An empirical investigation of organisational antecedents on employee job satisfaction in a developing country

Abstract

Purpose

Increasing dynamic technological and communication net working environment today reflects to employee attitudes and behaviours with respect of their inputs. Employee motivation is an important and critical issue specifically for health organisation where they relate to patients. The purpose of this paper is to focus on the employee perception regarding procedural justices, on job training, esprit de corps, and job clarity variables towards job satisfaction in a developing country.

Design/methodology/approach

This study is a cross‐sectional study which applied a self‐administered survey questionnaire for data collection. By using statistical package for social sciences (SPSS) 15.0 version for Windows, analytical techniques were used to the results of descriptive statistics and Pearson's correlations. The hypotheses were tested using the hierarchical regression analysis techniques.

Findings

The findings showed significant and positive impact of procedural justices, on job training, esprit de corps for job satisfaction. However, employees reported less job satisfaction with their jobs due to lack of job clarity in a developing country.

Research limitations/implications

This study has three limitations such as single source of data, examined limited factors, and small sample of population.

Practical implications

With few limitations this study contributes to literature in the field of human resource management and organisational behaviour and can support public sector management to design policies that may help to enhance employee job satisfaction in the context of developing countries.

Originality/value

The paper provides empirical evidence of employee job satisfaction in a developing country.

Citation

Halepota, J.A. and Shah, N. (2011), "An empirical investigation of organisational antecedents on employee job satisfaction in a developing country", Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 280-294. https://doi.org/10.1108/17506161111155414