Literature review on Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction can be defined as that which gives employees the motivation to continue with
the daily work or makes him actually want to go to work or gives him an urge to take up a new
assignment or project. One of the factors that leads to job satisfaction is recognition and
encouragement where an organization has a good evaluation system and the employee’s work is
recognized and then he is encouraged and motivated to continue contributing to the
organization.
According to Vroom (1964), job satisfaction focuses on the role of the employee in his or her
workplace hence defines job satisfaction as effective orientations on the part of individuals
towards work roles which they are currently occupying.
Job satisfaction can be said to refer to the attitude and feeling people have about their work. Job
dissatisfaction is characterized by negative and unfavorable attitudes towards the job and
positive and favorable attitudes towards the job indicate job satisfaction. (Armstrong, 2006).
Job satisfaction should be considered as one of the main factors when looking at efficiency and
effectiveness of organizations. The new managerial paradigm that insists employees are to be
treated and considered as human beings who have their own needs, personal desires and wants
is an excellent indicator of the importance of job satisfaction in many organization.
According to Locke and Latham (1990) job satisfaction model, achievement and success in
performing tasks comes from the objectives set at the highest level and high expectations for
success. Success is analyzed as a factor that creates job satisfaction.
Job satisfaction influences the organization in major ways as employee productivity,loyalty and
absenteeism. The preponderance of research evidence indicates that there isno strong linkage
between satisfaction and productivity. Satisfied workers will notnecessarily be the highest
producers. Although there are many moderating variables, themost important seems to be the
rewards. If people receive rewards that they feel areequitable, they are likely to be satisfied and
this may result in greater performance effort.
Recent research evidence indicates that satisfaction may not necessarily lead to an individual’s
performance improvement but will actually lead to departmental and organizational level
improvements. There is still considerable debate whether satisfaction leads to performance or
performance leads to satisfaction. (Luthans, 1998).
Employee loyalty is one of the most significant factors that Human Resource Managers must
always consider as this can cause serious negative consequences when not in a high level. Three
types of employee loyalty are considered: affective loyalty where an employee feels an
emotional connection to the company; normative loyalty appears in cases when the employee
feels like he owes something to the company and continuity loyalty which comes as a result of
the fact that the employee does not have an opportunity to find a job elsewhere.
Employee absenteeism causes serious additional costs for organizations. Probably the best way
to reduce employee absenteeism is to increase level of job satisfaction. When job satisfaction is
high absenteeism tends to be low. It is paramount to remember that while high job satisfaction
will not necessarily result in low absenteeism, low job satisfaction is likely to bring about high
absenteeism.
Performance Appraisal
Conducting regular performance appraisal is an important work force development strategy
for organizations such as Banks. Given the challenges of working in the financial sector,
performance appraisals offer a valuable opportunity to recognize and reward staff’s
efforts and performance, detect key barriers and facilitation to work practice and identify
professional development needs and opportunities as noted by Kent (2007).
According to Victor Vroom’s (1964) Expectancy Theory, an employee performs or is motivated
to do so according to the expected result of the work done. Vroom concludes that people
will be motivated to the extent that they can perceive links between effort, performance and
rewards available. He further argues that performance is a vital component of the expectancy
theory. Specifically, he is concerned with the linkage between effort and performance. That
employees need to know what to expect after a given task,
however it is critical for management to communicate what is expected f the employees.
Furthermore, he argued that they
mustfeelconfidentthatiftheyexertaneffortwithintheircapabilities,it will result in a
satisfactory performance as defined by the criteria by which they
are being measured. However Vroom under-estimated the fact that employee
should feel confident in the process of evaluation in that, if they perform as they are being
asked, they will achieve the rewards they value. He suggests that the expected reward (financial
and non-financial) will motivate or be the basis of the employee performance.
Taylor and Kalliathan (2001) in his work; “Training Programs and their effects on the
performance of staff” emphasized the need for on-job training, short seminars and team
building workshops as programs that increase the employee performance.
In fact according to Berman (2005), the performance appraisal process offers
employees the opportunity to receive structured, constructively framed feedback about
their work and growth potential. Armstrong (2006) argues that appraisal and improvement
are critical to developing and maintaining a strong capable workforce. Structured
performance incorporates the institutions vision and mission into the overall evaluation of
the employee.
Fletcher (1994) contends that, performance appraisal systems utilize standard assessment
criteria, dimensional ratings, structured rating scales and explicit individual–peer appraisal.
These components help to minimize subjective impressions and conscious or intentional
biases. Sophisticated technologies for performance evaluations (for example on
line ratings and development plans, 360 degree feedback) are well developed and increasingly
common in both large and small institutions.
On the other hand, Roberts (2002) asserts that accurate and reliable performance appraisals
help organizations to support and reward their most capable employees. When used in
conjunction with performance improvement systems, a structured performance appraisal
system conveys meaningful feedback in a useful format, helps refocus employees who are
performing below expectation and facilitates career development plans for all employees.
The performance appraisal systems increase the fairness and transparency of the evaluation
process and guide individuals and supervisors towards targeted improvement strategies.
They also protect both the employee and the institution from potential bias and ensure that
employees receive fair and accurate feedback. However these should be tailored to suit the
necessary employee aspirations as noted by the department or organization at large;
something hardly existed in the above reviewed literature thus more investigations were
needed in this arena.
However in respect of work habits and individual abilities, motivation levels were not put
into perspective. Most Bank evaluations hardly stressed the need for defining specific
individual work habits as they define how they work and their different challenges,
therefore such unique variations called for further research. Cole (2002) recommended and
categorized two forms of Staff assessment and that is summative and formative assessment.
In summative assessment of Staff attainment of each performance criterion, Cole (2002)
argues that, the evaluator rates the Staff as meeting, or not meeting division expectations.
He further argues that, formative appraisals involve the process of gathering performance
data, analyzing it and using the results to improve performance. Often this data is gathered
through structured and at times informal classroom observations. On the other hand,
summative appraisal is the process of using performance data to make formal written
judgment about the quality of teaching using the criteria for Staff performance established
by the Bank.
Fletcher (1994) in his study on the effect of Staff development management system
program on staff performance commended the development management system program
for providing feedback to the employees in areas that needed improvement and further
provided training for Staff as a way of handling the improvement and development criteria
systematically.
In essence, best performance appraisals involve; integrating performance appraisal into a
formal goal setting system; basing appraisals on accurate and current job descriptions;
offering adequate support and assistance to staff or workers to improve performance (for
example, professional development opportunities); Ensuring that appraisers have adequate
knowledge and direct experience of the staff performance; and conducting appraisals on a
regular basis, (Fletcher, 1994). There is need for appraisals to be taken to a higher level
where both the appraisers and appraisees’ take them more seriously and accord them the
necessary attention all in the hope of improving the quality of work done in the
organization. In addition, coherent approaches into changeable evaluation criteria needs
more research hence the need for this study.
REFERENCES
Armstrong, M. (2006).HumanResourceManagementin Practice.London: KoganPage. Bascal,R.
(1999). PerformanceManagement.NewYork:McGraw-hill.
Berman, P.L.(2005).AppraisalS ystemsforE ffectiveO rganizations.PrenticeHall: India.
CBK.(2012). Developments in the Kenyan Banking Sector for the QuarterEnded 30th June 2012.
Nairobi, Kenya: Central Bank of Kenya.
Cole, G.A. (2002). Personnel ManagementforOrganizations.KoganPage: London.
Decenzo,A., &Robbins,P. (1998).Personnel/humanResourceM anagement.NewDelhi:Prentice
HallofIndia.
Fletcher,C.(1994).PerformanceAppraisalinContext:OrganisationalChanges
andtheirImpactonPractice.JohnWilley&Sons: England.
Herzberg, H. F. (1976). Motivation-Hygiene profiles
Kent, F.G. (2007). Strategic
Ap p r a i sa l M an agem en ti n Banks.EducationalJournaloneffectiveteachinginelementa
ryBanks.Pretoria, SouthAfrica.
Latham,G.,&Latham,S.D.(2000).Overlooking Theory and Research in Performance Appraisal at
one’s Peril: Much Done, More to Do. Oxford:Blackwell.
Locke, E.A., &Lathan, G.P. (1990).Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance.
EnglewoodCliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.
Luthans, F. (1998).Organizational Behaviour. Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Mathoko, J., Mathoko, F.&Mathoko, P. (2007).Academic Proposal Writing.Nakuru, Kenya:
Amu Press.
Mugenda, O.M &Mugenda, A.G. (1999). Research Methods: Quantitative and Qualitative
Approaches. Nairobi: Acts press.
Roberts, G. E. (2002).Employee
PerformanceAppraisalSystemParticipation: ATechniquethatWorks. Journal
of PublicPersonnelManagement,31:333-342.
Sulsky,L.M.,&Keown,J.L.
(1998).PerformanceAppraisalintheChangingWorldofWork:ImplicationsfortheMeaningan
dMeasurementofWorkPerformance.Journal of Canadian Psychology,39:52-59.
Taylor, P. &Kalliath, T. (2001).Organizational
PsychologyinAustraliaandNew Zealand.OxfordUniversityPress: Melbourne,
Victoria.
Vroom, V.H.; Kenneth R. M. (1968).Toward a Stochastic Model of
Managerial Careers,Administrative Science Quarterly13 (1): 26–46
