Thuyet Trinh Luan Van MBA

8/2/2019 Thuyet Trinh Luan Van MBA

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thuyet-trinh-luan-van-mba 1/37

IMPROVING JOBSATISFACTION : A CASE

STUDY OF EUROWINDOW COMPANY

Maastricht School of Management

BY : MAI HOANG NGUYEN (VIETNAM)

COACH : Dr. LE THANH LONG



Contents

INTRODUCTION1

LITERATURE REVIEW2

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY3

DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS4

2

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS3



INTRODUCTION1

3



1.Introduction of Eurowindow

Eurowindow (European Plastics Window CompanyLtd..) was established on 29th August 2002 underthe Vietnamese Law on Foreign Investment.

The company’s range of products consists of:windows, doors, balconies, high-quality uPVCpartitions; aluminum doors and curtain walls of European quality; room-through doors in boardedwood, solid timber and MDF; Products of glass:safety glass, tempered glass, glass boxes,patterned glass.

All the factories of Eurowindow are equipped withlatest technology and synchronous production lineimported from Germany, Italy, Finland and Spain.

4



2. Problem statement

Eurowindow has had a problem of increasinglyhigh turnover rate which become a leadingchallenge and a big concern especially in BinhDuong Province and Ho Chi Minh city – the mostdynamic areas.

The reasons of employee’s leaving their jobs havebeen related to job satisfaction, like lack of promotion, low salary, high - salary offered jobsfrom other companies, boring jobs etc…

5




6

18%

24%

27%29%

32%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Turnover rate




Therefore, Eurowindow Company needs to improve job satisfaction to retain the competent employeesto ensure operation of the organization and in thefrontline to avoid losing the customers as well asto attract the new customers.

Research all factors effect to retain worker isnecessary not only in adds an insight into the issueof humane resource management in EurowindowCompany but also responding to this situation in

the long run.

7



3. Research objectives

i. To determine the major job satisfaction factors foremployees within in Eurowindow Company inVietnam.

ii.To determine whether the dimensions of job

satisfaction will statistically explain the variance intotal job satisfaction experienced by employees.

iii.To quantitatively determine antecedent factorseffecting to job satisfaction and this study

investigated relationship between the level of satisfaction of each of facets of job satisfaction.

8



4. Scope and Limitations

9

Given the limited of

sources and time, the

research only focuses

on the production

workers, and the

office employees and

a survey will be takenplace at Eurowindow

in Ho Chi Minh city.

Only work-related

factors will be

investigated in this

study. Other possible

factors (e.g. social

and cultural factor)

are beyond the scopeof this study.

Scope andLimitations



LITERATURE REVIEW2

10



1. Job satisfaction

Facet Satisfaction

The various aspectsor facets of the job

Overall Satisfaction :focuses on thegeneral internal

state of satisfactionor dissatisfaction

within theindividual.

Jobsatisfaction



2. Job satisfaction and antecedent factors

Job Descriptive Index (JDI):

(1) pay(2) promotions

(3) supervision(4) co-workers(5) work itself

Smith et al (1969)

12



2. Job satisfaction and antecedent factors

Adjusted Job Descriptive Index (AJDI):

(1) payment(2) promotions(3) supervision(4) co-workers(5) work itself (6) benefit(7) work enviroment

Tran Kim Dung (2005)

13



3. The model research proposed

14

JOB

SATISFATION

Work itself

Payment

Benefit

Work enviroment

Co-worker

Supervisor

Promotion

H 1

H 3

H 4

H 5

H 6

H 7

H 2



RESEARCH METHODOLOGY3

15



16

Data analysis

Data collectoin

- Cronbach alpha, EFA- Regression,T-Test

N= 202

- Problem statement - Literature review (AJDI)

Recommendation

the original scale of ADJI

Questionnaire - Group discussion with

eight expertsQualitativeresearch

Quantitative

research

Conclusion and

Hypothesis testing

1. Research design



1. Research design

17

(1)Qualitativeresearch :

Qualitative researchwas conducted bygroup discussionwith eight expertsfrom the draft toreview the originalscale of ADJI

Researchprocedure

(2) Quantitativeresearch:

+ Data collection

+ Data analysis and

hypothesis testing.



2. Measuring instrument

Job Descriptive Index (JDI) : (1) work itself (5 items)

(2) promotion (5 items)

(3) Supervisor (6 items)

(4) Payment (5 items)

(5) Co-worker (3 items)

(6) Work environmnet (4 items)

(7) Benefits (4 items)

Tran (2005)

Job satisfaction (JS) : (3 items)

Tran (2005)

18



2. Measuring instrument

Job satisfaction (JS) : (3 items) Tran (2005)

The survey questions by using 5 points Likert

scale:1 = ‘strongly disagree’

2 = ‘disagree’

3 = ‘either disagree or agree’

4 = ‘agree’ 5 = ‘strongly agree’

19



3. Sampling

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) : the number of samples to be 5 times the number changesobserved;

Regression analysis to achieve best results, thesample size to satisfy the formula: n ≥ 8k + 50

(n is the sample size and k is the number of independent variables of the model).

=>This research conducted with sample sizes of

about 200 is considered appropriate.

20



DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS4

21



1. Cronbach's Alpha test results

22

Construct ItemCronbach

Alpha

Correcteditem-total

correlation

WORK ITSELF 5 0.781 0.509

PAYMENT 4 0.888 0.709

BENEFIT 4 0.736 0.439

WORK ENVIROMENT 4 0.564 0.285

CO-WORKER 3 0.837 0.648

SUPERVISOR 6 0.855 0.544

PROMOTION 6 0.914 0.721

JOB SATISFATION 3 0.845 0.686



2. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

23

Job Descriptive Index (JDI) :

Factor loading of each of the 27 items vary from0.559 to 0.846.

In this testing, rotation method: Varimax withKaiser Normalization was applied providing betterreliability. There are 1 item of component’s benefit

to moved component’s pay (ben4).

KMO = 0.903; Chi-square = 3154.682, df = 351,Sig = .000

Job satisfaction (JS) : Factor loading of the 3 items vary from 0.858 to

0.896 .

KMO = 0.721; Chi-square = 253.390, df = 3, Sig= .000



3. Summary results of testing scales

24

Factors Items CronbachAlpha % of Variance Assessment

Working enviroment 4 0.564 is eliminated

Promotion 5 0.914

67.885 satisfied

Payment 5 0.888

Supervisor 6 0.855

Work itself 5 0.781

Co-worker 3 0.837

Benefit 3 0.736

Job Satisfaction 3 0.845 76.443 satisfied



4. Revising the research model

25

Construct Measurement scale

1 Promotion (PRO) pro1, pro2, pro3, pro4, pro5

2 Pay (PAY) pay1, pay2, pay3, pay4, ben4

3 Supervisor (SUP) sup1, sup2, sup3, sup4, sup5, sup6

4 Work itself (WORK) work1, work2, work3, work4, work5

5 Co-worker (COW) cow1, cow2, cow3

6 Benefit (BEN) ben1, ben2, ben3



4. Revising the research model

26

JOB

SATISFATION

Work itself

Payment

Benefit

Co-worker

Supervisor

Promotion

H 1

H 3

H 4

H 5

H 6

H 2



5. Testing model

27

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficientst Sig.

Collinearity

Statistics

B Std. Error BetaToleran

ceVIF

1

(Constant) .210 .293 .717 .474

Promotion .143 .071 .149 2.003 .047 .484 2.065Pay .222 .061 .253 3.662 .000 .560 1.785

Supervisor .227 .094 .195 2.431 .016 .414 2.417

Work itself .289 .066 .256 4.383 .000 .780 1.282

Co-worker .102 .063 .101 1.628 .105 .695 1.439

Benefit -.023 .064 -.024 -.366 .715 .608 1.646



5. Testing model

28

An regressions equation with standardized coefficientsis established as follows:

JS = 0.149F1 + 0.253F2 + 0.195F3 + 0.256F4

In which: JS : Job satisfaction (JS);

F1 : Promotion (PRO);

F2 : Payment (PAY);

F3 : Supervisor (SUP);F4: Work itself (WORK);



5. Testing hypotheses

29

Hypotheses Relationship

Standardized

coefficient

Beta

Sig. Testing

hypotheses

H1 WORK ------------- JS 0.256 0.000 is supported

H2 PAY ----------------JS 0.253 0.000 is supported

H3 BEN ----------------JS -0.024 0.715 is rejected

H4 COW -------------- JS 0.101 0.105 is rejected

H5 SUP ----------------JS 0.195 0.016 is supported

H6 PRO ---------------JS 0.149 0.047 is supported



Regression coefficients of model

30

JOB

SATISFATION

Work itself

Payment

Benefit

Co-worker

Supervisor

Promotion

Beta = 0.256, (sig. = 0.00)

Beta = -0.024, (sig. = 0.715)is rejected

Beta = 0.101,(sig. = 0.105)is rejected

Beta = 0.195, (sig. = 0.016)

Beta = 0.149, (sig. = 0.047)

Beta = 0.253,(sig. = 0.000)



5. Findings

31

Variable Standardizedcoefficient Beta

Level of importance (the more larger, the

more important)

Promotion (PRO) 0.149 1

Supervisor (SUP) 0.195 2

Pay (PAY) 0.253 3

Work itself (WORK) 0.256 4



CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS5

32



1. Conclusion

33

This study aimed to find out the factors affecting job satisfaction of employees, which set out waysto make more satisfied employees and reduce thethe turnover that is increasingly in the company.

Work itself, Payment, Supervisor and Promotionrespectively have positive impacts on Jobsatisfaction of employees at the Eurowindowcompany.



2. Recommendations

34

Work itself + Building a skillful team

+ Designing job levels

Promotion

+ Building a training system



2. Recommendations

35

Payment+ Building a skill matrix system and skill-basesalary increase

+ Building a reward & recognition system

Supervisor

+ Monthly performance feedback

+ Building organization culture



3. Limitations

36

Other variety, beyond the above-mentioned, havenot been considered. The research has not beenconsidered the impact of the workers’ behavioralresponse, organizational culture, social factors,work-life balance, economic crisis and marketconditions influencing the impact of the predictorsupon the outcome variety.

Furthermore, this study is limited in itsgeneralization, it suggests that particular

demographic characteristics can affect a person’slevel of satisfaction with a furniture operation



Documents

Thuyet Trinh Luan Van MBA