists the detailed reports for all inferential analysis (the t-tests) mentioned in the documentation. The Tables B6 illustrates the t-tests results for the 21 relations studied in this research.
Table B6 Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances

t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Sig. (2tailed ) .936 Mean Differenc e .01297 Std. Error Differenc e .16203

Ability Utilization

Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

F 1.45 9

Sig. .23 0

t .080

df 98

Lower .30858 .30948

Upper .33451

.080

95.50 9

.937

.01297

.16243

.33541

Acheivement

Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

.239

.62 6

.672

98

.503

.09276

.13793

.18096 .18134

.36648

.672

96.98 1

.503

.09276

.13810

.36686

Activity

Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

2.02 6

.15 8

.181

98

.857

.02377

.13161

.23741 .23668

.28495

.181

96.90 8

.857

.02377

.13123

.28422

Advancement

Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

.614

.43 5

-.622

98

.535

-.09604

.15433

.40230 .40364

.21022

-.620

93.31 8

.537

-.09604

.15490

.21156

Authority

Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

1.42 5

.23 5

-.101

98

.920

-.01240

.12342

.25733 .25846

.23252

-.100

92.92 1

.920

-.01240

.12391

.23365

Company Policies and practices

Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

2.59 2

.11 1

2.034 2.026

98

.045

-.31341

.15411

.61923 .62064

.00758 .00617

92.91 8

.046

-.31341

.15471

Compensatio n

Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

.807

.37 1

1.225

98

.224

.22281

.18193

.13822 .13765

.58384

1.227

97.84 7

.223

.22281

.18163

.58326

Co-workers

Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

.016

.90 0

.649

98

.518

.07595

.11695

.15613 .15620

.30803

.649

97.72 7

.518

.07595

.11698

.30810

Creativity

Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

.069

.79 4

.105

98

.916

.01521

.14430

.27115 .27040

.30156

.106

97.13 0

.916

.01521

.14391

.30082

Independenc e

Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

.531

.46 8

.417

98

.678

.04938

.11842

.18562 .18634

.28438

.416

95.13 6

.678

.04938

.11874

.28510

Moral Values

Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

1.19 5

.27 7

1.099

98

.275

.11565

.10526

.09324 .09279

.32454

1.101

97.52 5

.274

.11565

.10503

.32409

Recognition

Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

.853

.35 8

.351

98

.726

.05258

.14974

.24457 .24525

.34973

.350

96.07 9

.727

.05258

.15005

.35042

Responsibility

Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

.101

.75 1

.447

98

.656

.05826

.13021

.20013 .20001

.31666

.448

97.97 4

.655

.05826

.13015

.31653

Security

Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

.002

.96 8

.167

98

.868

.02105

.12594

.22887 .22851

.27096

.167

97.91 0

.867

.02105

.12576

.27061

Social Service

Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

4.00 2

.04 8

2.436

98

.017

.28587

.11735

.05300

.51875

2.448

93.82 9

.016

.28587

.11676

.05405

.51770

Social Status

Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

.737

.39 3

.677

98

.500

.08619

.12723

.16629 .16655

.33868

.677

97.27 4

.500

.08619

.12735

.33893

SupervisionHR

Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

.490

.48 6

1.092 1.091

98

.277

-.16727

.15312

.47113 .47155

.13660

97.00 8

.278

-.16727

.15331

.13701

SupervisionTech

Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

.190

.66 4

1.345 1.344

98

.182

-.20096

.14940

.49744 .49767

.09552

97.44 6

.182

-.20096

.14950

.09575

Variety

Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

.521

.47 2

2.281 2.277

98

.025

-.28948

.12689

.54128 .54180

.03767 .03715

96.33 6

.025

-.28948

.12712

Working conditions

Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

2.13 0

.14 8

2.129

98

.036

.28187

.13242

.01910

.54465

2.137

95.75 8

.035

.28187

.13190

.02004

.54370

Job Satisfaction

Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

.216

.64 3

.163

98

.871

.01574

.09672

.17621 .17638

.20768

.163

97.36 3

.871

.01574

.09680

.20786