Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

FEDERAL STATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION

OF HIGHER EDUCATION

NATIONAL RESEARCH UNIVERSITY

HIGHER SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS

Saint Petersburg School of Economics and Management

Master's thesis

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION DETERMINANTS: A RUSSIAN MINING COMPANY'S CASE

In the field 38.04.02 `Management'

Educational programme `MANAGEMENT AND ANALYTICS FOR BUSINESS'

Devier Alexandra Vladimirovna

Sharafutdinova Regina Fanilevna

Taganova Anastasia Andreevna

Saint Petersburg 2020

Abstract

This study attempts to analyze how satisfied employees of a Russian gold mining company feel about various aspects of the job and which of these aspects impact their overall job satisfaction. It also aims to find out how employees' age, organizational tenure and the division an employee works in affect their satisfaction level. This research uses the data gathered via an internal corporate job satisfaction survey and analyzes it using SPSS 21.0. Methods of statistical analysis such as correlation analysis, means comparison and stepwise regression were applied to the final sample of 527 complete questionnaire responses.

The research found that employees tend to evaluate their improvement in satisfaction lower than they evaluate their current level of satisfaction. The level of satisfaction does not differ significantly for different age or tenure groups; however, it is significantly different for employees of various divisions. The results also demonstrate that, based on Herzberg's Two Factor Theory, the employees in the sample are more satisfied with hygiene aspects of the job, such as working conditions, remuneration and communication, than with motivating factors such as opportunities for professional growth and development. Among the 28 independent variables attributed to the questionnaire items, the work itself, salary, communication with the supervisor and other divisions and, finally, availability of working tools emerged as reliable predictors of overall job satisfaction.

This study adds to the literature on job satisfaction both empirically and theoretically as it analyzes a relatively large sample for diverse aspects of job satisfaction, fitting the findings into the context of the mining industry. The results also have several managerial implications which include human resources management recommendations and suggestions for surveying improvements.

Keywords: job satisfaction, employee satisfaction, Herzberg's Two Factor Theory, hygiene factors, motivating factors, mining industry.

Table of contents

Introduction

1. Literature review

1.1 Job satisfaction concept

1.2 Determinants of job satisfaction in literature

2. Research design and methodology

2.1 Organizational settings and surveying approach

2.2 Questionnaire design and variables' description

2.3 Tools and statistical analysis methods

3. Results and findings

3.1 Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis

3.2 Comparing the current satisfaction level with its perceived change

3.3 Comparing means of satisfaction with motivating and hygiene factors

3.4 Comparing means for different groups of respondents

3.5 Regression analysis

4. Discussion and managerial implications

Conclusion

References

Appendix

Introduction

Organizations from various industries consider their employees the most important resource they have, and even such asset-intensive industries as metals and mining is not an exception to this. To raise employees' loyalty and performance, companies strive to measure, monitor and improve their job satisfaction. Both among academics and practitioners, job satisfaction has been a subject of interest in management science during the whole last century, in an attempt to understand the factors which drive job satisfaction and how it impacts productivity and turnover.

A large number of studies have been carried out in the field of employee satisfaction across various industries, both in public and in private sector. However, little research was found in the mining industry, and no relevant papers relating to the gold mining industry in particular were identified. At the same time, with gold being a relatively safe asset that is very demanded during crisis, and with the price for gold rising during the last year, gold mining companies' shares represent a big interest among investors, who are also demanding more and more for the company's social responsibility. Precious metal miners and their labor practices have become a subject of attention among institutional investors. For gold mining companies, it means that more effort should be made to create and maintain the image of a trusted employer, and more attention should be given to employees' satisfaction with workplaces.

The purpose of this research is to analyze how satisfied employees feel about various aspects of the job and which of these aspects impact the overall job satisfaction in a gold mining company, on the example of a Russian gold mining site owned by a large international mining company group. It also aims to find out how employee age, organizational tenure and the company's division an employee works in affect the satisfaction level. Therefore, the research questions of this study are the following:

1) How does the current satisfaction level of employees relate to the perceived change in satisfaction since last year?

2) Is the average level of satisfaction different for motivating and hygiene factors, as classified by the Herzberg's Two Factor Theory?

3) Does the level of satisfaction differ significantly for employees of various ages, tenure and from different company divisions?

4) What motivational and hygiene factors play a significant role in job satisfaction?

The data for this research was gathered via one of the regular corporate job satisfaction research and includes responses of 527 employees of various functions and hierarchy levels.

This paper is going to consist of four main sections: literature review which states the current knowledge on job satisfaction theories and summarizes prior empirical studies in this area; research design and methodology which includes a brief description of the organizational context, surveying approach, questionnaire design and variables' description; results and findings of the conducted quantitative analysis; and, finally, discussion of the obtained results and their managerial implications. The paper is 39 pages long and cites 43 sources, mostly articles from international scientific journals relevant to the topic of the study.

This study adds to the literature on job satisfaction both empirically and theoretically as it analyzes a relatively large sample for diverse aspects of job satisfaction and discusses the results in the context of the mining industry. The practical value of this study is that it would help to indicate the areas where the company should invest most to increase employee's satisfaction. It may also reveal any differences between age and tenure groups, and thus help the employer to build several strategies of increasing employees' loyalty for targeted at different groups of employees. Altogether, this will provide additional information for the company to successfully mitigate the risks associated with poor job satisfaction, such as low productivity and growing turnover.

From the theoretical standpoint, the study is expected to support or argue the most common job satisfaction theories. In this study, it is planned to look at the case of employees' satisfaction in the mining company through the lens of Herzberg's Two Factor Theory (Herzberg et al., 1959). According to Herzberg, the issues that affect job satisfaction can be divided into two groups: “Hygiene” and Motivators. Hygiene issues are those that are more likely to prevent employees from dissatisfaction rather than to increase their satisfaction above “status-quo”. This group of issues includes such topics as remuneration, benefits, administrative policies, supervision, interpersonal relations and working conditions. On the contrary, “motivators” tend to improve employees' satisfaction from the working process. They are such topics as nature of work itself, achievement, recognition, responsibility and advancement. The findings will be discussed in the context of the given industry, and managerial implications will be suggested.

1. Literature review

With the variety of definitions of job satisfaction given above, the same wide range of approaches is used to measure job satisfaction and define its predictors. This part will, firstly, provide an overview of theories and methodologies on the subject, and, secondly, look at what particular relationships had been studied by job satisfaction researchers, with the focus on studies in metals and mining, manufacturing and transportation industries as the ones which are closest to the object of this study.

It is important to mention that job satisfaction is not an absolute measure but merely an indicator for a range of job characteristics that might influence employees' productivity (Hoboubi et al., 2017) and turnover (Stamolampros et al., 2019, Zhang et al., 2019), affecting the business results and reputation of the company as a whole. That is why the analysis of factors influencing job satisfaction is one of the fundamental issues in management, with numerous empirical exploratory studies investigating various aspects of the topic and from different angles. To look deeper into the prior research, a meta-analysis of the existing studies on job satisfaction factors in was conducted.

1.1 Job satisfaction concept

The idea of job satisfaction was first evolved by Elton Mayo in his Hawthorne studies in the late 1920s. They concluded that the way employees feel and behave can impact their working practices. Social connections and mental characteristics are the primary drivers of job satisfaction and efficiency among employees (Robbins, 2002).

Robert Hoppock (1935) was also one of the first researchers who gave a definition to job satisfaction, which is considered to be the most cited one. Hoppock refers to job satisfaction as “any combination of psychological, physiological, and environmental circumstances that causes a person truthfully to say: “I am satisfied with my job” (Hoppock, 1935). Later the idea of job satisfaction has been extensively developed and defined by numerous researchers until today.

Herzberg et al. (1959) suggested a different approach, contrasting to others existing before. This concept, referred to as Two Factor Theory or Motivation-Hygiene Theory, implies that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are not directly related to each other because they have different motivators: intrinsic and extrinsic, respectively. Intrinsic factors such as those that are related to the completed work, for instance, the satisfaction of work well done, a sense of achievement, define the satisfaction. At the same time, extrinsic factors or “hygiene factors”, such as salary and job security, result in dissatisfaction.

Herzberg's Two Factor Theory found recognition and support among researchers at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries. For example, Zohar and Luria (2005), while exploring motivating and hygiene aspects such as promotion and salary, emphasize that operational safety is a key factor of employees' satisfaction. Navarro-Abal et al. (2018) proved that both groups of factors affect job satisfaction of qualified professionals.

An author of the Goal setting theory and a pioneer in researching work motivation and job satisfaction E. Locke defined it as “being an emotional response that results from the employees' perceived fulfillment of their needs and what they believe the company to have offered” (Locke, 1969). He argued that the level of job satisfaction depicts the correlation between emotional reactions and the job or job experience. In order to provide reliable results and get a deeper understanding of job satisfaction nature, conceptual analysis is needed.

Another frequently applied definition was developed by Smith, Kendall and Hulin (1969) and is known as the concept of the Job Descriptive Index. It aimed to measure job satisfaction from five perspectives: work, supervision, co-workers, pay and promotion.

Maslow's theory had a strong influence on the development of job satisfaction concept. Therefore, some researchers provided their definitions based on the satisfaction of needs (Conrad, 1985). It shifted the key idea of job satisfaction from the emotional component to cognitive processes. Spector (1997) defines job satisfaction as an extent to which people like or dislike their jobs.

In the reviewed literature, both terms “job satisfaction” and “employee satisfaction” are encountered. Researchers use them differently depending on the field of science and a kind of research. Generally, there are two basic approaches to how these two notions are used. In certain cases, “job satisfaction” and “employee satisfaction” are used in similar ways as synonyms - for example, Singh and Jain (2013) use these definitions simultaneously with alternation throughout the text. However, when giving descriptions to the notions, they refer to employee satisfaction as a collection of positive and/or negative feelings that an individual holds toward his or her job, while to job satisfaction as a part of life satisfaction.

However, when research involves the relationship between customers and employees, in particular, their level of satisfaction and co-dependence, the term “employee satisfaction” is more appropriate (Chi, 2009). With “job satisfaction” being the most common and general notion, Matzler, Fuchs and Schubert (2004) explore “employee satisfaction” drivers together with “customer satisfaction” drivers, and how these two notions correlate with each other. The “customer satisfaction” factor is not applicable to the present research due to the industry choice; therefore “job satisfaction” and “employee satisfaction” terms are used as synonyms.

Since the notion and determinants of job satisfaction have already been studied by numerous authors around the world, this paper will focus on the contextual meaning of each variable and their interconnections, taking into account the employment practices in the mining industry. Mining has always been perceived as a risky industry which brings a lot of potential hazards for employees, as well as for local communities and environment. This industry can also be viewed as falling behind in providing good working conditions due to high safety risks and often remote location of the mines with harsh weather conditions. However, with technologies and innovations such as high-quality safety equipment, remote mining fleet dispatching, underground positioning systems and others responsible mining companies manage to improve their safety indicators every year, creating a better image as potential employers.

1.2 Determinants of job satisfaction in literature

An American psychologist Herzberg mentioned above is one of the earliest researchers who studied job satisfaction. His Two Factor Theory (Herzberg et al., 1959) is widely used by empirical researchers of employees' satisfaction and motivation - Stamolampros et al. (2019), Usman et al. (2018), Raziq and Maulabakhsh (2015), Sell and Cleal (2011) and others. He theorized that employee satisfaction is influenced by two set factors: satisfiers and dissatisfiers, or motivators and hygiene factors. By motivators, Herzberg meant factors that can encourage employees to perform better, and that are driven by their need for professional growth. The typical motivators are the work itself, recognition, sense of achievement, responsibility and growth opportunities. By hygiene factors, Herzberg describes conditions that won't encourage people to work harder, but that can lead to low motivation and discomfort if they are not fulfilled. Hygiene factors include administrative policies, supervision, salary, interpersonal relationships and working conditions. A shortage of motivating factors that positively encourage employees results in employees focusing on hygiene factors.

Later, most authors who studied employee satisfaction also considered factors that Herzberg applied in his works. Tshivhase and Vilakazi (2018), Kwon, Byun and Park (2020), Diriwaechter and Shvartsman (2018), Daud (2016) have analyzed such hygiene factors as salary and payment for work as one of the most valuable factors that influence job satisfaction. Employees expect a certain level of monetary rewards for their professional and personal contribution to the company's success. In order to compete for the most talented employees, organizations need to provide attractive and equitable pay. It has been argued that salary is a motivator for many employees initially, but some authors like Tessema, Ready and Embaye (2013) believe that it is not a powerful motivator in a long run. The role of pay in attracting and retaining people at work has been recognized for many decades and is increasingly important in today's competitive, economic environment where strategic compensation planning is needed (Jackson and Schuler, 2006). As salary is one of the most widely used parameters in research, devoted to employee satisfaction analysis, it is also taken into account in the current study.

As for other hygiene factors, mentioned by Herzberg, security is considered in our study too. Raziq and Maulabakhsh (2015), and Varma, Patil and Ulle (2018) analyzed the influence of job safety and security on job satisfaction. They come to the undoubted conclusion that employees must be confident that job conditions are secure and that they are not under the constant threat of being laid-off.

Most authors combine hygiene and motivating factors in their job satisfaction research. For example, social interaction between co-workers is found to be closely connected with the emergence of problems with recognition and self-concept. Recognition and self-concept help employees to evaluate their effectiveness and significance for the organization according to Tessema, Ready and Embaye (2013), Amoatemaa and Kyeremeh (2016). The idea of recognition becomes even more evident when it is associated with the parent theory (grand theory), as mentioned by Frederick Herzberg's Two-Factor theory that states that employees who get recognition from the company will demonstrate higher job satisfaction. Usman et al. (2018) also analyzed the impact of recognition at employee satisfaction. Karamanis, Arnis and Pappa (2019) and Kaiser (2014) distinguish two types of job satisfaction: endogenous or intrinsic (related to factors such as work activity, independence, creativity, security, social status) and exogenous or extrinsic (related to human relations at work, remuneration, colleagues, working conditions, etc.).

Organizational culture, especially culture that is team-oriented, enhances innovation, employee development, and value customers lead to higher job satisfaction, especially in the case of high perceived person-organization fit (Tepeci & Bartlett, 2002). Armstrong (2009), Dowling, Festing and Engle (2009), Stamolampros et al. (2019), Tshivhase and Vilakazi (2018) analyzed the influence of culture (collectivist or individualist) at job satisfaction. Factors related to organizational culture, such as corporate professional contests and other events, were included in this research to support or argue the earlier findings.

As for quantitative research outcomes, there is no consistency among authors. Despite the usage of material reward as an independent variable in most of the works, results differ significantly from study to study. Diriwaechter and Shvartsman (2018) analyzed how individual job satisfaction is affected by salary changes, and the results showed that wage increase has a statistically significant positive effect on job satisfaction for up to four years after the increase. The studies of Tessema, Ready and Embaye (2013) and Kwon, Byun and Park (2020) also proved that salary does play an important role in job satisfaction. Daud (2016) explored the impact of individual and work-related factors on job satisfaction in the context of job-hopping and growing employee turnover and found that salary, growth opportunities and maturity level led to higher job satisfaction. However, research of Tshivhase and Vilakazi (2018) show that salary is not significant in forming job satisfaction, especially in the long-term. Karamanis, Arnis and Pappa (2019) who analyzed satisfaction of workers from their working environment during the financial crisis in Greece, found that satisfaction from endogenous factors (such as the job activity, independence and creativity) is generally higher than from exogenous ones (such as remuneration, colleagues and working conditions). Kaiser (2014) research of public service workers also showed a general dominance of intrinsic motivation (like work content and customer contact) in inducing the workers to choose public sector jobs.

More typical results appeared for cultural aspects and recognition in creating employee satisfaction. As for company and country culture, Tessema, Ready and Embaye (2013) and Tshivhase and Vilakazi (2018) prove that cultural aspects do not significantly influence job satisfaction of employees. Concerning recognition, Tessema, Ready and Embaye (2013), Usman et al. (2018) showed that recognition is critical for job satisfaction. The results may suggest that regardless of culture, salary, all respondent groups have similar perceptions about the importance of recognition at work. The analysis of key job satisfaction drives in the literature and relevant findings is presented in Appendix 1.

As factors influencing job satisfaction differ from industry to industry, several studies specifically in the mining sector have been reviewed to develop the approach to this research. Some researchers who analyzed job satisfaction in the mining industry took into consideration five satisfaction besides usual work-related parameters. For example, Chipunza et al. (2016) admitted that if employees are happy with their lives, they are more satisfied with their work as well. What is more, research of Tshivhase, Vilakazi (2018) showed that work-life balance in the mining industry is one of the most significant factors of job satisfaction.

employee job satisfaction motivational

2. Research design and methodology

2.1 Organizational settings and surveying approach

The mining site where the research was carried out is a subsidiary of an international gold and silver mining group. The operation comprises an open-pit mine, a “carbon-in-pulp” (CIP) ore processing plant and a heap leach circuit and has been delivering stable operational results since its launch. In the year when the survey was held, the total headcount of the mining operation consisted of 890 people. Unlike many other operations of the group where people work on a fly-in/fly-out basis due to the remoteness of sites, in the given company most employees live in small towns near the site and commute daily to work. The divisions and functions of the company include two processing plants (carbon-in-pulp and heap leaching), open pit mining, transport and mobile machinery fleet, energy supply unit, laboratory, quality control, sample preparation unit, procurement, geology, surveying, exploration and process automatization divisions. To ensure the coverage of all groups of employees, minimum sample size by was defined for each division.

The survey was conducted during the company's regular job satisfaction study via a self-reported anonymous questionnaire. Due to the unstable internet connection at the mine site and the fact that not all the employees use computers in their work, the conducted survey was paper-based. The questionnaire was distributed among all groups of employees, including the heads of divisions. Groups of employees were gathered at a scheduled time in a dedicated place, in order to avoid the situation when they are distracted from work and unwilling to fill in the questionnaire. The estimated time to fill out the questionnaire was 7-10 minutes, after which the questionnaires were collected in a box, and employees could return to work.

The surveying campaign was held for several days until all shift workers were surveyed. Before filling out the questionnaires, brief instructions were provided: the employees were explained the importance of the survey for the company and were asked to answer all the questions and avoid neutral answers as much as possible. Overall, the questionnaire was completed by 622 respondents, thus the response rate of the survey accounted for 70%. After excluding the responses with missing values for any of the questionnaire items, 527 cases were available for further analysis.

2.2 Questionnaire design and variables' description

The survey was conducted as a part of the regular assessment, organized by the mining company group's head office and held at each of its operating sites once in two years. The initial goal of the survey was to find out the overall level of satisfaction at each site and satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) with various aspects of work, thus revealing possible gaps in working conditions. However, mainly frequency analysis was applied to the collected data at that time. The analysis of the job satisfaction's drivers and other possible interrelations between the answers to the questionnaire's items has never been done, leaving much scope for the additional dataset analysis which is carried out within this research.

To collect the data, a structured questionnaire was used, which was designed based on the list of issues which are considered most significant for employees of the mining company, taking into account specific request of the company's management. The questionnaires slightly differ for different operation sites of the mining group, depending on the working conditions at the particular mine (e.g. if the employees for on a fly-in/fly-out basis or not) and specific request of the operations' directors.

The final questionnaire form used for the current research consisted of three parts. The first part included socio-demographic data: tenure, age and company division. To ensure the anonymity of the survey, the gender data was not collected, as there are much fewer female employees working in the company than males, and they could have been identified if the gender information had been collected. The second part consisted of two general questions about satisfaction: 1) how the respondent evaluates his or her overall satisfaction now and 2) how the respondent evaluates its change in comparison with the previous year. The third part was represented by 25 questions referring to the employee's satisfaction with specific job aspects, covering such topics as working conditions, remuneration, relationship with colleagues and professional opportunities and others. The summary of the survey questionnaire that was used for the current study is presented in Table 1.

Each item in the questionnaire was assigned a separate variable. The answers to the non-demographic questions were provided on a 5-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from 1 which means the most negative response (“Completely dissatisfied”/ “Decreased significantly”) to 5 which means the most positive response (“Completely satisfied”/ “Increased significantly”). For each of these questions, an additional answer option “Not sure” was available. The percentage of respondents answering “Not sure” turned out to be relatively low, varying from 1% to 5% of all the responses, so these answers were interpreted as “missing values” and not taken into account in the current research. The variables attributed to each survey question and used further in the data analysis are outlined in Table 2.

Table 1 Summary of the questionnaire

Part of the questionnaire	Questions examples
Demographic characteristics	Q0: How long have you been working in the organization? (1) Less than 1 year (2) 1-3 years (3) 4-9 years (4) More than 10 years Q0: What is your age? (1) 18-24 y.o. (2) 25-34 y.o. (3) 35-44 y.o. (4) 45-54 y.o. (5) 55-64 y.o. (6) 65 and more	Q0: What division do you work in? (1) Processing plant 1 (2) Transport and mobile machinery (3) Processing plant 2 (4) Open pit mining (5) Energy supply (6) Laboratory (7) Quality control (8) Sample preparation (9) Procurement (10) Geology (11) Surveying (12) Exploration (13) Automatization
General satisfaction questions	Q1: How would you evaluate your overall job satisfaction on a scale 1 to 5? (1) Completely dissatisfied (2) More likely to be dissatisfied (3) Neutral (4) More likely to be satisfied (5) Completely satisfied (6) Not sure	Q2: How has your overall job satisfaction changed, as compared to the previous year? (1) Decreased significantly (2) Decreased moderately (3) Remained the same (4) Improved moderately (5) Improved significantly (6) Not sure
Aspect-specific questions (some examples)	Q3: How would you evaluate your satisfaction with salary and payroll terms? (1) Completely dissatisfied (2) More likely to be dissatisfied (3) Neutral (4) More likely to be satisfied (5) Completely satisfied (6) Not sure Q4: How would you evaluate your satisfaction with other types of monetary recognition? (1) Completely dissatisfied (2) More likely to be dissatisfied (3) Neutral	(4) More likely to be satisfied (5) Completely satisfied (6) Not sure Q5: How would you evaluate your satisfaction with social benefits? (1) Completely dissatisfied (2) More likely to be dissatisfied (3) Neutral (4) More likely to be satisfied (5) Completely satisfied (6) Not sure

Table 2 Attribution of variables to survey questions

Variable	Variable measure	Question	Dependent/ Independent
Overall satisfaction	Ordinal	How would you evaluate your overall job satisfaction on a scale 1 to 5?	Dependent
Perceived change in satisfaction	Ordinal	How has your overall job satisfaction changed, as compared to the previous year?	Dependent
Salary	Ordinal	How would you evaluate your satisfaction with salary and payroll terms?	Independent
Bonuses	Ordinal	How would you evaluate your satisfaction with other types of monetary recognition?	Independent
Benefits	Ordinal	How would you evaluate your satisfaction with social benefits?	Independent
The work itself	Ordinal	How would you evaluate your satisfaction with the content of your job responsibilities?	Independent
Promotion opportunities	Ordinal	How would you evaluate your satisfaction with promotion opportunities	Independent
Development opportunities	Ordinal	How would you evaluate your satisfaction with professional development opportunities?	Independent
Working conditions	Ordinal	How would you evaluate your satisfaction with working conditions?	Independent
Safety conditions	Ordinal	How would you evaluate the safety or your workplace?	Independent
Technical equipment	Ordinal	How would you evaluate the technical equipment of your workplace?	Independent
Stress exposure	Ordinal	How would you evaluate your satisfaction with the level of exposure to mental strain/stress at work?	Independent
Work time	Ordinal	How would you evaluate your daily work duration?	Independent
Transportation	Ordinal	How would you evaluate transportation conditions to and from work?	Independent
Safety equipment	Ordinal	How would you evaluate the availability and quality of protective clothing and personal safety equipment?	Independent
Working tools	Ordinal	How would you evaluate the working equipment (tools)?	Independent
Documentation	Ordinal	How would you evaluate the availability and quality of instructions, plans and other documentation?	Independent
Communication with the supervisor	Ordinal	How would you evaluate your communication on work-related issues with the supervisor?	Independent
Relationship with the supervisor	Ordinal	How would you evaluate your relationship with the supervisor?	Independent
Communication with colleagues	Ordinal	How would you evaluate your communication on work-related issues with your colleagues?	Independent
Atmosphere	Ordinal	How would you evaluate the atmosphere at work?	Independent
Communication with other divisions	Ordinal	How would you evaluate communicating on work-related issues with other divisions?	Independent
Living conditions	Ordinal	How would you evaluate living conditions?	Independent
Food quality	Ordinal	How would you evaluate food quality?	Independent
Sports and leisure facilities	Ordinal	How would you evaluate sports and leisure facilities?	Independent
Professional competitions	Ordinal	How would you evaluate professional competitions?	Independent
Professional events	Ordinal	How would you evaluate professional events?	Independent
Organizational tenure	Ordinal	How long have you worked in the company?	Independent
Age	Ordinal	What is your age?	Independent
Division	Nominal	What division do you work in?	Independent

To test the reliability of the collected data, Cronbach's Alpha test was run with respect to all 27 non-demographic questions. The results indicated that the survey data is reliable with Cronbach's Alpha coefficient being equal to 0.942.

Although we imply that the anonymity of the survey ensured unbiased results, Harman's single factor test was additionally applied to the dataset to ensure that there is no single factor accounting for a large portion of the variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003). According to the obtained results, the single factor extracted accounts for 38% that is far less than half of the variance.?

2.3 Tools and statistical analysis methods

To formulate an approach to the data analysis for the current study, numerous papers with similar research questions have been analyzed. Most of the authors in similar studies apply a combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods. As for the qualitative method in analyzing job satisfaction, Spanjol, Tam and Tam (2014) use interviews and surveys to investigate the meanings, interpretations and relations of job satisfaction factors. To identify relationships between variables, regression analysis tool is widely applied in employee satisfaction analysis, where job satisfaction is the dependent variable and other parameters like education level, gender, compensation etc. are independent variables.

Several steps of statistical analysis are planned to answer each of the research questions which are based on the purpose of the study. To conduct the quantitative analysis of the collected data, IBM SPSS Statistics tool was used. The paper-based questionnaires' responses were put into digital format and coded. The chapter below describes the statistical tools and methods that were used to analyze the data and answer the research questions.

Research question 1: How does the current satisfaction level of employees relate to the perceived change in satisfaction since last year? Or, in other words, do employees tend to respond differently to the question on the current level of satisfaction and the question on how has their satisfaction improved since last year?

T-test was run to see if the answers to two main questions - “How would you evaluate your overall job satisfaction?” and “How has your overall job satisfaction changed, as compared to the previous year?” differ significantly, thus answering the first research question;

Research question 2: Does the average level of satisfaction with motivating and hygiene factors differ, based on Herzberg's Two Factor Theory?

To find out how the factors influencing job satisfaction align with the Herzberg's two-factor theory, all the non-demographic questions in the questionnaire were divided by experts into hygiene and motivating factors. The work itself, promotion opportunities, development opportunities, professional competitions and corporate professional events were attributed to motivators as they are directly related to the essence of the activity itself and its nature. For example, yearly professional celebrations and competitions such as the Metallurgist Day or the Geologist Day serve as a form of recognition and respect to the job the person is doing. All the other factors (salary, bonuses, benefits, working and safety conditions, technical and safety equipment, working tools, stress exposure, working time, transportation to and from work, documentation availability, communication with the supervisor and colleagues, relationship with the supervisor, communication with other divisions, atmosphere, living conditions, food quality and sports and leisure facilities) were considered to be hygiene factors as they are related to the environment in which the work takes place and include such aspects as remuneration, work safety, equipment, communication with colleagues and supervisors, etc. These factors are unlikely, according to the two-factor theory, to motivate a person actively to stay with the company. However, if there are problems in these areas, it can cause feelings of irritation and annoyance among the employees.

Research question 3: Does the level of satisfaction differ significantly for employees of various ages, organizational tenure and from different company's divisions?

For this research question, ANOVA test was run to compare the mean values of overall satisfaction and perceived change in satisfaction for different groups of respondents, based on their division, age and tenure. In cases where ANOVA test showed significant differences in means, Tukey test was carried out to see which particular groups of respondents differ from the other ones and how.

Research question 4: What motivational and hygiene factors play a significant role in job satisfaction? For exploratory psychological research such as this one, stepwise regression is often considered to be a more suitable method than an entry regression. This method provides a better insight into all possible predictors and evaluates the variables in the order of their importance (Thompson, 1995). That is why stepwise regression analysis was chosen to be performed with the survey questionnaire.

The regressions were built with the overall satisfaction and perceived change in satisfaction being dependent variables and the other 25 questions regarding satisfaction with various aspects of the job aspects as independent variables. The three socio-demographic questions - tenure, age, company division - were not included in the regression analysis due to negligible relationships between overall job satisfaction levels and selected demographic characteristics, as demonstrated by earlier researchers - Stamolampros et al. (2019), Tso, Liu and Li (2015), Spanjol, Tam and Tam (2014) assumed in this study.

3. Results and findings

During the research, 527 complete questionnaire responses were analyzed to identify the significant factors of job satisfaction. As a first step, Cronbach's Alpha test and Harman's single factor test were applied to the dataset to make sure that the data is reliable and that there is no single factor bias. Their results have already been mentioned above in paragraph 2.2. Descriptive statistics (including correlation analysis), t-test, ANOVA and regression analysis were conducted to take a deeper look into the patterns of questionnaire responses and answer the four research questions: how does the current satisfaction level of employees relate to the perceived change in satisfaction since last year; what aspects are employees most satisfied with - motivating or hygiene; does the level of satisfaction differ significantly for employees of various age, tenure and company divisions and, finally, what factors play a significant role in overall job satisfaction. Below are the results of statistical analysis.

3.1 Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis

First of all, appropriate descriptive statistics was calculated and is presented and discussed below. Table 3 below demonstrates the number of observations, standard deviations, skewness and kurtosis, while Table 4 demonstrates correlations between the variables attributed to each non-demographic question of the survey. Socio-demographic ordinal variables Age and Tenure, as well as the nominal variable Division are analyzed separately further.

The mean values of all the responses which were provided on a 5-point Likert type scale are higher than 3.5, with overall satisfaction mean being equal to 3.99, SD = 0.799. This means that the employees evaluate their satisfaction rather highly in general. Relationship with the supervisor demonstrates the highest average score (M= 4.37, SD = 0.774) and may be interpreted ambiguously. On the one hand, employees are almost fully satisfied with their supervisors and the way they communicate. On the other hand, although the employees were assured of anonymity of the survey, they could not be fully confident, therefore, they preferred to distort reality for personal safety. Satisfaction with bonuses is the most poorly evaluated item of the questionnaire (M = 3.53, SD = 1.099). This can not only mean that employees are not satisfied with the bonuses' size, but they may also find the bonuses' structure unclear or unfair to some of them. Promotion opportunities (M = 3.54, SD = 1.031) and stress exposure (M = 3.55, SD = 1.036) are also among the aspects which gained the lowest score. While the level of satisfaction with promotion opportunities is discussed further in paragraph 3.3, dissatisfaction with the exposure to stress can be explained by the industry context: the work at mining operations is characterized by a high level of stress, which has a direct impact on the level of satisfaction (Tshivhase and Vilakazi, 2018).

The skewness varies from -1.497 (relationship with the supervisor) to -0.222 (perceived change in satisfaction), which means that most observations for all the items of the questionnaire fall to the left side of the center of normal distribution. Kurtosis varies from -0.416 (bonuses) to 3.204 (relationship with the supervisor). Together, the skewness and kurtosis statistics demonstrate that the distribution of all non-demographic variables is close to normal: the skewness for all the variables lies between -2 and 2, and the kurtosis lies between -3 and 3 for most variables (except for communication with colleagues and relationship with the supervisor which show the kurtosis of 3.102 and 3.204, respectively). Based on this statistics, it is possible to assume that this data is suitable for further analysis.

The correlation matrix (Table 4) was built in order to determine collinearity and to investigate relationships between responses to all the questions. Significant correlation was found between promotion opportunities and development opportunities (r=0.8, p<0.01), communication with the supervisor and with relationship with the supervisor (r = 0.76, p < 0.01). The latter could take place because respondents did not quite distinguish the difference between “relationship with supervisor” and “communication on work-related issues” and evaluated these aspects similarly. The same logic can be applied to the high correlation between communication with colleagues and atmosphere (r = 0.7, p < 0.01). There are also several variables that highly correlate with more than two other variables. For instance, bonuses strongly correlate with benefits (r = 0.63, p < 0.01), promotion opportunities (r = 0.61, p < 0.01) and development opportunities (r = 0.64, p < 0.01). The work itself also correlates with promotion opportunities (r = 0.59, p < 0.01), development opportunities (r=0.6, p < 0.01) and stress (r = 0.54, p < 0.01). Unsurprisingly, working conditions demonstrate high correlation with safety conditions with r = 0.65, p<0.01, as well as with technical equipment (r = 0.6, p < 0.01). Finally, technical equipment is also one of the most correlated variables: it strongly correlates with availability of working tools (r = 0.67, p < 0.01) and documentation (r = 0.62, p < 0.01).

Table 3 Number of observations, means, standard deviations and skewness of non-demographic variables

Variable	Mean	Std. Deviation	Skewness	Kurtosis
	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	Std. Error	Statistic	Std. Error
Overall satisfaction	3.99	.799	-.854	.106	1.289	.212
Perceived change in satisfaction	3.61	.878	-.222	.106	-.088	.212
Salary	4.12	.867	-1.015	.106	1.026	.212
Bonuses	3.53	1.099	-.467	.106	-.416	.212
Benefits	3.84	1.058	-.768	.106	-.033	.212
The work itself	3.80	.819	-.417	.106	.185	.212
Promotion opportunities	3.54	1.031	-.444	.106	-.130	.212
Development opportunities	3.75	.975	-.659	.106	.228	.212
Working conditions	3.61	1.073	-.582	.106	-.286	.212
Safety conditions	3.95	.876	-.929	.106	1.059	.212
Technical equipment	3.88	.979	-.828	.106	.259	.212
Stress exposure	3.55	1.036	-.449	.106	-.401	.212
Work time	4.21	.842	-1.158	.106	1.708	.212
Transportation	4.11	1.027	-1.220	.106	.994	.212
Safety equipment	4.20	.942	-1.179	.106	.915	.212
Working tools	3.82	1.076	-.740	.106	-.174	.212
Documentation	4.28	.803	-1.006	.106	.894	.212
Communication with the supervisor	4.23	.847	-1.267	.106	2.077	.212
Relationship with the supervisor	4.37	.774	-1.497	.106	3.204	.212
Communication with colleagues	4.30	.764	-1.370	.106	3.102	.212
Atmosphere	4.31	.792	-1.293	.106	2.386	.212
Communication with other	3.85	.855	-.536	.106	.227	.212
Living conditions	3.83	.974	-.695	.106	.280	.212
Food quality	3.78	1.025	-.788	.106	.544	.212
Sports and leisure facilities	3.77	1.039	-.669	.106	.152	.212
Professional competitions	3.71	.960	-.414	.106	.076	.212
Professional events	3.91	1.049	-.727	.106	-.108	.212

To understand better the socio-demographic composition of the sample, cross-tabulation analysis was applied in respect to the three variables in the dataset - respondent's age, tenure in the organization and division he or she works for. The results are presented below in Table 6 and Table 7. The most common tenure group is the one in which people have worked for 4-9 years (223 respondents presenting 42% of the sample). In divisions such as Automatization, Processing Plants, Transport and Mobile Machinery and Quality Control the workforce consists of more than 70% of people with at least 4 years of experience in the company, while in Open Pit Mining and Geology there is a high share of people who have worked for 10 years and more (44% and 37%, respectively). On the contrary, a higher share of employees with 3 years or less of experience in the company is found in Exploration (80%) and Energy Supply (50%) divisions.

As for the age breakdown, the frequency analysis showed that employees of the two age groups - 25-34 years (193 respondents) and 35-44 years (155 respondents) are dominant in this study, representing 37% and 29% of the sample, respectively. More senior employees work in Energy Supply, Transport and Mobile Machinery and Open Pit Mining - the share of those above 45 years old is 50%, 43% and 41%, respectively. Younger employees work in Automatization, Exploration and Sample preparation - the share of those younger than 35 years old is 86%, 73% and 66%, respectively. As it was mentioned above, the information on gender was not collected to ensure anonymity, but according the Group's public data on its workforce, the share of female employees, as in most mining companies, is much lower than of male and on average varies around 20%.

Table 4 Correlation matrix for non-demographic questions Note: all correlations in the tables are significant at the 0.01 level.

		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27
1	Overall satisfaction	1	.47	.39	.39	.35	.54	.38	.42	.37	.39	.43	.44	.33	.23	.29	.42	.35	.41	.38	.33	.31	.41	.36	.30	.32	.30	.30
2	Perceived satisfaction change	.47	1	.25	.28	.22	.38	.28	.31	.21	.31	.37	.43	.13	.08	.08	.27	.20	.40	.32	.19	.19	.31	.23	.13	.23	.22	.25
3	Salary	.39	.25	1	.54	.45	.40	.35	.41	.33	.34	.41	.31	.31	.19	.27	.32	.31	.31	.34	.22	.20	.29	.33	.27	.26	.31	.31
4	Bonuses	.39	.28	.54	1	.63	.50	.61	.64	.48	.43	.52	.41	.30	.34	.27	.47	.36	.37	.34	.32	.19	.36	.43	.37	.39	.45	.40
5	Benefits	.35	.22	.45	.63	1	.46	.46	.55	.44	.38	.45	.33	.41	.39	.31	.42	.41	.28	.24	.30	.26	.40	.46	.37	.33	.35	.40
6	The work itself	.54	.38	.40	.50	.46	1	.59	.60	.46	.43	.52	.54	.37	.31	.29	.44	.42	.41	.42	.38	.32	.46	.44	.36	.41	.39	.36
7	Promotion opportunities	.38	.28	.35	.61	.46	.59	1	.80	.50	.42	.54	.46	.33	.31	.29	.48	.41	.42	.36	.37	.25	.45	.44	.35	.43	.47	.37
8	Development opportunities	.42	.31	.41	.64	.55	.60	.80	1	.56	.49	.56	.48	.39	.37	.35	.53	.45	.44	.36	.45	.32	.43	.49	.42	.50	.47	.42
9	Working conditions	.37	.21	.33	.48	.44	.46	.50	.56	1	.65	.56	.37	.43	.39	.36	.50	.39	.31	.28	.33	.29	.38	.47	.46	.32	.33	.29
10	Safety conditions	.39	.31	.34	.43	.38	.43	.42	.49	.65	1	.60	.47	.36	.24	.32	.48	.49	.46	.39	.40	.30	.37	.42	.36	.34	.33	.35
11	Technical equipment	.43	.37	.41	.52	.45	.52	.54	.56	.56	.60	1	.48	.34	.33	.37	.67	.47	.48	.42	.33	.22	.41	.43	.33	.39	.44	.40
12	Stress exposure	.44	.43	.31	.41	.33	.54	.46	.48	.37	.47	.48	1	.36	.25	.27	.44	.37	.46	.38	.47	.40	.51	.37	.30	.34	.37	.34
13	Work time	.33	.13	.31	.30	.41	.37	.33	.39	.43	.36	.34	.36	1	.38	.35	.36	.47	.23	.24	.37	.32	.34	.38	.35	.22	.25	.26
14	Transportation	.23	.08	.19	.34	.39	.31	.31	.37	.39	.24	.33	.25	.38	1	.36	.35	.31	.16	.14	.22	.21	.32	.40	.40	.30	.28	.27
15	Safety equipment	.29	.08	.27	.27	.31	.29	.29	.35	.36	.32	.37	.27	.35	.36	1	.51	.48	.23	.24	.29	.27	.31	.41	.33	.36	.28	.31
16	Working tools	.42	.27	.32	.47	.42	.44	.48	.53	.50	.48	.67	.44	.36	.35	.51	1	.62	.49	.42	.38	.26	.43	.49	.35	.38	.41	.37
17	Documentation	.35	.20	.31	.36	.41	.42	.41	.45	.39	.49	.47	.37	.47	.31	.48	.62	1	.43	.39	.43	.32	.42	.50	.37	.34	.35	.37
18	Comm. with the supervisor	.41	.40	.31	.37	.28	.41	.42	.44	.31	.46	.48	.46	.23	.16	.23	.49	.43	1	.76	.49	.34	.43	.35	.30	.36	.37	.33
19	Relationship with the supervisor	.38	.32	.34	.34	.24	.42	.36	.36	.28	.39	.42	.38	.24	.14	.24	.42	.39	.76	1	.40	.29	.37	.33	.22	.36	.37	.31
20	Comm. with colleagues	.33	.19	.22	.32	.30	.38	.37	.45	.33	.40	.33	.47	.37	.22	.29	.38	.43	.49	.40	1	.70	.48	.34	.38	.29	.26	.33
21	Atmosphere	.31	.19	.20	.19	.26	.32	.25	.32	.29	.30	.22	.40	.32	.21	.27	.26	.32	.34	.29	.70	1	.48	.31	.32	.20	.23	.24
22	Comm. with other divisions	.41	.31	.29	.36	.40	.46	.45	.43	.38	.37	.41	.51	.34	.32	.31	.43	.42	.43	.37	.48	.48	1	.49	.44	.41	.38	.35
23	Living conditions	.36	.23	.33	.43	.46	.44	.44	.49	.47	.42	.43	.37	.38	.40	.41	.49	.50	.35	.33	.34	.31	.49	1	.51	.42	.42	.39
24	Food quality	.30	.13	.27	.37	.37	.36	.35	.42	.46	.36	.33	.30	.35	.40	.33	.35	.37	.30	.22	.38	.32	.44	.51	1	.46	.36	.38
25	Sports and leisure facilities	.32	.23	.26	.39	.33	.41	.43	.50	.32	.34	.39	.34	.22	.30	.36	.38	.34	.36	.36	.29	.20	.41	.42	.46	1	.56	.51
26	Professional competitions	.30	.22	.31	.45	.35	.39	.47	.47	.33	.33	.44	.37	.25	.28	.28	.41	.35	.37	.37	.26	.23	.38	.42	.36	.56	1	.51
27	Professional events	.30	.25	.31	.40	.40	.36	.37	.42	.29	.35	.40	.34	.26	.27	.31	.37	.37	.33	.31	.33	.24	.35	.39	.38	.51	.51	1s

Table 5 Division and Tenure Cross Tabulation

	Tenure (% within each Division )	Total
	Less than 1 year	1-3 years	4-9 years	More than 10 years
Division	Processing plant 1	5.1%	13.9%

Подобные документы

• Developing Service Personnel

  Considerable role of the employees of the service providing company. Human resource policies. Three strategies that can hire the right employees. Main steps in measure internal service quality. Example of the service profit chain into the enterprise.
  
  презентация [338,7 K], добавлен 18.01.2015
  

• M&A (mergers and acquisitions) deal as an instrument that increases Disney’s Global competitiveness

  Factors that ensure company’s global competitiveness. Definition of mergers and acquisitions and their types. Motives and drawbacks M and A deals. The suggestions on making the Disney’s company the world leader in entertainment market using M&A strategy.
  
  дипломная работа [353,6 K], добавлен 27.01.2016
  

• Strategy of a fictious company posture cushion

  Organizational structure of the company. Analysis of the external and internal environment. Assessment of the company's competitive strength. Company strategy proposal. Structure of implementation and creation of organizational structure of management.
  
  дипломная работа [2,7 M], добавлен 19.01.2023
  

• A famous brand – Coca-Cola

  History of development the world leader in the production of soft drinks company "Coca-Cola". Success factors of the company, its competitors on the world market, target audience. Description of the ongoing war company the Coca-Cola brand Pepsi.
  
  контрольная работа [17,0 K], добавлен 27.05.2015
  

• Principles of Management

  Organizational legal form. Full-time workers and out of staff workers. SWOT analyze of the company. Ways of motivation of employees. The planned market share. Discount and advertizing. Potential buyers. Name and logo of the company, the Mission.
  
  курсовая работа [1,7 M], добавлен 15.06.2013
  

• Corporate Social Responsibility: Milton Friedman vs. Archie Carroll

  The main idea of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). History of CSR. Types of CSR. Profitability of CSR. Friedman’s Approach. Carroll’s Approach to CSR. Measuring of CRS. Determining factors for CSR. Increase of investment appeal of the companies.
  
  реферат [98,0 K], добавлен 11.11.2014
  

• Intercultural business communication case analysis

  Formation of intercultural business communication, behavior management and communication style in multicultural companies in the internationalization and globalization of business. The study of the branch of the Swedish-Chinese company, based in Shanghai.
  
  статья [16,2 K], добавлен 20.03.2013
  

• Business plan of ecological tourism

  The ecological tourism agency in Lithuania which would provide sustainable tours within the country, individual and group travel tours to eco tourists, professional service and consultation. Mission and vision. Company ownership. Legal establishment.
  
  курсовая работа [781,7 K], добавлен 11.04.2013
  

• Мотивация персонала корпорации "The Walt Disney Company"

  История возникновения компании "The Walt Disney Company", система материальной и нематериальной мотивации работников. Особенности мотивации на стадии новых идей, реализации, апробации проекта. Прием на работу "по Диснею", этапы подбора кандидатов.
  
  курсовая работа [25,7 K], добавлен 05.03.2013
  

• Electronic document flow in a holding company

  Relevance of electronic document flow implementation. Description of selected companies. Pattern of ownership. Sectorial branch. Company size. Resources used. Current document flow. Major advantage of the information system implementation in the work.
  
  курсовая работа [128,1 K], добавлен 14.02.2016
  

• главная
• рубрики
• по алфавиту
• вернуться в начало страницы
• вернуться к началу текста
• вернуться к подобным работам