Journal of Management Review Vol. 1, No.

1, June 2011 Copyright Mind Reader Publications

Job Satisfaction of Middle Level Managers in Pharmaceutical Industry of Pakistan

Dr. Zulfqar Ahmad1, Ishfaq Ahmed*, Muhammad Musarrat Nawaz*, Zafar Ahmad* Hailey College of Commerce, University of the Punjab, Pakistan

Abstract Job satisfaction has always been in debate by researchers and practitioners. It has gained much importance due to its significance for achievement of overall organizational goals. Rapid changes in the business world have made human resource the most vital asset for organizations. Now productive and efficient employees are need of time. Employee productivity and effectiveness is outcome and result of their level of satisfaction with the job and organization as a whole. This study is aimed to discuss the impact of various organizational factors on job satisfaction. This study is conducted in Pharmaceutical sector of Pakistan; middle level managers are the target population of the study. Questionnaire was used for data collection. 256 questionnaires were distributed in 60 pharmaceutical companies located in major cities of four provinces of Pakistan (Balochistan, KPK, Punjab, Sind) and Federal Capital Islamabad. SPSS 16.0 was used for Data Collection. Results are given in the findings section. Keywords: Pakistan. Job satisfaction, Middle Level Managers, Pharmaceutical Sector,

INTRODUCTION Employees are considered to be one of the most important pillars on which building of organizations stands. Organizations hold many resources that might be divided in physical and human resources. Utilization of non-human resources is not possible without efforts of the human resource. So, human resource is the asset that enables organizations to reap benefits from other sources. Every activity is directly or indirectly backed by human efforts. Organizations try to hire and retain best work force in order to get best out of them. Having employees and retaining them is not enough, having and making best use of
First Author is Assistant Profession in Hailey College of Commerce, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan, email: zabowra@hotmail.com. * Other authors are Lecturers in Hailey College of Commerce, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan
1

63

employees is the core of game. For this purpose organizations should hold best employees. Best employees are those which are willing to put their best for the betterment of the organization. While selecting such employees the concentration really moves towards the satisfied employees. Satisfied employees offer huge returns to organizations. The construct of employee satisfaction is important as satisfied employees can do more for organization in shape of better performance and productivity (Scheider, 1987). Realizing the significance of employee satisfaction for organization, various researchers have studied job satisfaction in various perspectives. Various organizational set ups have been considered as area where job satisfaction should be studies like: Akhtar, 2000; Bailey 2002; Blegen, 1993; Dutka, 2002; Ghaseminejad, Siadat & Nouri, 2005; Hollifield, 2005; and Kindt, 2008. Job satisfaction is an important variable as it is directly related with other organizational variables like employees engagement with organization, organizational citizenship behavior, organizational involvement, organizational commitment, organizational involvement, turnover, absenteeism, substance abuse, and deviant behavior of the employees at workplace (Judge, Thoresen, Bono & Patton, 2001; Kreitner & Kinicki, 2006; and Patterson, Warr & West, 2004). Employees who have higher level of satisfaction are less likely to quit their jobs, they are also less willing to opt for other jobs, they remain present in their job and their absenteeism rate is much low then other workers. This in return saves various costs of organizations like recruitment and selection cost, as new hiring would not be required. Similarly, it will save training cost as the existing workforce would be more knowledgeable (Smith, 1992). Positive attitude (job satisfaction) of an employee towards his job has significant relationship with increased effectiveness, reduced absenteeism and reduced turnover of the employees in the organization (Robbins, Millett, Cacioppe &Waters-Marsh, 1998). Out of the organizational factors that determine job satisfaction organizational climate is one of the most important determinants. As noted by McNabb & Spector (2003) that organizational climate is a factor that has significant bearing on the job satisfaction, and has a significant and direct bearing on the job related behaviors of workforce. Various researchers have given different dimensions of organizational climate for instance Dastmalchian (1991) discussed four dimensions of organizational climate, those are, Overall environment of organization, employees role conflicts, internal communication, and support

from supervisors. Chappell (1995) also discussed dimensions of organizational climate and found that there are seven dimensions of organizational climate, these dimensions are political climate, promotion, regard for personal concern, evaluation, professional development opportunities, internal communication, and organizational structure. This study is designed to see the impact of organizational climate on job level satisfaction of middle level managers of pharmaceutical sector of Pakistan. LITERATURE REVIEW Job satisfaction is one of the widely discussed topics of employees behaviors at work. Satisfaction of employees is a concern for organizations as it leads to higher productivity, low turnover, reduced absenteeism, increased moral and many other positive returns. Out of the determinants of employee satisfaction organizational climate is an important factor. Deal & Kennedy, (1992) found that there is a significant relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction. The supportiveness of organizational climate has positive relationship with job satisfaction, commitment with the organization and performance at work (Burrus, 1996; and Al-rahimi, 1990). In the words of Chen et al. (2004), employees at workplace make the organizational climate; more motivated employees will positively affect the climate, devote more time and effort to enhance their skills for future professional development. There are four dimensions of organizational climate i.e. Employee role conflicts, overall organizational environment, supervisors support, and internal communication (Dastmalchian, 1991). There are five facets of job satisfaction i.e. Autonomy, power and control, Participation in decision making, Interpersonal relations, Compensation package (salary, & fringe benefits), and Professional effectiveness. Autonomy, Power and Control & Job Satisfaction The autonomy is the ability to make decision independent of any external influence. Moreover, it is the extent to which the job provides freedom, independence, and discretion to the individuals in scheduling their work and in determining the procedures to be used in carrying it out. Power is the ability to influence others their behavior and make them things do (Pfeffer, 1992). Control is to keep the things according to the structure originally designed (Robbins, 1996). The research of Twombley and Amey (1994) reflected that autonomous 65

environment is direct opposite to the structured environment. Luthans (2002) found that autonomy increases job satisfaction of employees. Positive and significant relationship was found between autonomy to plan and implement, and job satisfaction (Shaw, Duffy, & Stark, 2000). Similarly, power to lead others also depicts higher level of job satisfaction (Lo, Min, and Ramayah, 2007). The research findings of Hechanova, Alampay and Franco (2006) also indicated positive and significant relationship between empowerment of employees and their job satisfaction. While concluding regarding control, it was found that employees having trust in management feel more control on their jobs and exhibit more job satisfaction (Lawler, 1986; Tarver, Canada & Mee-Gaik, 1999; and Vaughan, 1989). Participation in Decision Making and Job Satisfaction Participation in decision making has been in great discussion by researchers in various perspectives. It is important due to its effect on the effectiveness of organization, productivity and employees job satisfaction (Conway, 1984). It was found in the study by Lindelow et al., (1989) that participative decision making has a significant effect on the effectiveness of the organization; so the process of decision making should be placed at the gross root level in the organization (Drucker, 1973). Similarly Lindelow (1989) observed that increased participation in decision making enhances the organizational performance and job satisfaction of the employees. The research by Campbell, Fowles and Weber (2004) noted that job satisfaction could be enhanced with increasing participation in decision making and avoiding ambiguity in identifying responsibilities at workplace. Interpersonal Relations (Subordinates, Peers & Superiors) and Job Satisfaction Interpersonal relations are social associations, connections, or affiliations between the people interacting with each other at same workplace or from other workplace or working together in the shape of virtual teams (Lauria, 1964). Greater the level of interpersonal relation among employees greater will be overall satisfaction level of the employees (Ronald, Burke & Wilcox, 1969). Similarly, higher the mutual trust of superior and subordinate more will be internal communication and higher will be satisfaction level (OReilly & Roberts, 1974). Fiddler & Chemers (1974) in his study found that free communication build good interpersonal relations resulting in job satisfaction of the employees. If there is harmony amongst the relationships of seniors and subordinates there

would be higher level of satisfaction and commitment of employees (Posner & Munson, 1979), similar findings were given by Kim (2002). Compensation Package (salary & fringe benefits) and Job Satisfaction Employees invest their time and effort in organization/s and expect fair returns for their investment. In the words of Delery, Gupta Shaw, Jenkins and Ganster (2000); and Rynes, Schwab & Heneman (1983) there should be balance in investment and return on investment is important to attract and retain the employees in the organization. The balance between inputs of a person equal to the outcomes of a person has positive relationship with (motivation) job satisfaction (Adams, 1965). It was observed by Greenberg (1990) in his study that decreases in compensation causes job dissatisfaction if such decreases are not justified with some convincing reasons. The research evidence showed that job satisfaction depends upon the expectations of the employees as female expects less pay in comparison to their male counterparts and exhibit more job satisfaction (Major, 1994; Steel & Lovrich, 1987; Varca, Shaffer & McCauley, 1983). Internal and external equity of fixed pay, pay raise, flexible pay and other benefits showed positive influence on the job satisfaction of workers (Igalens & Roussel, 1999). If employees are satisfied about compensation package there will be higher level of job satisfaction, motivation and organizational commitment (Shapiro, 1976). The research in this regard reflected that comparison with others and fairness had positive relationship with job satisfaction (Heneman, 1985; and Austin, McGinn & Susmilch, 1980). Professional Effectiveness and Job Satisfaction Professionally effective employees know how to make themselves more effective while working in the same organization and feel themselves enabled to achieve their objectives and having less frequency to leave the job and perform better. Effective employees manage their time, constructively handle conflict, communicate goals and plan more successful projects in comparison to the employee who feel otherwise. The organization with effective employees has competitive advantage over other organizations and they are more focused in the face of obstacles by effectively managing stress at workplace (Adams & Waddle, 2002). Professional effectiveness can be sharpened through learning of employees for self-awareness, that is, self-management, social awareness, managing relationships at the workplace. It was revealed by the research of (Kindt, 2008) that professional effectiveness, interpersonal relations (subordinates, peer, and 67

supervisors), and participation in decision making were significantly related with the job satisfaction. METHODOLOGY This study is conducted in pharmaceutical sector of Pakistan. For the study purpose middle level managers working in pharmaceutical sector are selected as population. In Pakistan there are 441 (411 local and 30 multinational) pharmaceutical industrial units, and almost about 1500 middle-level managers are working in these organizations (Pakistan health & pharmaceuticals sector, n.d.). Out of these units only 66 units were selected as sample using multistage sampling technique. In the first stage of sampling, cluster sampling technique was used to select these 66 units (51 local and 15 multinational). This technique was considered appropriate for the selection of sample, as the cluster sampling is more appropriate where the target population is scattered geographically (Gay et al. 2005). Four cities of Pakistan were selected for collection of data: Karachi, Lahore, Islamabad and Peshawar. City wise distribution of population and sample for local & multinational industrial units is given in Table 1. In the second stage of sampling middle level managers were selected as study sample. In this stage simple random sampling technique was used and personally administrated questionnaire were used for data collection. A total of 322 questionnaires were distributed among the middle-level managers, out of which 265 filled-in questionnaires were received back with 82% response rate. A five point Likerttype rating scale (a good technique to measure the attitude, Dawes, 2008), with scale points: strongly agree (SA), agree (A), undecided (UD), disagree (DA), and strongly disagree (SD), was developed, validated and used with scores 5 to1 respectively. The polite testing of instrument is made and cronbach alpha was found 0.866 which is acceptable statistically. The 16 statements were finalized for the questionnaire to measure the satisfaction of middle-level managers with seven variables of organizational climate: satisfaction with internal communication (2-statements), satisfaction with organizational structure (1statement), satisfaction with political climate (3-statements), satisfaction with professional development opportunities (2-statements), satisfaction with evaluation (3-statements), satisfaction with promotion (2-statements) and satisfaction with regard for personal concerns (3-statement). Table 1 Pharmaceutical Industrial-Units included in the Sample

S.No. 1 2 3 4 Total

Cities (clusters) Karachi Lahore Islamabad Peshawar

Number of Industrial Units Local Multinational Total Selecte Total Selecte d d 105 13 20 09 110 22 06 04 32 10 02 02 29 06 00 00 276 51 28 15

Total

22 26 08 10 66

FINDINGS OF THE STUDY This study aimed to investigate the level of satisfaction of middle level managers with variable of organizational climate. It consists of seven variables i.e. autonomy, power and control; participation in decision making; interpersonal relations; compensation package; internal communication and professional effectiveness. Level of satisfaction of middle level managers is given against each dimension of organizational climate: Satisfaction with Autonomy, Power and Control Table 2 shows level of satisfaction of middle level managers with factor of autonomy, power and control. Findings show that majority of the respondents are either highly satisfied (45%) or satisfied (39%) in local organizations, which shows that middle level managers of local organizations enjoy autonomy power and control, as the results are almost same in multinational organizations where 40% of the respondents are highly satisfied while 53% are satisfied. So both local and multinational organizations are offering autonomy, power and control to middle level managers and they are satisfied with it. Very few of the managers are dissatisfied or highly dissatisfied with the factor of autonomy, power and control. Table 2. Satisfaction with Autonomy, Power and Control Local Multinational Level of Organizations Organizations Satisfaction Number Percent Number Percent Highly 1 2 0 0 Dissatisfied Dissatisfied 3 6 1 7 Undecided 4 8 0 0 69

Total Organizations Number Percent 1 1 4 4 6 6

Satisfied Highly Satisfied Total

20 23 51

39 45 100

8 6 15

53 40 100

28 29 66

43 44 100

Satisfaction with Participation in Decision Making Table 3 shows the satisfaction level of managers with the factor of participation in decision making. It reveals that in both types of organizations managers are part of decision making process. In local organizations (37% are highly satisfied and 31% are satisfied) while in multinational organizations (27% are highly satisfied and 33% are satisfied). In multinational a big amount (33%) of the middle level managers assume either not to be satisfied or dissatisfied, but that number is quite low (18%) in local organizations. It shows that middle level managers enjoy participation in decision making in both local and multinational organizations. Table 3 Satisfaction with Participation in Decision Making Local Multinational Level of Organizations Organizations Satisfaction Number Percent Number Percent Highly 3 6 1 7 Dissatisfied Dissatisfied 4 8 0 0 Undecided 9 18 5 33 Satisfied 16 31 5 33 Highly Satisfied 19 37 4 27 Total 51 100 15 100 Satisfaction with Interpersonal Relations Table-4 shows the satisfaction level of middle level managers with factor of interpersonal relations. Tale shows that majority of the respondents 82% (62% highly satisfied and 20% satisfied) in local and 80% (47% highly satisfied and 33 satisfied) in multinational are satisfied with interpersonal relations in organizations. In summing up it can be inferred that both local and multinational organizations are having good culture offering interpersonal relations. Table 4

Total Organizations Number Percent 4 6 4 14 21 23 66 6 21 32 35 100

Satisfaction with Interpersonal Relations Local Multinational Level of Organizations Organizations Satisfaction Number Percent Number Percent Highly 3 6 Nil Nil Dissatisfied Dissatisfied 2 4 02 13 Undecided 4 8 01 7 Satisfied 10 20 05 33 Highly Satisfied 32 62 07 47 Total 51 100 15 100

Total Organizations Number Percent 3 4 4 5 15 39 66 6 8 23 59 100

Satisfaction with Compensation Package (salary, fringe benefits) Table 5 reveals the results of satisfaction of middle level managers regarding compensation and reward packages being offered by the organizations. It reveals that managers of both local and multinational organizations are not happy with the rewards offered by the organizations; as dissatisfied managers are 63% (35% highly dissatisfied and 27% are dissatisfied) in local and 46% (13% highly dissatisfied and 33% dissatisfied) in multinational organizations. It revels that compensation packages are not sufficient in both organizations, but local organizations are relatively low paying organizations. When we look at the satisfied mangers, the satisfied managers are 40% in multinational organizations, while that ratio is only 24% in local organizations. Which proves that multinational organizations are relatively offering better packages? Table 5 Satisfaction with Compensation Package (salary & fringe benefits) Local Total Multinational Level of Organizations Organizations Organizations Satisfaction Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 20 30 Highly 18 35 2 13 Dissatisfied 19 28 Dissatisfied 14 27 5 33 9 14 Undecided 07 14 2 14 9 14 Satisfied 06 12 3 20 9 14 Highly Satisfied 06 12 3 20 66 100 Total 51 100 15 100

71

Satisfaction with Professional Effectiveness Satisfaction level of middle level managers is given in table 6. Results reveal that majority of the respondents 80% (19% highly satisfied and 51% satisfied) in local and 87% (14% highly satisfied and 73% satisfied) in multinationals are satisfied with the professional effectives offered by their organizations. It shows that managers are provided with the professional development opportunities and they are professionally effective. Table 6. Satisfaction with Professional Effectiveness Local Multinational Organizations Level of Organizations Satisfaction Number Percent Number Percent Highly 1 2 0 0 Dissatisfied Dissatisfied 3 6 0 0 Undecided 11 22 2 13 Satisfied 26 51 11 73 Highly Satisfied 10 19 2 14 Total 51 100 15 100 Overall Job Satisfaction Table-7 shows the overall job satisfaction of middle level mangers. It reveals that 62% (38% highly satisfied and 24% satisfied) in local and 74% (54% highly satisfied and 20% satisfied) in multinational organizations are satisfied with their job. It shows that majority of middle level mangers are satisfied but the satisfaction level of middle level managers is slightly high in the multinational organizations. This table also shows that none of the middle level mangers was highly dissatisfied in the multinationals but 10% of the middle level mangers were highly dissatisfied in the local organizations. Table 7. Overall Job Satisfaction Local Level of Organizations Satisfaction Number Percent Highly 5 10 Dissatisfied

Total Organizations Number Percent 1 1 3 13 37 12 66 5 20 56 18 100

Multinational Organizations Number Percent Nil Nil

Total Organizations Number Percent 5 8

Dissatisfied Undecided Satisfied Highly Satisfied Total CONCLUSIONS

6 8 12 20 51

12 16 24 38 100

2 2 3 8 15

13 13 20 54 100

8 10 5 28 66

12 15 23 42 100

Results of the study reveal that middle level mangers are satisfied in both local and multinational organizations; but mangers of multinational organizations are slightly more satisfied then the local organization managers. When mangers were inquired for all the dimensions of organizational climate it was found that there was not much difference in both local and multinational organizations on the facets of organizational climate except for pay and reward system. Middle level mangers of local organizations were not satisfied with the pay and reward system but the employees of the multinational organizations show that pay and reward system in their organizations are good and fair. If we make overall analysis it is revealed that mangers working in local organizations are not satisfied with the pay and they are not overall satisfied with their job but the results are different for the multinational organizations where managers have positive view about the pay and they are relatively more satisfied with their job as well. So it can be inferred that pay and reward system is one of the important determinant of job satisfaction of employees (Mangers) in pharmaceutical sector of Pakistan. FUTURE DIRECTIONS OF THE STUDY This study gives an insight of the factors of job satisfaction. As the findings reveal that pay and reward system is the prime source of job satisfaction in pharmaceutical sector of Pakistan. Same sort of research should be conducted in other sectors of the economy as well to find out the main preference of workforce in Pakistani scenario. This will in result help business planners to devise compensation and reward packages and to get maximum out of the labor force. This study in itself reveals that in pharmaceutical sector if organizations want to increase the level of satisfaction of employees they should offer higher and better returns in shape of reward and compensation. REFERENCES 73

Adams, D., & Waddle, C. (2002). Evaluating the return from management development programmes: individual returns versus organizational benefits. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 14, 14-20. Adams, J. S. (1965). Injustice in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 267-299). New York: Academic Press. Akhtar, M. S. (2000). A comparative study of the job satisfaction & customer satisfaction of Islamic Elementary School teachers in Michigan. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Wayne State University. Al-Rahimi, F. (1990). An analytical study of job satisfaction in Saudi Arabian public sector. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Liverpool. Austin, W., McGinn, N., & Susmilch, C. (1980). Internal standards revisited: Effects of social comparisons and expectancies on judgments of fairness and satisfaction. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 16, 426-441. Bailey, N. I. (2002). The relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction as reported by branch campus executive officers in multicampus community college systems. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida. Blegen, M. A. (1993). Nurses job satisfaction: A meta-analysis of related variables. Nursing Research, 42 (1), 36-41. Burruss, J. (1996). Managing for motivation and performance improvement. In N. Boulter, M. Dlziel and J. Hill (Eds.), People and competencies: The route to competitive advantage (pp. 91-103). London: Kogan Page. Campbell, S. L., Fowles, E. R., & Weber, B. J. (2004). Organizational structure and job satisfaction in public health nursing. Public Health Nursing, 21 (6), 564-571. Chappell, S. K. (1995). The relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction as reported by community college chief instructional officers. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. Conway, J. A. (1984). The myth, mystery, and mastery of participative decision making in education. Educational Administration Quarterly, 20 (3), 11-40. Dastmalchian, A., Blyton, P., & Adamson, R. (1991). The climate of workplace relations. London: Routledge. Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1992). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Delery, J., Gupta, N., Shaw, J., Jenkins, G. D., & Ganster, D. (2000). Unionization, compensation, and voice effects on quits and retention. Industrial Relations, 39 (4), 625-645. Drucker, P. F. (1973). Management. New York: Harper & Row. Dutka, M. A. (2002). The relationship between job satisfaction and the organizational climate for women higher education administrators at five institutions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston College. Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. W. (2005). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Ghaseminejad A., Siadat, S. A., & Nouri, A. (2005). A study of the relationship between organizational climate and teachers job stress and job satisfaction. Journal of Education and Psychology Spring, 12 (1), 45-64. Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 561-568. Hechanova, M. R., Alampay, R. B., & Franco, E. P. (2006). Psychological empowerment, job satisfaction and performance among Filipino service workers. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 9 (1), 72-78. Heneman, H. G. (1985). Pay satisfaction. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 3, 115-139. Hollifield, S. T. (2005). An examination of teacher job satisfaction, work-related stress and organizational culture in three school districts, Thesis (Ph. D) Wayne State University, 2005. Igalens, J., & Roussel, P. (1999). A study of the relationships between compensation package, work motivation and job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20 (7), 1003-1025. Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127 (3), 376-407. Kim, S. (2002). Participative management and job satisfaction: Lessons for management leadership. Public Administration Review, 62 (2), 231-241.

75

Kindt (2008). The Relationship between Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction Among Middle School Principals in Central Florida, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Florida. Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. (2006). Organizational behavior. Maidenhead: McGrawHill. Lauria, A. (1964). Respeto, Relajo and interpersonal relations in Puerto Rico. Anthropological Quarterly, 37 (2), 53-67. Lawler, E. E. (1966). Perceptions of managers pay and satisfaction with pay. Personnel Psychology, 19. Lawler, E. E. (1973). Motivation in work organizations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Lindelow, J., Coursen, D., Mazzarella, J. A., Heynderickx, J. J., & Smith, S. C. (1989). Participative decision-making. In S. C. Smith & P. K. Piele (Eds.), School leadership: Handbook for excellence (pp. 152-167). Oregon: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. Lo, M, Ramayah, T., & Min, C. L. (2007). Bases of power and job satisfaction. Icfai Journal of Organizational Behavior, 6 (1), 41-54. Luthans, F. (2002). Organizational behavior: Managing performance through job design and goal setting. New York: McGraw-Hill. Major, B. (1994). From social inequality to personal entitlement: The role of social comparisons, legitimacy appraisals, and group membership. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 293-355. Patterson, M., Warr, P., & West, M.( 2004). Organizational climate and company productivity: The role of employee affect and employee level. Center for Economic Performance Discussion Paper no. 626. Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Posner, B. Z., & Munson, J. M. (1979). The Importance of Values in Understanding Organizational Behavior. Human Resource Management, 18 (3), 9-14. Robbins, S. P. (1996). Organizational behavior: Concepts, controversies and applications (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Robbins, S. P., Millett, B., Cacioppe, R., & Waters-Marsh, T. (1998). Organizational behavior: Leading and managing in Australia and New Zealand. Sydney: Prentice Hall.

Ronald, J., Burke, R. J., & Wilcox, D. S. (1969). Effects of different patterns and degrees of openness in superior-subordinate communication on subordinate job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 12, 319-326. Rynes, S. L., Schwab, D. P., & Heneman, H. G. (1983). The role of pay and market pay variability in job application decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31, 353-364. Schneider, B. (1987). Organizational climate. Personnel Psychology, 28, 447-479. Shapiro, H. J. (1976). Models of pay satisfaction: A comparative study. Psychological Reports, 39, 223230. Smith, P. C. (1992). In pursuit of happiness. In C. J. Cranny, P. C. Smith, & E. F. Stone(Eds.), Job satisfaction (pp. 5-19). New York: Macmillan. Smith, P., Kendall, L., & Hulin, C. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement: A strategy for the study of attitudes. Chicago: Rand McNally. Spector, P. E. (2003). Industrial and organizational psychology: Research and practice. New York: Wiley. Staw, B. M., & Barsade, S. G. (1993). Affect and managerial performance: A test of the Sadder-but-Wiser vs. Happier-and-Smarter hypotheses. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38 (2), 304-31. Steel, B. S., & Lovrich, N. P. (1987). Comparable worth the problematic politicization of a public personnel issue. Public Personnel Management, 16, 23-36. Tarver, D., Canada, R., & Mee-Gaik, L. (1999). The relationship between job satisfaction and locus of control among college student affairs administrators and academic administrators. NASPA Journal, 36 (2), 96-105. Twombley, S. B., & Amey, M. J. (1994). Leadership skills for participative governance. In G. A. Baker (Ed.), A handbook on the community college in America: Its history, mission and management (pp. 269-283). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Varca, P. E., Shaffer, G. S., & McCauley, C. D. (1983). Sex differences in job satisfaction revisited. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 348-353. Vaughan, G. B. (1989). Leadership in transition: The community college presidency. New York: American Council on Education/Macmillan.

77