Determinants of Job Satisfaction at Work Place: Empirical Evidence from Alliance one Tobacco Processing Industry in Morogoro – Tanzania

Determinants of Job Satisfaction at Work Place: Empirical Evidence from Alliance one Tobacco Processing Industry in Morogoro – Tanzania

Joseph Sungau Mzumbe University Morogoro – Tanzania

Lena Lyama Mzumbe University Morogoro – Tanzania

Abstract:- Satisfying employees at job places is very importance for better organizational performance. Organizations have been working hard to influence employees to perform better. This study was aimed to identify factors that may affect employees job satisfaction for better organizational performance. The study used a case study survey design to collect data. In data analysis, the study used SEM where by a path model was used to analyse the data. In this study, it was found that job enrichment, job enlargement and job rotation are factors that influence employees job satisfaction. Other factors that influence employee job satisfaction are employees involvement in decision making and involvement of employees in quality management issues. Therefore, for better organizational performance, organizations should concentrate at satisfying employees at work places.

Keyword:- Job satisfaction, Job design, Quality Management

1. INTRODUCTION

   Organizations have been working hard to improve their performances while retaining customers or attract more new customers for their offerings. In improving performances, organizations have been adopting different techniques, philosophies and management practices. In line with organizational wishes, customers also are interested on quality of organizational offerings regardless of the prices they are willing to pay (AGI, 2001). In this regard organizations have been working hard to improve quality of their offering as one dimension of organizational performance. In so doing, organizations use Quality Management philosophy for improved quality of offering in achieving or exceeding customer expectations. This is attained by continuously involving employees in quality improvement process (Deming, 2000).

   In any organization, employees have great influence in improving organizational performance. For instance, if employees are satisfied with their jobs they perform their work better hence improved organizational performances. Being the case, employers have been working hard in satisfying employees. There are many factors that affect satisfaction of employees. Among the factors, job design practices, employees involvement in management and quality management philosophy are some of the factors that affect employees job satisfaction. Other factors that

   affect employees job satisfaction include; personal characteristics, job level, occupation, education and wages. Among these factors, quality management philosophy has been debated on its potential outcome on employees outcome. This is evidenced by scholars arguments as noted from literature on potential employees outcomes as results of quality management philosophy. Based on the arguments noted from the literature, some scholars argue that quality management is a source of more challenging works and bring individuals control on their own works, thus leads to motivation of workers. Other scholars associate quality management with high pressure working (de Menezes, 2012; Green, 2006). Based on the argument, this calls for one to study the association between quality management and job satisfaction. The studying was not limited to quality management and job satisfaction only; it was extended to study determinants of employees job satisfaction; more specifically, other factors which were studied are job design and involvement in management. The factors are included because they have not much studied as factors that affect employees job satisfaction.

   In studying the determinants of employees job satisfaction; job design practices, employees involvement in management issues and quality management issues were studied. This study was concentrated on quality management, job design and employees involvement only as many previous studies concentrated on factors such as person characteristics, job level, occupation, education and wages in studying the determinants of job satisfaction (de Menezes, 2012; Peccei & Lee, 2005; Rose, 2007; Clark & Oswald, 1996). Therefore, the general objective of this paper was to determine determinants employees job satisfaction.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

   Quality management practices changes the way works are done which in turn, results to job satisfaction (de Menezes, 2012). For an organization to practise quality management philosophy, the top management should be committed for continuous improvement practices, planning or strategic management in setting objectives and process management, and improvement. Other factors which an organization should focus, includes continues design of effective work

   flows systems, that helps eliminating inefficiencies in the processes, development of workers capacity and align works with objective of high quality, manage the suppliers, manage information, and analysis to monitor unexpected fluctuations to achieve consistent high quality through standardized evaluation process (Holzer et al, 2009). Empirically, the study by de Menezes (2012) found that quality management and employees job satisfaction have no significant relationship. Furthermore, in order to bring employees job satisfaction, employees need to be involved in the process of delivering the organizational offering and their jobs need to be designed.

   Job enlargement involves increasing variety of tasks to a given job title while the level of skills and knowledge remains the same. Job enlargement entails employees being careful on their jobs, employees to have control on the speed of work to reduce through put time, making employees to have variety of tasks and adding more jobs while the skills of the worker remain the same (Slack et al, 2007).

   Job enrichment is the adding variety of task to a given job title together with training an individual at that position to increase skills to hand increased tasks. It is achieved by giving employees discretion, task variety and high level of responsibility in their job. Job enrichment entails increasing number of activities to the current job and training of every promoted worker of job. Empirically, the study by de Menezes (2012) found that there is positive association between job enrichment and employees job satisfaction.

   Job rotation is the shifting of employees within available work stations in an organization. This makes employees assume that they are equality treated, which in turn enhances employees jobs satisfaction level. Basically, job rotation entails the attributes of an individual working in different stations, changing working sections from time to time and training on job rotation.

   The employees involvement in management is the inclusion of workers in the implementation of management practices. This allows employees to work in a team and to be involved in quality monitoring issues such as quality circles. Job involvement is how people perceive their jobs in relation to the working enrichment, the job itself, and how their work and life are integrated (Hirchfeld & Field, 2000). The employees involvement in management issues entails appraising performance of non manager workers, training employees on multi-tasking, training new employees, good information disclosure on financial position, employee discussing on financial and quality performance, and training on communication skills. The effect of involvement management in job satisfaction has been investigated by many studies. For instance, in their studies, Mshipe (2011), Akbar et al. (2011) and Toga

   (2011) found that involvement management has positive effect on employees job satisfaction.

   Quality management has been practised in many ways ranging from adoption of specific quality management practices that depend on production systems (White & Prybutok, 2001) to integrated management systems that emphasize on overall organizational competitiveness and sustainability which go beyond product quality. Quality management entails the activities of inventory control, meeting customer target and conduction of customer survey. The other activities includes keeping records for benchmarking, ensuring quality standard, keeping records on level of faults or complain, individuals monitoring quality at their work centres, team briefing about quality issues and off the job training on quality issues. Unlike the traditional approach of quality assurance, quality management is a continuous and participatory approach which involves all employees in the process of ensuring quality organizational offerings. In an organization, quality management can be practiced through Total Quality Management (TQM), Strategic Quality Management (SQM), Strategic Total quality Management (STQM), Global Quality Management (GQM) and Strategic Collective Quality Management (SCQM). Not only that, but also, standard based approach (i.e ISO 9000 standards) and quality award models (i.e Deming quality award) are used as the quality management guidelines. Empirically, it has been found that quality management has significant positive effect on employees job satisfaction (Mosadeghrad, 2014). However, the study by de Menezes (2012) found that there is no significant link between employees job satisfaction and quality management.

   Job satisfaction is a concept which is highly research, however there still controversy as the literature is not conclusive (Mushipe, 2011). Job satisfaction is differently defined by different authors (Lam et al, 2000). In this study, the definition which was adopted was the definition of Lucke (1976) as cited in Mushipe (2011). The definition was adopted because many authors referred the definition (Lam et al, 2001; Mushipe, 2011). As per definition of Lucke (1976), job satisfaction is a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of ones job or job experiences. Based on this definition, it can be deduced that an individual is satisfied when one realizes ones important job values provided it helps in fulfilling ones basic needs. In this case, job satisfaction is positive feeling an individual has about a given job. The attributes can lead an individual to judge the satisfaction level. The satisfaction level includes challenging of the job, enclosure of personal interest in the job, not physical tiring job, performance reward system to individuals as per personal aspirations, and working environment and individual job esteem

   Based on the study literature review, the following theoretical conceptual framework was developed.

   Quality Management

   Job enlargement

   Job enrichment

   Job Satisfaction

   Job rotation

   Employees involvement

   Figure 1: Conceptual framework

   Source: Researchers own construction from literature review

3. METHODOLOGY

   The study was to determine the factors that lead to employees job satisfaction at work place. The study design used in this study was cross-section case-survey design. Alliance One ltd was used as the case of the study. The constructs of the study included quality management, job enlargement, job enrichment, job rotation and employees involvement in management. The study used a questionnaire with ordinal measures in five measures of Likert scale. All employees at Alliance one formed the target study population. The unit of analysis was employees under production line.

   The sampling design of the study was cluster random sampling. The clustering was based on hierarchical levels at work place. The formed clusters were top, middle and low levels workers. In order to get a true picture of what was studied; low level employees were involved in the

   study. The questionnaires were distribute to low level workers and thereafter were collected. In total 46 employees participated in this study. The study involved attributes which were aggregated to respective constructs (Kline, 2011; Coffman & MacCallum, 2005; Tabachnick & Fibell, 2007)

   In this study both descriptive and inferential analyses were done. Descriptive analysis was done for grouping data. The inferential analysis was done to determine the determinants and relations among constructs of the study. Coefficient of regression was used to identify relationships among constructs. Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was used to determine the determinant of respective constructs and relationships among constructs. In order to test relationships among the constructs, the conceptual hypotheses were stated in testable research hypotheses as presented in Table 1. Finally, the model fit was evaluated.

   Notation Conceptual hypotheses

   Table 1: Testable research hypotheses

   Testable hypotheses

   Null hypothesis (H0) Alternative hypothesis (Ha)

   H1 Quality management has no significant effect on employees job satisfaction

   H2 Job enlargement has no significant effect on employees job satisfaction

   H3 Job enrichment has no significant effect on employees job satisfaction

   H4 Job rotation has no significant effect on employees job satisfaction

   H5 Employees involvement management has significant effect on employees job satisfaction

   Source: Researchers own construction

   H 01 : 1 0

   H 02 : 2 0

   H 03 : 3 0

   H 04 : 4 0

   H 05 : 5 0

   H 01 : 1 0

   H 02 : 2 0

   H 03 : 3 0

   H 04 : 4 0

   H 05 : 5 0

4. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

   The section presents results, findings and discussion. The presentation is focused on the measurements models of job enlargement, job enrichment, quality management, employees involvement in management, job rotation and

   job satisfaction. Furthermore, the paper presents determinant of job satisfaction.

   1. Job Enlargement Measurement model

      Job enlargement model was assessed by three factors. The results of the assessment are presented in Table 2.

      Table 2: Attributes for Job Enlargement Construct

      Standard regression weights				Factor score weight	Goodness of fit indices
      JEL1	<—	JEL	0.56	0.401	GFI	IFI	RMSEA
      JEL2	<—	JEL	0.19	0.209	0.999	1.018	0.000
      JEL3	<—	JEL	0.36	0.302
      Recommended Values Regression weights 0.3 (Tabachnick & Fibell, 2007), Cronbach alpha 0.7 (Kline, 2005), GFI, and IFI close to 1, 0 RMSEA 0.1 (Hooper et al., 2008; Kline, 2005

      Source: Analysis of field data, 2014

      The job enlargement construct was measured by three items. The items are JEL 1: carefulness in doing work, JEL 2: control over production speed and JEL 3: variety of tasks in a job post. In this study, item 2 loaded at 0.19, which is lower than 0.3. Therefore, the item was dropped because it has lower convergent validity. This made the job enlargement construct to be measured by two items. The two items are good measurements of job enlargement construct as they have convergent validity greater than 0.3, which later were aggregated to job enlargement variable depending on their score weights.

      The goodness of fit of job enlargement consruct was assessed by using GFI, IFI and RMSEA indices as presented in Table 2. From the results, it was revealed that the fit of the construct is good as all indices are within the recommended values and range. Therefore, the items are true measure of job enlargement construct.

   2. Job Enrichment measurement model

      Job enrichment model was assessed by three factors. The results of the assessment are presented in Table 3.

      Table 3: Attributes for Job Enrichment Construct

      Standard regression weights				Factor score weight	Goodness of fit indices
      JER1	<—	JER	0.426	0.400	GFI	IFI	RMSEA
      JER2	<—	JER	0.332	0.269	0.929	0.892	0.002
      JER3	<—	JER	0.089	0.133
      Recommended Values Regression weights 0.3 (Tabachnick & Fibell, 2007), Cronbach alpha 0.7 (Kline, 2005), GFI, and IFI close to 1, 0 RMSEA 0.1 (Hooper et al., 2008; Kline, 2005

      Source: Analysis of field data, 2014

      The job enrichment construct was measured by three items. The items are JER 1: promoted workers are trained, JER 2: An employee is trained when jobs are added and JER 3: job are increased to a given job position. In this study, item 3 loaded at 0.089, which is lower than 0.3. Therefore, the item was dropped because it has lower convergent validity. This made the job enlargement construct to be measured by two items. The two items are good measurements of job enrichment construct as they have convergent validity greater than 0.3, which later were aggregated to job enrichment variable depending on their score weights.

      The goodness of fit of job enrichment construct was assessed by using GFI, IFI and RMSEA indices as presented in Table 3. From the results, it was revealed that the fit of the construct is good as all indices are within the recommended values and range. Therefore, the items are true measure of job enrichment construct.

   3. Job Rotation measurement model

      Job rotation model was assessed by three factors. The results of the assessment are presented in Table 4.

      Table 4: Attributes for Job Rotation Construct

      Standard regression weights				Factor score weight	Goodness of fit indices
      JR1	<—	JR	0.464	0.301	GFI	IFI	RMSEA
      JR2	<—	JR	0.136	0.139	0.988	0.991	0.000
      JR3	<—	JR	0.355	0.202
      Recommended Values Regression weights 0.3 (Tabachnick & Fibell, 2007), Cronbach alpha 0.7 (Kline, 2005), GFI, and IFI close to 1, 0 RMSEA 0.1 (Hooper et al., 2008; Kline, 2005

      Source: Analysis of field data, 2014

      The job rotation construct was measured by three items. The items are JR 1: Working in different sections, JR 2: On job training and JR 3: Changing works stations. In this study, item 2 loaded at 0.19, which is lower than 0.3. Therefore, the item was dropped because it has lower convergent validity. This made the job rotation construct to be measured by two items. The two items are good measurements of job rotation construct as they have convergent validity greater than 0.3, which later were aggregated to job rotation variable depending on their score weights.

      The goodness of fit of job rotation construct was assessed by using GFI, IFI and RMSEA indices as presented in Table 4. From the results, it was revealed that the fit of the construct is good as all indices are within the recommended values and range. Therefore, the items are true measure of job rotation construct.

   4. Employees involvement

      Employees involvement model was assessed by three factors. The results of the assessment are presented in Table 5.

      Table 5: Attributes for Employees involvement construct

      Standard regression weights				Factor score weight	Goodness of fit indices
      EI1	<—	EI	0.777	0.572	GFI	IFI	RMSEA
      EI2	<—	EI	0.377	0.401	0.993	0.901	0.002
      EI3	<—	EI	0.327	0.381
      Recommended Values Regression weights 0.3 (Tabachnick & Fibell, 2007), Cronbach alpha 0.7 (Kline, 2005), GFI, and IFI close to 1, 0 RMSEA 0.1 (Hooper et al., 2008; Kline, 2005

      Source: Analysis of field data, 2014

      The employee involvement construct was measured by three items. The items are EI 1: Trainings are provided to empower workers, EI: 2: information disclosure and EI 3: Participation in improving quality and non financial performances. In this study, all the items loaded above 0.3. This made the employee involvement construct to be measured by three items. Therefore, the three items are good measurements of employee involvement construct as they have convergent validity greater than 0.3. Thereafter, they were aggregated depending on their weight score to form employees involvement variable.

      The goodness of fit for employee involvement construct was assessed by using GFI, IFI and RMSEA indices as presented in Table 5. From the results, it was revealed that the fit of the construct is good as all indices are within the recommended values and range. Therefore, the items are true measure of employee involvement construct.

   5. Quality Management

      Quality management model was assessed by three factors. The results of the assessment are presented in Table 6.

      Table 6: Attributes for Quality Management Construct

      Standard regression weights				Factor score weight	Goodness of fit indices
      QM1	<—	QM	0.728	0.594	GFI	IFI	RMSEA
      QM 2	<—	QM	0.36	0.306	0.973	0.941	0.001
      QM 3	<—	QM	0.41	0.380
      Recommended Values Regression weights 0.3 (Tabachnick & Fibell, 2007), Cronbach alpha 0.7 (Kline, 2005), GFI, and IFI close to 1, 0 RMSEA 0.1 (Hooper et al., 2008; Kline, 2005

      Source: Analysis of field data, 2014

      The quality management construct was measured by three items. The items are QM 1: Team briefing on quality issues, QM 2: Off job training of quality issues and QM 3: Off-job training on problem solving. In this study, all the items loaded above 0.3. This made quality management construct to be measured by three items. Therefore, the three items are good measurements of quality management contruct as they have convergent validity greater than 0.3. Thereafter, they were aggregated depending on their weight score to form employees involvement variable.

      The goodness of fit for employee involvement construct was assessed by using GFI, IFI and RMSEA indices as presented in Table 6. From the results, it was revealed that the fit of the construct is good as all indices are within the recommended values and range. Therefore, the items are true measure of employee involvement construct.

   6. Customer Satisfaction

      Customer satisfaction model was assessed by three factors. The results of the assessment are presented in Table 7.

      Table 7: Attributes for Customer Satisfaction Construct

      Standard regression weights				Factor score weight	Goodness of fit indices
      JS1	<—	JS	0.628	0.564	GFI	IFI	RMSEA
      JS2	<—	JS	0.550	0.428	0.973	0.941	0.001
      JS3	<—	JS	0.410	0.375
      Recommended Values Regression weights 0.3 (Tabachnick & Fibell, 2007), Cronbach alpha 0.7 (Kline, 2005), GFI, and IFI close to 1, 0 RMSEA 0.1 (Hooper et al., 2008; Kline, 2005

      Source: Analysis of field data, 2014

      The customer satisfaction construct was measured by three items. The items are JS 1: No tiring jobs, JS 2: existence of performance rewarding systems and JS 3: Good job environment. In this study, all the items loaded above 0.3. This made the customer satisfaction construct to be measured by three items. Therefore, the three items are good measurements of customer satisfaction construct as they have convergent validity greater than 0.3. Thereafter, they were aggregated depending on their weight score to form customer satisfaction variable.

      The goodness of fit for customer satisfaction construct was assessed by using GFI, IFI and RMSEA indices as

      presented in Table 7. From the results, it was revealed that the fit of the construct is good as all indices are within the recommended values and range. Therefore, the items are true measure of customer satisfaction construct.

   7. The influencers of Job Satisfaction

   The object of this paper was to determine the effect of quality management, employees involvement in management, job enlargement, job enrichment and job rotation process on job satisfaction. The results of the study are presented in Figure 1 and thereafter in Table 8.

   Figure 1: The effect of quality management, employees involvement, job enlargement, job enrichment and job rotation on employees job satisfaction.

   Source: Researchers Construction, 2014

   The results presented in Figure 1, are hereby presented in Table 8 and Table 9. The results presented in these tables are regression coefficients which show the effect of each

   construct on endogenous construct. Furthermore, the Table presents p values and the goodness of fit indices of the mode.

   Table 8: The influencers of Job Satisfaction

   Standard regression weights				Estimates	P-Values	Goodness of fit indices
   JS	<—	QM	0.03	0.030	< 0.000	GFI	IFI	RMSEA
   JS	<—	EI	0.06	0.090	0.004	0.863	0.741	0.047
   JS	<—	JEL	0.09	0.090	< 0.000
   JS	<—	JER	0.20	0.268	< 0.000
   JS	<—	JR	0.10	0.170	< 0.000
   	Recommended Values Regression weights 0.3 (Tabachnick & Fibell, 2007), Cronbach alpha 0.7 (Kline, 2005), GFI, and IFI close to 1, 0 RMSEA 0.1 (Hooper et al., 2008; Kline, 2005

   Source: Analysis of field data, 2014

   From Table 8, it was revealed that involvement of employees on quality management at the organization brings up job satisfaction among the employees. This is evidenced by the findings that 1 standard deviation in quality management issues causes 0.03 standard deviations to job satisfaction. The effect was found to be weak and positive but significant ( H01 : 1 0, p 0.000 ). Being the case, the null hypothesis that quality management has no significant effect on employees job satisfaction is rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis.

   In determining the effect of job enlargement on job satisfaction, it was revealed that job enlargement influences job satisfaction; 1 standard deviation of job enlargement affects job satisfaction by 0.09. The effect was found to be small, positive and significant ( H02 : 2 0, p 0.000 ). Therefore, the null hypothesis that Job enlargement has no significant effect on employees job satisfaction was rejected in favour of alternative hypothesis.

   Furthermore, the effect of job enrichment on job satisfaction was determined. It was revealed that job enrichment influences job satisfaction; 1 standard deviation of job enlargement affects job satisfaction by 0.200. The effect was found to be positive, small and significant

   ( H03 : 3 0, p 0.000 ). Therefore, the null hypothesis that Job enrichment has no significant effect on employees job satisfaction was rejected in favour of alternative hypothesis.

   Lastly, in determining the effect of job rotation on job satisfaction, it was revealed that job rotation has small, positive and significant ( H04 : 4 0, p 0.000 ) effect on job satisfaction; 1 standard deviation of job rotation affects jobs satisfaction by a 0.100 standard deviation. Therefore, the null hypothesis that Job rotation has no significant effect on employees job satisfaction was rejected in favour of alternative hypothesis.

   In the case of employees involvement in management issues, it was revealed that the construct has weak and positive but significant effect on job satisfaction. This is evidenced by the findings that 1 standard deviation of employees involvement causes a 0.060 standard deviation to job satisfaction constructs. Although the effect was weak, it was significant ( H05 : 5 0, p 0.004 ). Therefore, the null hypothesis that employees involvement in management issues has significant effect on employees job satisfaction was rejected in favour of alternative hypothesis.

   Table 9: Summary of hypotheses

   Notation	Conceptual hypotheses	Testable hypotheses		Null Hypothesis
   		Null hypothesis (H0)	P-Value	Rejected

   H1 Quality management has no significant effect on employees job satisfaction

   H2 Job enlargement has no significant effect on employees job satisfaction

   H3 Job enrichment has no significant effect on employees job satisfaction

   H4 Job rotation has no significant effect on employees job satisfaction

   H5 Employees involvement in management has significant effect on employees job satisfaction

   Source: Analysis of field data, 2014

   H 01 : 1 0

   H 02 : 2 0

   H 03 : 3 0

   H 04 : 4 0

   H 05 : 5 0

   < 0.000 Rejected

   < 0.000 Rejected

   < 0.000 Rejected

   < 0.000

   0.004 Rejected

   In assessing the model goodness of fit, GFI, IFI and RMSEA were used. From the results presented in Table 8, it was revealed that the model goodness of fit was good because all the three indexes are close to 1 and the RMSEA fall in the recommended range (Hooper, Cooughlan & Nullen, 2008; Kline, 2005). Therefore, results indicate that there were insignificant errors in measuring the endogenous constructs the Model 3.

   The findings of the study are generally in line with most of the previous studies. For instance, the study by quality management, job enlargement, job enrichment, job rotation and employees involvement in management issues have significant effect on employee satisfaction. These findings are similar to those of Hirchfeld & Field (2000), Mushipe (2011), Akbar et al. (2011), Mosadeghrad (2014) and Toga (2011) but are different from those of de Menezes (2012) which found that quality management has no significant effect on employees job satisfaction. In this study, the constructs have significant effect on job satisfaction although some of the effects are weak.

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The aimed of the study was to determine the factors that affect employees job satisfaction in manufacturing organization. In determining the factors, the study used a SEM to identify the factors. From the study findings it was found that involvement of employees in quality management, employees involvement in decision making, job enlargement, job enrichment and job rotation have significant influence on employees job satisfaction. Employees involvement in quality management, job enlargement and employees involvement in decision making are factors that have weak and significant effect on job satisfaction to employees. On the other hand, job enrichment and job rotation has small and significant effect on employees job satisfaction. Therefore, in order for organizations to satisfy employees for better organizational performance, organizations concentrated on the identified determinants.

REFERENCE

1. AGI, (2001). The theory of constraints and its thinking processes, Jonal Program, New haven.

2. Akbar, S. W., Yousaf, M., Haq, U. N., and Hunjira, I. A. (2011), Impact of Employee Empowerment on Job Satisfaction: Analysis of Pakistani Service Industry. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research Business. Vol. 2 (11). 680-684.

3. Clark, A. E and Oswald, A., (1996), Satisfaction and comparison income, Journal of Public Economics. Vol 61. 359-381.

4. Coffman, D. L. and MacCallum, R. C. (2005). Using parcels to convert path analysis models into latent variable models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40 (2). 235 259.

5. de Menezes, L. M., (2012), Job Satifaction and Quality Management: A Empirical Analysis, International Journal of Operations & Production Management. Vol. 32 (3). 308-328.

6. Deming, W., (2000), Out of the crisis: Quality, Productivity and Competitive Position, The MIT Press, Cambridge, M.A.

7. Green, F., (2006). Demanding Work: The paradox of job quality in the affluent economy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

8. Hisrchfeld, R. R. and Field, H. S. (2000). Work centrality and work alienation: Distinct aspect. Of a general commitment to work. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Vol. 21 (7). 789-800.

9. Hooper, D. Coughlan, J. and Nullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guideline for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6 (1). 53-60.

10. Kline, R.B. (2011). Principles and Practices of Structural Equation Modeling (3rd Ed). New York: The Guilford Press, New York.

11. Kline, R.B. (2005). Principles and Practices of Structural Equation Modeling (2nd Ed). New York: The Guilford Press.

12. Lam, T., Baum, T. And Pine, R (2001). Study of managerial job satisfaction in Hongs Chinese restaurants. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. Vol. 13. (1). 33-42.

13. Mosadeghrad, A. M., (2014). Strategic collective quality management and employee job satisfaction, International Journal of Health and Management, Vol. 2 (4). 167-174.

14. Mushipe, Z. J (2011), Employee Empowerment and Job Satisfaction: A study of the Employees in the Food Manufacturing Sector in Zimbabwe. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research Business. Vol. 3 (8). 18 41.

15. Peccei, R. and Lee, H., (2005), The impact of gender similarity on employee satisfaction at work; a review and re-evaluation, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 42 (8). 1571-1592.

16. Rose, M., (2007), Why so feed up and footloose in IT? Spelling out the association between occupation and overall job satisfaction shown by WERS 2004, Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 38 (4). 356-384.

17. Slack, N. Chambers, S. and Johnston, R. (2007). Operation Management (5th Ed). London: Prentice Hall.

18. Tabachnick, B. G. and Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th Ed). London: Pearson Education.

19. Toga, R. (2011). The relationship between job involvement, job satisfaction and organizational commitment among lower-level employees at Mercedes Benz South Africa.

20. White, R. E and Prybutok, V., (2001), The relationship between JIT practices and type of production system, Omega, Vol. 29. 113- 124.