Organisational commitment and employee turnover at an Engineering faculty of a tertiary institution

LM Eksteen orcid.org/0000-0001-6642-893X

Mini-dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Masters of Business Administration at the North-West University

Supervisor: Prof CJ Botha

Graduation May 2018 Student number: 20801408

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to thank God, with whom nothing is impossible, for giving me the strength to go on when I felt like giving up. Thank you for being with me throughout this journey to the end. Your love and grace has sustained me and kept me going.

I would like to thank my family and friends for all the support they have given me. Thank you, especially my mom, for all the prayers and words of encouragement when I felt like giving up. I was not always available when they might have needed me to be there, but I want to thank you for the understanding shown during this time. I appreciate each one of you for being with me on this journey.

To my boss and colleagues – Evalancia Jones thank you for all the support you have shown. Thank you for the encouragement and never allowing me to give up. All of my colleagues, thank you for standing in the gap for me whenever I needed you to be there. The support you guys have shown carried me through when I needed it most.

Glory Ministries International, thank you for all the prayers.

My supervisor, Prof CJ Botha, thank you for the guidance and assistance. Thank you for taking the time to give valuable input that allowed me to complete this study.

John Rantlo, thank you for all the assistance you have given me. I appreciate all you have done for me and thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to assist whenever I called on you.

Prof Suria Ellis, thank you for assisting me with the statistics.

All the participants, thank you for your cooperation in this study. Thank you for taking time to complete the questionnaire, without you, this would not have been possible.

A special thank you to Faadhila Cassim for taking time to assist me. I really appreciate what you have done for me.

I might not have mentioned everyone by name, but know that I appreciate all the prayers, words of encouragement and support from all of you.

i

ABSTRACT

Over the past decade the face of the workplace has been faced with drastic changes initiating organisations to survive in a competitive global economy and severe working environments. One of the challenges faced by the organisations in the present day is discrimination in the workplace.

The objective of this dissertation is to determine the extent to which perceived discrimination predicts/has an impact on job satisfaction, organisational commitment and employee turnover intention under staff at the Engineering Faculty.Using frequencies and descriptive statistics, the article provides an overview of the extent of the impact of perceived discrimination on job satisfaction, organisational commitment and employee turnover intention. Furthermore, the article evaluates the extent of the relationships between the aforementioned variables. Data collected from 45 respondents using electronic questionnaires was analysed using SPSS and Statistica. The results show that respondents have low levels of perception of discrimination. It also indicates that most respondents are satisfied with their work and their responses to the intention to leave the organisation is not high.

Based on the descriptive statistics there is evidence of a relationship between perceived discrimination, job satisfaction, organisational commitment and employee turnover intention. We found that if the perception of discrimination is high it will lead to lower levels of organisational commitment and job satisfaction which will result to higher turnover intention of employees. We did however find that the perception of discrimination of the majority of the respondents, which were white and male, were less than that of other respondents. Furthermore it has been proven that perceived discrimination does have an influence on job satisfaction, organisational commitment and employee turnover intention of staff within the Faculty of Engineering.

The study recommends that the management of the faculty adopts a focused approach to improve job satisfaction. In order to manage the perceptions of discrimination, it is recommended that the institution creates awareness and trains employees about diversity.

Key terms: perceived discrimination, job satisfaction, organisational commitment, employee turnover intention

ii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

EEA – Employment Equity Act

ILO - The International Labour Organisation

JSS - The Job Satisfaction Survey

SPSS - The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure 1: Theoretical framework Table 4.1 Demographic information on age Table 4.2 Demographic information on gender Table 4.3 Demographic information on race Table 4.4 Demographic information on qualification Table 4.5 Demographic information on employment type Table 4.6: Descriptive statistics for perceived discrimination. Table 4.7: Descriptive statistics for organisational commitment and turnover intention. Table 4.8: Descriptive statistics job satisfaction. Table 4.9 Reliability statistics for perceived discrimination Table 4.10 Reliability statistics for organisational commitment Table 4.11 Reliability statistics for turnover intention Table 4.12 Reliability statistics for total job satisfaction Table 4.13 Group statistics on gender Table 4.14 Group statistics on employment type Table 4.15 Group statistics on race Table 4.16 Group statistics on age Table 4.17 Group statistics on qualification Table 4.18 Correlation table

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………………..i

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………...ii

List of abbrieviations……………………………………………………………………..iii

List of figures and tables………………………………………………………………… iii

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Problem statement...... 1

1.2 Research objectives ...... 4

1.2.1 General objective ...... 4 1.2.2 Specific objectives ...... 4 1.3 Expected contribution of the study ...... 5

1.4 Limitations of the study ...... 5

1.5 Ethical considerations ...... 5

1.6 Chapter division ...... 6

Chapter 2: Literature review

2.1 Introduction ...... 7

2.2 Discrimination ...... 8

2.2.1 International perspective ...... 8 2.2.2 South African perspective ...... 9 2.3 Perceived discrimination ...... 9

2.4 Perceived discrimination ...... 11

2.5 Job satisfaction ...... 12

2.5.1 Age ...... 14 2.5.2 Tenure ...... 14 2.5.3 Educational level ...... 14 2.5.4 Gender ...... 14 2.6 Organisational commitment ...... 15

2.7 Turnover intentions...... 17

2.8 Interrelationship of the variables...... 18

iv

2.8.1 Perceived discrimination and job satisfaction ...... 18 2.8.2 Job satisfaction and organisational commitment ...... 18 2.8.3 Perceived discrimination and organisational commitment ...... 18 2.8.4 Job satisfaction and turnover intentions ...... 19 2.8.5 Organisational commitment and turnover intentions ...... 19 2.9 Conclusion ...... 19

Chapter 3: Research methodology and design

3.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 21

3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN ...... 21

3.2.1 Research approach ...... 21 3.2.2 Research method ...... 21 3.2.3 Research procedure...... 23

3.2.4 Statistical analysis ...... 23

3.3 Conclusion ...... 24

Chapter 4: Research results

4.1 Introduction ...... 25

4.2 Demographic information ...... 25

4.2.1 Gender ...... 25 4.2.2 Age group ...... 25 4.2.3 Race ...... 26 4.2.4 Qualification ...... 26 4.2.5 Employment type ...... 27 4.3 Descriptive statistics ...... 27 4.3.1 Perceived discrimination ...... 28 4.3.2 Organisational Commitment and turnover intention ...... 29 4.3.3 Job satisfaction ...... 30 4.4 Reliability ...... 31 4.5 Comparison with biographical data ...... 32 4.6 Correlation between constructs ...... 37

4.7 Conclusion ...... 41

Chapter 5: Conclusion and recommendations

5.1 Conclusion ...... 42

v

5.2 Recommendations ...... 43

REFERENCES ...... 45

Annexure A ...... 49

Annexure B ...... 50

vi

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Problem statement Over the past decade, the face of the workplace has changed dramatically, initiating organisations to survive in a competitive global economy and severe working environments. One of the challenges faced by the organisations in the present day is discrimination in the workplace.

Discrimination in the workplace continues to be a global problem, with new, more indirect forms emerging (ILO, 2017). The International Labour Organisation (ILO) in its report titled Time for Equality Work places blame for continuous discrimination on prejudices, stereotypes and biased institutions that have resisted measures taken against unequal treatment at work (ILO, 2017). In South Africa, following the apartheid era and the enactment of other discriminatory laws and practices, there are disparities in employment, occupation and income within the national labour market, which have created disadvantages for certain categories of people (Employment Equity Act, 1998). These disadvantages may have dire results on the commitment of the employee to his or her work, the satisfaction at the workplace and ultimately deciding whether to stay or leave employment. Following the foregoing, South Africa has taken measures on national level to address discrimination. Section 9(4) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa states that no person may be unfairly discriminated against, directly or indirectly by another, on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth (Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996). The Constitution further mandates the State to promulgate legislation that will prevent or prohibit unfair discrimination (Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996). In order to eliminate unfair discrimination in employment, and to ensure the implementation of employment equity to redress the effects of discrimination and to give effect to the obligations of South Africa as a member of the ILO, South Africa enacted the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998.

Discrimination has been defined as any distinction, exclusion or preference made on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin, “which has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality or opportunity and treatment in employment or

1 occupation” (ILO Convention No 111). This definition of discrimination by the ILO shall be adopted for the purposes of this research. Discrimination has also been defined as a sociological term referring to the treatment taken towards or against a person of a certain group that is taken based on class or category (International Labour Organization, 2003). According to Dipboye and Collela (cited by Ozer and Gunluk, 2010), the perception of discrimination makes it possible for the individuals to act on the problem at hand. Discrimination can be perceived to exist in the employee; therefore, perceived discrimination has been defined as a person’s perception that he or she is treated differently or unfairly because of his or her group affiliation (Ozer and Gunluk, 2010). Perceived discrimination has an impact on the physical and mental health of an individual (Alvarez-Galvez and Salvador-Curulla, 2010). It has further been stated that perceived discrimination can lead to mental problems such as depression, psychological distress, anxiety, phobias or high-risk health behaviours (Alvarez-Galvez and Salvador- Curulla, 2010). Ensher et al (cited by Ozer and Gunluk, 2010) hold the view that when individuals are of the view that they feel ill-treated on the basis of their group affiliation, they usually feel secluded and angry, which can cause negative work-related behaviours. Therefore, it becomes apparent that where there is perceived discrimination, an employee is likely to be negatively affected as a result thereof; his or her performance will also be negatively affected. Consequently, perceived discrimination may have an impact on job satisfaction, organisational commitment and employee turnover.

Job satisfaction encompasses the feelings of people that are directed to a particular job and its environment (Masemola, 2011). Schneider and Snyder (Cited by Castro and Martin, 2010) stated that the concept of job satisfaction has also been defined as “a personal evaluation of conditions present in the job, or outcomes that arise as a result of having a job.” Hirschfeld (2000) has defined job satisfaction as “an affective or emotional reaction to the job, resulting from the incumbent’s comparison of actual outcomes with the required outcomes.” According to Kendall and Hulin (1969), job satisfaction is “persistent feelings towards discriminable aspects of the job situation that are thought to be associated with perceived differences between what is expected and what is experienced in relation to the alternatives available in given situation.” Therefore, a connection may exist between perceived discrimination and job satisfaction.

Firestone and Pennell (cited by Ntisa, 2015) stated that although there is no universal definition of organisational commitment, many of the formulated definitions traverse on the idea of a

2 psychological bond, an intrinsic attachment and identification of an employee with something outside of oneself. According to Robbins (1989), organisational commitment is a “state in which an employee identifies with particular organisation and its goals, and wishes to maintain membership in the organisation.” Organisational commitment has also been defined as “a psychological state that characterises an employee’s relationship with the organisation and reduces the likelihood that he/she will leave it” (Allen & Meyer, 2000). Employee turnover intention is the degree to which an employee believes that he or she will terminate his or her employment at some unspecified time in future (Hinshaw, Smeltzer & Atwood 1987). It has also been defined as mental decisions intervening between an individual’s attitudes regarding a job and the decision to stay or leave the job (Sager, Griffeth & Hom, 1998).

The ILO report on discrimination prepared under the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work shows that “many who suffer from discrimination, especially on the basis of their sex or colour face a persistent "equality gap" that divides them from dominant groups who enjoy a better life, or even from their own peers who have benefited from anti- discrimination laws and policies” (International Labour Organisation, 2017). Discrimination is still a common, persistent problem in the workplace and while some of the more obvious forms of discrimination may have faded, many remain, and others have taken on new or less visible forms (International Labour Organisation, 2017). According to Ozer and Gunluk (2010), even if legislation may be in place to protect people in the workplace against discrimination, “an individual can already be discriminated against even before he or she sets foot in the workplace.” On the other hand, organisational commitment and job satisfaction are commonly perceived as intervening variables in the turnover process (Masemola, 2011). The determinants of turnover intention can be understood from the association between job satisfaction and organisational commitment (Okpara, Squillace & Erondu, 2005). It is therefore evident that there is a connection between the job satisfaction, organisational commitment and employee turnover. These three concepts are linked with the emotions and psychological state of an employee. Similarly, when reference is made to the definition of perceived discrimination by Alvarez-Galvez and Salvador-Curulla (2010), it becomes apparent that perceived discrimination also has a direct impact on the emotions and psychological state of an employee. Furthermore, discrimination goes against organisational justice, which is a phrase that describes fairness in the workplace and is concerned with the ways in which employees determine whether they have been treated fairly in their jobs and the ways in which this determination influences other work-related variables. Despite the foregoing, it is not apparent

3 whether perceived discrimination predicts job satisfaction, organisational commitment and employee turnover intention. In the event that the foregoing is in the affirmative, the extent to which perceived discrimination predicts job satisfaction, organisational commitment and employee turnover intention is not apparent. Therefore, it is important to determine whether perceived discrimination predicts job satisfaction, organisational commitment and employee turnover intention and the impact thereof.

1.2 Research objectives The research objectives are divided into a general objective and specific objectives.

1.2.1 General objective The general objective of this study is to determine the extent to which perceived discrimination predicts/has an impact on job satisfaction, organisational commitment and employee turnover intention under staff at the Engineering Faculty. In order to achieve this objective, there are subsidiary specific objectives that have been formulated and are discussed below.

1.2.2 Specific objectives The specific objectives of this research are:

 To conceptualise the perceived discrimination, job satisfaction, organisational commitment and employee turnover intention according to the literature.  To discuss the relationship between perceived discrimination, job satisfaction, organisational commitment and employee turnover intention, if any.  To provide a critical analysis on whether perceived discrimination influences job satisfaction under staff at the Faculty of Engineering.  To provide a critical analysis on whether perceived discrimination influences organisational commitment under staff at the Engineering Faculty.  To provide a critical analysis on whether perceived discrimination influences employee turnover intention under staff at the Engineering Faculty.  To arrive at conclusions and make recommendations for the Faculty of Engineering on how to address the influence of perceived discrimination on job satisfaction, organisational commitment and employee turnover intention.

4

1.3 Expected contribution of the study The study will benefit both employees and management. It will benefit the employees in the sense that each employee will be given an opportunity to state their individual perceptions of their work, the organisation, to give their feelings regarding job satisfaction and organisational commitment, and then make recommendations as to what they feel the institution should do to increase their job satisfaction, organisational commitment and need to stay. The management will benefit from the study too, as the findings will be presented to them with recommendations from the respondents. It will also serve to make them aware of what their employees may be going through. The study will therefore assist management with their efforts and endeavours toward the management of the people. The study will also highlight areas that employees perceived to be good practice and that they wish could be sustained. Therefore, this will create and strengthen a reciprocal relationship between the employees and management of the Engineering Faculty.

1.4 Limitations of the study All studies or investigations have restrictions (Alberts, 2007:9). These restrictions may be that there is limited available research funding, restriction of the sample, practical issues such as time constraints, a lack of research support, and the limited available measuring instruments and methods of data analysis.

The current study has the following limitations:

 It will focus only on one faculty at one institution and may not necessarily be generalisable to other faculties in other institutions.  One method was utilised for this study, which was the use of questionnaires that were electronically distributed. The method has its advantages and disadvantages. The advantages of this system include that the questionnaires can be sent to a large number of people and in a more efficiently and effectively way than the traditional means of pen and paper. While the disadvantages include poor return rate (Martin, 2007:89).

1.5 Ethical considerations Ethics play important role when conducting research and researchers are often confronted by ethical dilemmas, which initiate the researcher to be accountable for any circumstances that could deviate the researcher from being ethical, protecting and safe guarding the participants at all times. Ethics in research involve informed consent, the goals of the research, duration of

5 the research as well as the advantages and disadvantages that the participants will be exposed to during the research.

The essential rule when conducting the research is not to harm any participants or the researcher: whether it is their rights and/or their confidentiality. Participants should at all times voluntarily participate and should not be forced or influenced to take part, however, should be asked. Confidentiality, privacy and anonymity of the participants are the essential aspect of ethics and should be held with high regard because individuality has the right to privacy, protection of anonymity and confidentiality and lastly the participants should be informed of all the limitations of privacy, anonymity and confidentiality before taking part in the research.

 The purpose of the study was made clear to all participants and they partook voluntarily.  The study did not request any identifying information from the subject in order to maintain confidentiality.

 Consent was obtained from Faculty management prior to conducting the study.  Results were accessible to the interested stakeholders.

1.6 Chapter division Chapter 1

This chapter focuses on the introduction, problem statement, objectives, limitations and the expected contributions of the study.

Chapter 2

Chapter two gives an overview of existing literature on employee job satisfaction, organisational commitment and turnover intentions.

Chapter 3

This chapter focuses on the research design and the methodology used to collect data through questionnaires.

Chapter 4

This chapter focuses on the research results.

Chapter 5

Chapter five entails a conclusion and makes recommendations.

6

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction South Africa has experienced significant changes in its higher education system from the early 1970s with the reduction, through mergers, of 36 universities and technikons to 23 institutions (Moshoeu & Geldenhuys, 2015). It has been suggested that the rationale for such significant changes was to redress the injustices of the past within the higher education system (Moshoeu & Geldenhuys, 2015). The aforementioned significant changes usually have direct and/or indirect effects on the well-being of employees and consequently the organisation as a whole. It has been suggested that this may have implications that can possibly trigger feelings of job insecurity affecting individuals’ commitment and engagement towards their organisation. This chapter shall provide a theoretical overview of the perceived discrimination in the workplace, job satisfaction, organisational commitment and turnover intention. In doing so, the chapter will critically discuss the notion of perceived discrimination, job satisfaction, organisational commitment and turnover intention respectively. The chapter will also discuss the interrelationship between the above-mentioned concepts that are sought to be interrogated in this chapter. This chapter focuses on discussing the fundamental concepts of the study. The chapter also provides an overview of the literature relating to the study.

The key concepts discussed are: perceived discrimination, job satisfaction, organisational commitment and employee turnover intention.

7

Theoretical framework:

Job satisfaction

Perceived discrimination Turnover intention

Organisational committment

Figure 1: Theoretical framework

2.2 Discrimination According to the ILO, workplace discrimination continues to be a persistent global challenge, although it may be in the new indirect form (ILO.2017). Employees are entitled to be treated equally in the workplace irrespective of their race, colour, sex, religion, political affiliation and any other factor. This entitlement is expressed in some international instruments and has also been domesticated into the legislation of several states. South Africa is no exception, as it has incorporated into its legislation the provisions that prohibit discrimination of all forms and seek to promote equality in the workplace. The existence of discrimination in the workplace has an impact on the lives and wellbeing of the employees and the said impact extends to the commitment at the organisation.

2.2.1 International perspective According to the ILO, in the convention concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation, discrimination has been defined as including “any distinction, exclusion or preference made on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin, which has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation (ILO Convention on Discrimination, Employment and Occupation) Convention 1958).” The Convention further provides that discrimination may also include such other distinction, exclusion or preference that has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation as may be determined by the member concerned after consultation with representative employers’ and workers’ organisations, where such exist, and with other appropriate bodies. However, according to the same Convention,(1958), there is an exception to distinction, exclusion or

8 preference in respect of a particular job based on inherent requirements and regards such not as discrimination.

The continuation of discrimination despite the attempts to eradicate it has been blamed on the prejudices, stereotypes and biased institutions that have resisted decades of legal efforts and policy measures undertaken by government, workers and employers against unequal treatment at work (ILO, 2017).

2.2.2 South African perspective

In view of the “results of apartheid and other discriminatory laws and practices,” it is apparent that there are disparities in employment, occupation and income within the national labour market (Employment Equity Act: 1998). In order to redress the foregoing state of affairs, the government promulgated the legislation that addresses the issue of discrimination in the workplace. The Constitution of South Africa (1996) (herein after referred to as the Constitution) provides for the right to quality and states that “the state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds including race, gender, sex, pregnancy marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.” The same section in the Constitution further imposes the same obligation on individuals to refrain from unfairly discriminating directly or indirectly against anyone on any or one or more grounds mentioned above (Constitution, 1996). Any form of discrimination on any of the aforementioned grounds is considered as unfair (Constitution, 1996).

With the aim of giving effect to the provisions of the Constitution, the South African government enacted the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 (herein after referred to as EEA), which, among others, addresses issues of discrimination. The EEA poses an obligation on the employers to take measures to promote equal opportunity in the workplace by eliminating unfair discrimination in any employment policy or practice (EEA, 1998). The EEA further reiterates the provisions of the Constitution in that it states that no person may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against any employee in any employment policy or practice in one or more of the grounds stated above (EEA: 1998).

2.3 Perceived discrimination Discrimination has been defined as “differential treatment of individuals based on arbitrary or ascribed characteristics that are socially attributed to be belonging to that group, including traits

9 as diverse as gender, sexual orientation, age, education, intellectual or physical disabilities, belief and religion, race and ethnicity, political orientation, or even socio-economic background” (Alvarez-Galvez & Salvador-Carulla, 2013). Discrimination has also been defined as a sociological term denoting a “treatment towards or against a person of a certain group”, and the basis for such a treatment is class or category on which such a person falls upon (ILO, 2003). Discrimination in the workplace in particular has been defined as the unfair and negative treatment of workers or job applicants on the basis of personal attributes that are irrelevant to job performance (Ozer & Gunluk, 2010). It follows from the preceding assertion that it is not every differentiated treatment that may be classified as discrimination in the workplace. This coincides with the provisions of the Constitution that provide for an exception to different treatment that may not be classified as discrimination.

According to Klumpp and Su (2011:), discrimination on the basis of “gender, racial, religious, and other forms of discrimination are generally viewed as social ills, excluding individuals from opportunities available to others based solely on characteristics such as a person's sex or skin colour.”

It has been asserted that discrimination in the workplace may still take place even as an individual sets foot at the workplace, despite the plethora of legislation and policies that may be in place to protect employees against discrimination (Ozer & Gunluk, 2010). Therefore, discrimination may occur during different stages of employment (Ozer & Gunluk, 2010). There are two forms of discrimination that have been identified, namely formal and informal discrimination (Ozer & Gunluk, 2010).

Formal discrimination has been described as an institutionalised process that restricts target groups’ access to certain outcomes such as job mobility, promotions, salary increments, more job responsibilities and other procedures related to hiring and firing minority employees (Ozer & Gunluk, 2010). With regard to informal discrimination, it occurs when there are unofficial policies and or practices that allow harassment and derogation of minority employees (Ozer & Gunluk, 2010). It may manifest through verbal harassment such as gossip, taunts and ridicule, and other non-verbal form of non-harassment such as stares, ostracism and vandalism to personal belongings (Levis & Leornard, 1984). In the event that discrimination exists, it is usually not observable, but manifests itself only indirectly, in a form of ex-post inequality across groups (Klumpp & Su, 2011).

10

2.4 Perceived discrimination Perceived discrimination has been defined as an “individual’s perception that he or she is being treated differently or unfairly because of his or her group membership” (Sanchez & Brock, 1996). The different or unfair treatment may be based on one or more of the grounds that have been outlined in the ILO Convention and the Constitution of South Africa. The effect of perceived discrimination may be that an individual who has a perception that he/she is being discriminated against because of his/her group membership, may feel alienated and angry, which further leads to negative work-related behaviours (Ozer & Gunluk, 2010). It has been argued that perceived discrimination has an impact on our physical and mental health and this is backed up by evidence that indicates that individuals who perceive themselves as subject to discrimination can suffer mental problems such as depression, psychological distress, anxiety and high-risk health behaviours (Alvarez-Galvez & Salvador-Carulla, 2013).

The issue of discrimination is intertwined with the concept of organisational justice. This term means fairness in the workplace and it is concerned with the way in which employees determine whether they have been treated fairly in their jobs and the ways in which these variables influence other work-related variables (Ozer & Gunluk, 2010). It follows therefore that if an employee is of the view that that he/she is being discriminated against, it can be safely assumed there is no organisational justice in the view of such an employee. Therefore, organisational justice, in the similar manner to perceived discrimination, relates to the manner in which the employee considers him- or herself to be treated at the workplace. It is based on the individual’s experience regarding fairness of resource distribution as perceived within an organisation (Johnson, 2007). Therefore, discrimination may be perceived as one of the organisational injustices.

Organisational justice is considered as one of the factors that influences the performance and job satisfaction of employees. Organisational justice describes the individual’s perception of fairness of treatment received from an organisation and their response to such perceptions (Fernandes & Awamleh, 2006). It has been asserted that when employees feel that they are not treated fairly, they respond both affectively (which may mean they show low commitment) and behaviourally, which has a bearing on turnover (Fernandes & Awamleh, 2006). It follows therefore on the basis of the discussion on discrimination, organisational justice and turnover that the three are intertwined and they have an impact on organisational commitment and turnover.

11

Therefore, on the basis of the foregoing discussions and for the purposes of this research, perceived discrimination is defined as an individual’s perception that he/she is being distinguished, excluded, or getting deferential treatment to their detriment on the basis of one or more of the following grounds: race, gender, sex, pregnancy marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth, and this does not include distinction, exclusion or deferential treatment in respect of a particular job based on inherent requirements and regards such not as discrimination.

2.5 Job satisfaction The term job satisfaction is applicable to almost invariably all the organisations and carries various definitions (Saba, 2011). From the plethora of literature, it is observable that there is no universal definition for the term job satisfaction. However, several scholars have attempted to define this term. According to Ellickson and Logsdon (2001), job satisfaction is usually defined as the degree to which individuals are satisfied with their work and this is based on the individual’s perception of the environment in which they work. Similar to perceived discrimination, job satisfaction is based on the individual’s perception, that is, it is a subjective perception. Rayton and Yalabik (2014) consider job satisfaction as both what employees feel about their job and what they think about the various aspects of their jobs. Spector (1997) reaffirms the foregoing by stating that job satisfaction explains the feeling that people have towards their jobs and the various aspects relating to their job.

Ellickson and Logsdon (2001) state that the degree of job satisfaction is likely to increase based on the more the individual’s work environment fulfils his or her “needs, values or personal characteristics.” Meyer et al. (2015:2) define job satisfaction as a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of an individual’s job and job satisfaction. It relates to the physical and mental well-being in the organisation (Meyer et al., 2015). Kreitner and Kinicki (1995) consider job satisfaction as affective or emotional responses towards various factors of their jobs. Hirschfeld (2000) extends the above definition by also stating that job satisfaction is also an emotional reaction towards a job, which leads to the individual comparing the actual outcome with those that the individual desires (Hirschfeld, 2000). Spector (1997) defines job satisfaction as “individual’s total feeling about their job and the attitudes they have towards various aspects or facets of their job, as well as an attitude and perception that could consequently influence the degree of fit between the individual and organisation.” According to Robbins (2005), job satisfaction is “a collection that an individual holds towards his or her

12 job.” Masemola (2011) concurs with the foregoing perceptions and states that job satisfaction relates to the way individuals feel towards a particular job and its environment. According to Saba (2011), job satisfaction can be defined as “the sense of achievement and arrogance felt by employees who get pleasure from their employment and complete it well.”

From the foregoing definitions, it is apparent that job satisfaction is based on the perceptions of the individual and is based on how they feel about the job. It has been argued that individuals who experience high levels of job satisfaction are likely to show more organisational commitment (Agho, Prince & Meuller, 1992). This suggests that there is a link between the concept of job satisfaction and organisational commitments as the greater decree of the former is likely to lead to the latter. Job satisfaction is considered as one of the variables used in organisational behaviour research (Martin & Roodt, 2008). According to Ozer and Gunluk (2010), job satisfaction is one of the vital components of employee attitude that stands to be affected by perceived discrimination. Job satisfaction is described as a consistent feeling that relates to features considered to be discriminable of the job situation that are considered to be related to the perceived differences between what is expected and what is experienced in relation to the alternatives available in given a situation (Smith, Kendall & Hulin,1969).

There are two identified categories of antecedent variables, which are environmental factors and personal factors (Ellickson & Logsdon 2001). Environmental antecedents relate to factors associated with the workplace environment, while the personal characteristics relate to the individuals’ qualities and characteristics (Ellickson & Logsdon 2001). Therefore, these are the factors that influence the individual’s perception in the workplace and how they feel, which is in accordance with the definitions of job satisfaction.

According to Bender et al. (2005), “"job satisfaction is a resultant of the worker’s weighting his or her own mind of all the job’s aspects.” It has further been suggested that job satisfaction can be viewed as a single matric that enables an individual to compare the current job to other labour-market opportunities (Bender et al., 2005). According to Martin (2007) and (Masemola (2011), job satisfaction is a “persistent feelings that are thought to be associated with perceived differences between what is experienced in relation to the alternatives available in a given situation.”

Following from the foregoing, vast definitions of job satisfaction can be observed and state that, generally, job satisfaction relates to the perceptions of the employees regarding the workplace and how the said individual feels about the job. There are factors that influence job

13 satisfaction, which may include, but are not limited to age, tenure, education level and gender (Oliver 2011). These factors are:

2.5.1 Age Although there is a relationship between age and job satisfaction, the relationship between age and job satisfaction has proven to be elusive (Oliver, 2011). It has been indicated that older employees usually show more job satisfaction than younger employees (Oliver, 2011). On the other hand, Ntisa (2015) has stated that many employers are struggling to motivate employees in the young stage. Therefore, this suggests that job satisfaction increases with age.

2.5.2 Tenure According to Lim, Teo and Thayer (1998), tenure is the duration of an employee’s employment in a specific organisation. It has been suggested that employees who have stayed longer in an organisation reflect higher job satisfaction as opposed to the employees who are moving from one organisation to the other (Bull, 2005). Oliver (2011) is of the view that “it is possible that benefits such as security and experience increase with time resulting in an important influence on employee satisfaction.” Ntisa (2015) concurs and states that research has established that when the employee’s years of experience grow, there is an increase in the overall level of job satisfaction, which is caused by the benefits, such as job security, experience, and a strong bond with colleagues, which increase in time and are likely to affect job satisfaction (Masemola, 2011).

2.5.3 Educational level Oliver (2011), who quoted with approval Rogers (1991), stated that it has been established that there is a positive link between education and job satisfaction, which implies that when the work done by an individual relates to their education level, better educated individuals are inclined to experience higher level of job satisfaction. Therefore, it is goes without saying that education level predicts job satisfaction of absence thereof.

2.5.4 Gender Oliver (2011) states that it is important to understand how men and women differ in job attitudes, since the influx of women into the workplace has increased. According to Clark (1997), women, in contrast to their male counterparts, generally report higher levels of satisfaction, even though women’s jobs are notably and often significantly worse than men’s in terms of job security and content, promotional opportunities and sexual harassment. This

14 difference on the level of job satisfaction has led to huge dialogue among researchers whose findings are usually conflicting (Hodson, 1989). According to Ntisa (2015), lower levels of job satisfaction are reported among males. Therefore, gender plays a role in leading to job satisfaction.

2.6 Organisational commitment There is no universal definition of organisational commitment (Oliver, 2011). However, there have been efforts made to define organisational commitment by several authors although there has not been a consensus on the matter (Firestone & Pennell, 1993). It has been suggested, however, that organisational commitment is “a psychological link between the individual and the organisation making it less likely that the individual will leave voluntarily” (Allen & Meyer 1990). Lumley et al. (2011) shared the same sentiments and have defined organisational commitment as psychological connection that individuals have with their organisation, which is reflected by the strong association with their organisation. In South Africa, studies have indicated that organisational commitment moderates the effect of occupational stress organisation (Meyer et al, 2015).

It has further been defined by same authors as the “relative strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular organisation” (Allen & Meyer, 1990). It has further been described as staying at the employment irrespective of the circumstances, attending work regularly (Oliver, 2011).

According to Shukla et al. (2013), research has looked into the extent to which the organisational commitment of individuals is connected to attitudes and affective reactions to the work environment and behavioural intentions, which include turnover intention. It has been suggested that organisational commitment is linked to the turnover intentions that have a serious impact on the employees (Chen & Francesco, 2000). Research has revealed that organisational commitment is more strongly associated with turnover intention as opposed to job satisfaction.

Organisational commitment is described as “an attitudinal variable indicating the amount of loyalty and support an employee feels for an organisation” (Shukla et al., 2013). It is further defined as “the extent to which employees are involved with and have emotional attachment to their organisations because they identify with the goals and values of their organisation” (Shukla et al., 2013). Robbins, Odendaal and Roodt (1995) define organisational commitment as “a state which an employee identifies with a particular organisation and its goals and

15 objectives to maintain membership in the organisation.” Roodt (1997) considers organisational commitment as “the individual’s level of involvement in their job, the importance the individual attaches to the job and the willingness of the individual to dedicate the necessary time and energy to the job.”

Organisational commitment creates a sense of stability and belonging and thereby contributing to the reduced stress and increased health and well-being of the organisation (Meyer et al., 2015). Organisational commitment also forms part of the organisation’s competitive advantage in that committed employees remain with the organisation in all situations, attend work regularly, and protect organisational assets sharing common goals (Allen & Meyer 1990).

It is suggested that organisational commitment can be in three forms, which are continuance, normative or affective commitment (Allen & Meyer 1991). Continuance commitment means the commitment to the organisation by an individual, which is based on realising the cost that it will involve in leaving the organisation (Visser, 2012). According to Moshoeu and Geldenhuys (2015), continuance commitment “is responsible for and associated with ensuring that individuals retain their organisational membership.” Moshoeu and Geldenhuys (2015) further state that the precursor of continuance commitment includes, but is not limited to age, tenure, career satisfaction and intention to leave.

Normative commitment relates to an employee who stays with the organisation on the basis that they feel obliged to do so (Visser 2012). The individual considers it to be a right thing to stay with the organisation because it invested in their training and may have given them a good opportunity to build their career (Visser 2012). Normative commitment indicates employees’ feelings of obligation to remain with an organisation (Allen & Meyer 1990). Similar to continuance commitment, normative commitment has its precursors, which include but are not limited to colleagues’ commitment, organisational dependability and participatory management (Moshoeu & Geldenhuys, 2015).

Affective commitment relates to the “identification with the organisation, involvement and emotional attachment to the organisation. An employee who experiences strong affective commitment will stay with the organisation because they want to do so” (Visser 2012). Affective commitment has been described as employees’ emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organisation (Allen & Meyer 1990). Moshoeu and Geldenhuys, (2015) assert that it is generally believed that affectively committed employees continue working with great devotion on a voluntary basis.

16

Organisational commitment is negatively associated with turnover intentions (Tett & Meyer, 1993). Organisational commitment is to a greater extent related to turnover intention, which has an effect on employees’ behaviours (Chen & Francesco, 2000). Organisational commitment is regarded as a vital part of an employee’s psychological state, because employees who experience high organisational commitment are theorised to engage in many behaviours (Jaros, 1997).

2.7 Turnover intentions There is a great deal of research that has been undertaken on turnover intention over the years (Ntisa 2015). According to Oliver (2011), where he quoted, with approval, Aydogdu and Asikgil (2011), defined turnover intentions as “an individual’s behavioural attitude to withdraw from organisations.” According to Takawira, Coetzee and Schreuder (2014), turnover intention is “the manifestation of the (subjective) probability that an individual will change his or her job within a certain time period.” It can also be defined as the extent to which an individual’s plans to stay with or leave the organisation (Bothma & Roodt 2013). The turnover intention is not definite, but rather related to the job search behaviour (Takawira, Coetzee & Schreuder, 2014). According to Tett and Meyer (cited by Oosthuizen, Coetzee & Munro (2016)), turnover intention is defined as “the conscious and deliberate wilfulness to leave the organisation.”

It has further been defined as the employees’ intention to quit the organisation. The intention to quit or leave the organisation by the employee is considered as a good predictor of turnover intention. It appears from the foregoing that turnover intention relates to the willingness either to stay or leave the organisation.

There can either be voluntary or involuntary turnover (Oliver (2011). Voluntary turnover is usually initiated by the employee (Oliver, 2011). Involuntary turnover follows from the initiative of the employer to terminate the employee’s employment (Sutherland & Jordaan, 2004). It has been argued that individuals with turnover intentions are likely to render poor service and hamper organisational effectiveness (Takawira, Coetzee & Schreuder, 2014).

Turnover intentions have often been linked with organisational commitment (Shore & Martin, 1989). Turnover intention has also been linked to job satisfaction (Shore & Martin, 1989). Job satisfaction leads to reduced intentions to quit (Shukla et al, 2013). This is considered as a more valuable concept since it is connected to the turnover behaviour (Shore & Martin 1989). According to Oosthuizen, Coetzee and Munro (2016), “job satisfaction has the most significant effects on turnover intentions, with organisational commitment mediating the relationship.” In

17 the foregoing discussions, it has become apparent that the foregoing concepts are interrelated. It is therefore imperative to briefly discuss the said interrelationship.

2.8 Interrelationship of the variables 2.8.1 Perceived discrimination and job satisfaction It has been earlier stated that the definition of job satisfaction by Kendal and Hulin (1969), which provides that job satisfaction is the persistent feelings towards discriminable aspects of job situation that are considered related to perceived differences between what is expected and what is experienced in relation to the alternatives available in a given situation. In considering the above-mentioned definitions and the definitions of perceived discrimination, it has become apparent that there is an interrelationship between the two concepts. It is the aim of this paper to establish the nature and the extent to which perceived discrimination and job satisfaction are interrelated and the influence that perceived discrimination has on job satisfaction in the event that there is any.

2.8.2 Job satisfaction and organisational commitment

Following the above discussion, it becomes apparent that there is a relationship between the two concepts (Kotze & Roodt 2005). The interrelationship between the two concepts has not been made clear as yet. However, according to Ntisa (2015), low levels of job satisfaction tend to lead to the withdrawal of the individual from the organisation. According to Meyer et al. (2015), satisfied individuals are committed to the organisation, and committed individuals attend work, stay in the organisation and perform well. The individual’s intention to leave the organisation reflects an emotional response towards the job (Cohen & Golan 2007). Taking into consideration the definitions of job satisfaction and organisational commitment provided, it is also apparent that there is an interrelationship between these two concepts and this research is aimed at establishing the nature of this interrelationship.

2.8.3 Perceived discrimination and organisational commitment

It has been stated that perceived discrimination is the perception that one is being treated differently on the basis of either race, gender, sex, pregnancy and such other factors referred to. The perceived discrimination has an impact on physical and mental health. On the other hand, organisational commitment has been defined as a psychological state that portrays an employee’s relationship with the organisation and reduces the likelihood of an individual leaving or staying. The two definitions provided indicate that the two concepts are somehow

18 related to the psychological state of affairs of an infidel. It is not clear, however, how perceived discrimination is linked or has an impact on organisational commitment. This research is also aimed at discovering the nature of the interrelationship between the two foregoing concepts.

2.8.4 Job satisfaction and turnover intentions

According to Ntisa (2015), low levels of job satisfaction lead to employees’ withdrawal from organisations. Ntisa (2015) further contends that job satisfaction and turnover intentions are an indication of the outlook that employees have about the organisation. According to Oosthuizen, Coetzee and Munro (2016), “job satisfaction is the most significant predictor of turnover intention and is significantly and negatively correlated with turnover intention.” Therefore, it is apparent that there is an interrelationship between job satisfaction and turnover intentions. Job satisfaction and organisational commitment are considered as the predictors of turnover intentions (Martin, 2007). This paper, however seek to find the interrelationship between the two in the identified higher institution.

2.8.5 Organisational commitment and turnover intentions

Schwepker (1999) (cited by (Ntisa 2015) stated that following the high costs associated turnover intention, it is imperative to understand the relationship between job satisfaction and turnover intentions. It has been suggested that the stronger commitment to the organisation usually discourages individuals to leave the organisation (Keller, 1984). This was reiterated by Nipius (2012) who stated that employees who are committed to the organisation usually display intention to stay with the organisation. Therefore, it can safely be assumed that the degree of the organisational commitment may reflect the degree of the turnover intentions.

2.9 Conclusion

This chapter has provided the literature review of perceived discrimination, job satisfaction, organisational commitment and turnover intention. In doing this, the chapter provided the definition of the foregoing concepts. For the purposes of this study, perceived discrimination has been defined as “an individual’s perception that they are being distinguished, excluded, or deferential treatment to their detriment on the basis of one or more of the following grounds namely: race, gender, sex, pregnancy marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth and this does not include distinction, exclusion or deferential treatment in respect of a particular job based on inherent requirements and regards such not as discrimination.” With regard to job

19 satisfaction, for the purpose of this research, the definition of Spector (1997) in which it is stated that “individuals total feeling about their job and the attitudes they have towards various aspects or facets or their, as well as an attitude and perception that could consequently influence the degree of fit between the individual and organisation” will be adopted. Furthermore, organisational commitment, for the purposes of this study, shall be referred to as “a psychological link between the individual and the organisation making it less likely that the individual will leave voluntarily”, as per Allen and Meyer (1990). Turnover intentions shall be defined as an individual’s behavioural attitude to withdraw from the organisation.

20

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN

3.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter will focus on the research methodology. The methodology includes research design, target population, data collection, measuring instruments, methods of data collection, and data analysis.

3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN 3.2.1 Research approach Doing research allows the researcher to answer the research questions or objectives as validly, objectively, accurately, efficiently, and effectively in terms of cost and time as possible. Essentially, a research design indicates the type of study undertaken and provides acceptable answers to the research problem. If the research design is adequately planned and implemented, it can assist in permitting the researcher to rely on observations and draw a conclusion (Martin, 2007:61).

A cross-sectional survey design was used to achieve the research objectives. The survey design attempted to determine the factual occurrence, distribution and interrelations among the sociological and psychological variables that focus on the sample targeted. The viral faction concerns essentially the people’s beliefs, opinions, attitudes, motivations and social behaviour (Kerlinger, 1975). With this design, the researcher can determine the impact that certain events will have on the person and their behaviour in the future. Survey designs are considered to be very accurate with sample error (Kerlinger, 1975). According to Kerlinger (1975), a survey design is considered to be probably the best adapted to obtaining personal and social facts, attitudes and beliefs.

3.2.2 Research method

3.2.2.1 Literature review The main focus of the literature review was to gain information on the following constructs: Perceived discrimination, job satisfaction, organisational commitment, and employee turnover intention. A complete literature review was conducted by the use of scientific research. The keywords that accompanied the research are: perceived discrimination, job satisfaction,

21 organisational commitment, employee turnover intention, higher education institution and the sources that were utilised included Emerald, EBSCOhost, PsychInfo, Science direct, PsychArticles, JSTOR, Google Scholar, South African Journal of Human Resource Management and the South African Journal of Industrial Psychology.

3.2.2.2 Research participants The participants for this study was a targeted population (employees – academic & support) within the Engineering Faculty of a higher education institution. The targeted study population (N= 100) was drawn. The surveys were distributed electronically within the Engineering Faculty.

3.2.2.3 Measuring instrument(s) A biographical questionnaire was provided; the aim was to gather information on the participants. Information such as participants’ gender, race, highest qualification obtained, and employment type (job category) was gathered through this questionnaire.

Perceived discrimination at work was measured with the Chronic Work Discrimination and Harassment (YES Study) Scale adapted from two sources, namely McNeilly, Anderson, Armstead, Clark, Corbett, Robinson, Pieper and Lepisto (1996) and Bobo and Suh (1995). It is a 12-item scale (how often are you being watched more closely than others in the last 12 months?). The responses can be rated on a five- point scale, which ranges from 1 (almost every day) to 5 (never). Kessler, Mickelson and Williams (1999) found evidence of internal consistency of the instrument (α = 0.87).

Organisational commitment was measured with Allen and Meyer’s Commitment Scale (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Affective commitment will be measured with eight items (e.g. “I enjoy discussing my organisation with people outside it?” α = 0.87). A Likert-type scale of 1 being strongly disagreeing to 5 being strongly agreeing is used for respondents to rate their response (Manetje & Martin, 2009). Visagie and Steyn (2001) found, in their study, internal consistency within the South African context for affective commitment α = 0.75.

Turnover intention was measured by Sjöberg and Sverke’s turnover scale (Sjöberg & Sverke, 2000) coupled with three additional items developed for this study. The instrument consists of six items, measured on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). An example of an item in the instrument is that “I am actively looking for other jobs”. Pienaar,

22

Sieberhagen and Mostert (2007) indicated that the instrument of Sjöberg and Sverke showed internal consistency of α = 0.74 during their study within the South African context.

Job satisfaction was measured by the Job Satisfaction Survey or JSS. The JSS, developed by Spector (1985:699) to assess the attitude of workers regarding different aspects of their jobs using a Likert-type rating scale format. This instrument has been used in various studies in different organisational sectors (Astrauskaite, Vaitkevicius & Perminas 2011:41). The reliability of the job satisfaction survey was tested by means of the internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) and it showed a reliability value of 0.91 (Amburgey 2005:65). This is regarded as a satisfactory internal reliability since the commonly accepted minimum standard for internal consistency is 0.70.

3.2.3 Research procedure The Executive Dean of the Engineering Faculty was contacted in order to gain permission to conduct the research. A meeting took place between the researcher and the Executive Dean of the Engineering Faculty after which a formal email was sent in order to explain the nature of the research, the value it can provide and to gain his full co-operation. After permission was granted, the research was conducted with a wide range of participants in different departments and positions within the Faculty. When starting the process, information containing and explaining the measuring instruments was provided to each participant to inform them of the time limit of the questionnaire. The participants were given reasonable time to complete their questionnaires electronically. The participants were assured of anonymity and that their results will be kept confidential.

3.2.4 Statistical analysis A data analysis involves the description of the data collected, categorising and interpreting it (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005:138). The method that was employed in the data analysis was the data analysis computer program The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) and Statistica (SPSS, 2017; Dell, 2017). A simple principal components analysis was performed to determine the number of factor and a principal component analyses with direct oblimin rotations will be used to extract factors (Tabachnick & Fidel, 2001).

The SPSS includes means, standard deviations, skewness and kurtosis, and will be manipulated to explore the data. Cronbach alpha coefficients were utilised to access internal consistency of

23 the measuring instruments (Clark & Watson, 1995). Coefficient alpha conveys important information with regard to the proportion of error variance contained in a scale. Spearman’s rho correlation coefficients will be used to specify the relationships between targeted variables. A cut-off point of 0.03 will be set for practical significance of correlation coefficient and level of statistical significance will be set at p ≤ 0, 01. Effect sizes will be used to determine the practical significance of the findings.

3.3 Conclusion In this chapter, the research methodology and design were outlined. The research approach/design and methodology that will be used to achieve the objectives of the study were discussed. The discussions were emphasised on the basis of the three key variables of the study, which are job satisfaction, organisational commitment and intention to stay. The research design selected can be described as quantitative and non-experimental with the usage of primary data as the design of the analysis. The chapter further provided detailed discussions of the target population, sampling, data collection methods and instruments. The validity and reliability of the research instruments and the pilot study were also outlined. The next chapter will discuss the research findings of the study.

24

CHAPTER 4

RESEARCH RESULTS

4.1 Introduction This chapter will focus on the discussion of the research results of the study and will be outlined as follows: demographic information, perceived discrimination, organisational commitment and turnover intention, and job satisfaction.

4.2 Demographic information This section provides information on the demographics of the participants of the study. The sequence of the information to be discussed is as follows: gender, age group, race, qualification, and employment type (job category). A cross-sectional survey in the form a questionnaire was used to obtain this information. Survey designs are considered to be very accurate with sample error (Kerlinger, 1975). According to Kerlinger (1975), a survey design is considered to be probably the best adapted to obtaining personal and social facts, attitudes and beliefs. The questionnaire was distributed to 100 participants out of which 45 responded.

4.2.1 Gender

Frequency Valid Percentage Male 28 62.2 Female 17 37.8 Total 45 100 Table 4.1 Demographic information on age

Table 4.1 indicates the number of respondents according to gender. There were 28 (62.2%) males and 17 (37.8%) females who participated in the study. The results thus indicate that the majority of the participants were male.

4.2.2 Age group

Frequency Valid Percentage 18-25 3 6.7 26-35 14 31.1 36-45 12 26.7 46-55 10 22.2

25

56 and older 6 13.3 Total 45 100 Table 4.2 Demographic information on gender

Table 4.2 indicates the number of respondents according to age, 3 (6.7%) are between the ages of 18-25 years old. This category is followed by the age group 26-35 years, into which 14 (31.1%) of the respondents fall. In the age group 36-45 there were 12 (26.7%) respondents, followed by the age group 46-55 which had 10 (22.2%) respondents. Only 6 (13.3%) of the respondents were 56 an older. The results thus indicate that the majority (31.1%) of the respondents were between the ages of 26-35 years. Ntisa (2015) has stated that many employers are struggling to motivate employees in the young stage. Therefore, this suggests that job satisfaction increases with age. The age of the respondents thus had a significant impact on the outcome of the results. The findings shows that the younger employees showed lower levels of jab satisfaction, which made them less committed and increased their chances of leaving the institution.

4.2.3 Race

Frequency Valid Percentage African 7 15.6 Coloured 3 6.7 White 34 75.6 Other 1 2.2 Total 45 100 Table 4.3 Demographic information on race

In terms of Table 4.3, it can be seen that the majority of the respondents are White (34) representing 75.6% of the respondents. This was followed by African respondents making up a further 15.6% of the sample (7 respondents) and Coloured respondents covering 6.7% (3 respondents). “Other” respondents represented the lowest percentage of respondents, making up 2.2% (1 respondent) of the sample.

4.2.4 Qualification

Frequency Valid Percentage Less than grade 12 1 2.2 Grade 12 10 22.2

26

Bachelor’s degree 2 4.4 Hons / Post grad diploma 9 20 PhD / Masters 23 51.1 Total 45 100 Table 4.4 Demographic information on qualification

Table 4.2 indicates the number of respondents according to qualification. The results reflect that a total of 1 (2.2%) had less than grade 12; a total of 10 (22.2%) respondents had grade 12; a total of 2 (4.4%) had a bachelor’s degree; a total of 9 (20%) is in possession of a honours degree or post graduate diploma, while the majority, 23 (51.1%) had either a PhD or a master’s degree. The results thus indicate that the majority (51.1%) of the respondents were in possession of either a PhD or master’s degree. Since the majority of respondents were academic staff members, who holds a very high regard for education, their job satisfaction levels were high which makes them more committed and leads to them staying longer at an institution. Oliver (2011), who quoted with approval Rogers (1991), stated that it has been established that there is a positive link between education and job satisfaction, which implies that when the work done by an individual relates to their education level, better educated individuals are inclined to experience higher level of job satisfaction. Therefore, it is goes without saying that education level predicts job satisfaction of absence thereof.

4.2.5 Employment type

Frequency Valid Percentage Academic 25 55.6 Support 20 44.4 Total 45 100 Table 4.5 Demographic information on employment type

Table 4.1 indicates the number of respondents according to their employment type. There were 25 (55.6%) academic staff members and 20 (44.4%) support staff members who participated in the study. The results thus indicate that the majority of the participants were academic staff members.

4.3 Descriptive statistics In the sections that follow the descriptive statistics calculated are provided for the sample. This is, the data relating to the variables included in the study, as collected by the measuring instruments used, are summarised in table format and the calculation of descriptive measures.

27

In this way, the properties of the observed data clearly appear and an overall depiction thereof is found.

4.3.1 Perceived discrimination Table 4.6: Descriptive statistics for perceived discrimination.

Instruction: Here are some situations that can arise at work. Please indicate how often you have experience them in the last months Sc 1 = 2 = Less than 3 = A few times a 4 = A few 5 = Once a week Mean Std. ale Never once a year times a deviati year month on

1 How often are you unfairly given the jobs that no one else wants to do? 9 7 16 4 4 2,68 1,228 2 At work, when different opinions would be helpful, how often is your opinion 7 7 14 7 5 2,90 1,257 3 Hownot asked? often are you watched more closely than others? 19 8 6 4 3 2,10 1,317 4 How often does your supervisor/boss use racial/ethnic slurs/jokes? 32 4 4 1,30 0,648 5 How often does your supervisor/boss direct racial/ethnic jokes at you? 33 7 1,18 0,385 6 How often do your co-workers use racial/ethnic slurs/jokes? 21 8 9 2 1,80 0,966 7 How often do your co-workers direct racial/ethnic jokes at you? 30 6 3 1 1,38 0,740 8 How often do you feel that you have to work twice as hard as others at work? 6 4 13 8 9 3,25 1,335 9 How often you feel that you are ignored/not taken seriously by your boss? 16 8 6 8 2 2,30 1,324 10 How often do others assume that you work in a lower status job than you 22 3 8 4 3 2,08 1,366 do and treat as such? 11 How often has a co-worker with less experience and fewer qualifications 22 15 3 1,53 0,640 gotten promoted before you? 12 How often have you been unfairly humiliated in front of others at work? 5 5 14 10 3 1,40 0,672

Table 4.6 indicates that the majority of respondents indicate “never” or “less than once a year” when asked about certain situations linked to perceived discrimination that can arise at work. There are however a few questions that stand out from the rest. If we look at questions 1 and 2, most of the staff members indicated that “a few times a year” they are unfairly given jobs that no one wants to do as well as when different opinions would be helpful, their opinions are not asked. This might be interpreted by some as unfair treatment. Looking at question 8, the mean is 3.25, the biggest outlier, this indicates that respondents only feel like they have to work twice as hard as others at work “a few times a year”. This can be interpreted as staff members sharing an equal workload. Question 12 on how often respondents have been unfairly humiliated in front of others at work, about 14 respondents indicated that this occurred “a few times a year”.

28

4.3.2 Organisational Commitment and turnover intention

Table 4.7: Descriptive statistics for organisational commitment and turnover intention.

Instruction: The following statements represent your attitude toward your organisation. Indicate to what extend you agree or disagree with each statement Sc 1 = Strongly 5 = Strongly Mean Std. 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree ale Disagree Agree Deviati on

13 I really feel as if this organisations problems are my own 5 5 14 10 3 3,03 1,142 14 I enjoy discussing about my organisation with people outside it 6 9 7 11 4 2,95 1,290 15 I really feel as if this organisations problems are my own 6 4 13 11 3 3,03 1,190 16 I think that I could easily become as attached to another organisation as I am 5 6 6 13 7 3,30 1,331 17 Ito do this not one feel like part of the family at my organisation 5 12 9 8 3 2,78 1,182 18 I do not feel emotionally attached to this organisation 6 14 6 8 3 2,62 1,187 19 This organisation has a great deal of personal meaning for me 2 6 7 15 7 3,51 1,146 20 I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organisation 6 13 7 8 3 2,70 1,222 21 I feel that I could leave this job 5 12 5 8 7 3,00 1,374 22 I am actively looking for other jobs 7 11 8 6 5 2,76 1,321 23 I often consider quitting my job 8 10 6 7 6 2,81 1,411 24 I am looking for another job 8 9 7 8 5 2,81 1,371 25 I frequently ask around for a job somewhere else 9 11 8 5 4 2,57 1,303

Table 4.7 addresses organisational commitment (or the lack thereof) and intention to leave. Questions 13 to 20 speaks to organisational commitment (or the lack thereof). If we look at the means of these questions, the majority of respondents were neutral or slightly leaning towards “disagreeing” with the statements made. Looking at question 19, the mean is 3.51, the only question that really leans towards the “agree” option. It can be interpreted as, although respondents disagree about feeling like the organisation’s problems being like their own, etc. the organisation still has a great deal of personal meaning to them. Questions 21 to 25 speaks to intention to leave. If we look at the means of these questions, the majority of respondents are leaning towards the “neutral” option regarding the statements made. This can be a sign that there is not a high indication of staff members within the Engineering faculty wanting to leave the organisation.

29

4.3.3 Job satisfaction Table 4.8: Descriptive statistics job satisfaction.

Instruction: Please circle the one number for each question that comes closest to reflecting your opinion about it.

Sc 1 = Disagree very 2 = Disagree 3 = 4 = Agree 5 = 6 = Agree Mean Std. ale much moderately Disagree slightly Agree very much Deviation slightly moder ately 26 I feel I am being paid a fair amount for the work I do. 14 3 3 7 7 2 2,89 1,785 27 There is really too little chance for promotion on my job. 4 4 6 3 6 13 4,17 1,813 28 My supervisor is quite competent in doing his/her job. 1 4 3 6 9 13 4,58 1,481 29 I am not satisfied with the benefits I receive. 4 7 4 6 11 4 3,69 1,618 30 When I do a good job, I receive the recognition for it that I should receive. 4 4 5 7 9 7 3,94 1,638 31 Many of our rules and procedures make doing a good job difficult. 3 1 3 10 13 6 4,31 1,390 32 I like the people I work with. 2 2 1 6 9 16 4,83 1,464 33 I sometimes feel my job is meaningless. 15 6 4 6 3 2 2,50 1,630 34 Communications seem good within this organization. 12 10 2 6 4 2 2,61 1,626 35 Raises are too few and far between. 2 1 6 7 6 14 4,56 1,501 36 Those who do well on the job stand a fair chance of being promoted. 8 3 6 11 7 1 3,25 1,519 37 My supervisor is unfair to me. 19 5 7 3 2 2,00 1,265 38 The benefits we receive are as good as most other organizations offer. 7 8 9 7 5 2,86 1,334 39 I do not feel that the work I do is appreciated. 7 10 7 5 3 4 2,97 1,612 40 My efforts to do a good job are seldom blocked by red tape. 9 5 7 5 9 1 3,08 1,610 41 I find I have to work harder at my job because of the incompetence of 7 5 4 8 8 4 3,47 1,699 42 Ipeople like doing I work the with. things I do at work. 2 2 1 7 9 15 4,78 1,456 43 The goals of this organization are not clear to me. 9 4 3 10 5 5 3,36 1,775 44 I feel unappreciated by the organisation when I think about what they pay 5 3 1 10 8 9 4,11 1,703 45 Peopleme. get ahead as fast here as they do in other places. 10 7 9 6 3 1 2,67 1,414 46 My supervisor shows too little interest in the feelings of subordinates. 14 5 9 3 4 1 2,47 1,502 47 The benefit package we have is equitable. 10 6 7 8 4 1 2,81 1,489 48 There are few rewards for those who work here. 4 5 6 13 6 2 3,50 1,384 49 I have too much to do at work. 1 2 4 7 16 6 4,47 1,230 50 I enjoy my co-workers. 2 1 1 8 15 9 4,67 1,287 51 I often feel that I do not know what is going on with the organisation. 5 4 3 8 7 9 3,97 1,748 52 I feel a sense of pride in doing my job. 2 1 3 13 17 5,08 1,317 53 I feel satisfied with my chances for salary increases. 10 8 6 9 3 2,64 1,355 54 There are benefits we do not have which we should have. 4 9 2 7 5 9 3,75 1,795 55 I like my supervisor. 1 2 8 12 13 4,92 1,131 56 I have too much paperwork. 2 2 5 4 10 13 4,58 1,519 57 I don't feel my efforts are rewarded the way they should be. 4 2 4 5 17 4 4,14 1,515 58 I am satisfied with my chances for promotion. 7 5 7 10 6 1 3,17 1,464 59 There is too much bickering and fighting at work. 12 9 2 4 7 2 2,75 1,730 60 My job is enjoyable. 1 2 4 5 12 12 4,69 1,348 61 Work assignments are not fully explained. 5 8 10 5 6 2 3,14 1,457

30

Table 4.8 indicates that the arithmetic mean for the total job satisfaction of the sample is 3.65 with a standard deviation of 1.52. Based on the fact that an average level of job satisfaction, as measured by the JSS, would be represented by a mean of approximately 3.5, it may be concluded that the overall job satisfaction of the sample is average. The standard deviation for the overall level of job satisfaction is also not high, indicating that most respondents are close to the mean on this dimension.

4.4 Reliability To determine the reliability of the items grouped under the variable perceived discrimination the Cronbach alpha was used. Items 1-12 were grouped together under the variable perceived discrimination. A Cronbach alpha of 0.785 was measured for these items. As shown in the table below, all the dimension of the items are reliable.

Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha N of Items Based on Standardized Items

0,785 0,797 12 Table 4.9 Reliability statistics for perceived discrimination

Table 4.10 indicates the reliability of the items grouped under the variable organisational commitment the Cronbach alpha was used. Items 13-20 were grouped together under the variable organisational commitment. A Cronbach alpha of 0.816 was measured for these items. As shown in the table below, all the dimension of the items are reliable.

Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha N of Items Based on Standardized Items

0,816 0,817 8 Table 4.10 Reliability statistics for organisational commitment

The reliability of the items grouped under the variable turnover intention the Cronbach alpha was used. Items 21-25 were grouped together under the variable turnover intention. Initially these items were negative connotations linked to employee’s intention to leave the organisation

31 which resulted in a low indication of reliability. After the scores of the items were reversed, a Cronbach alpha of 0.954 was measured for these items. As shown in the table below, all the dimension of the items are reliable.

Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha N of Items Based on Standardized Items

0,954 0,955 5 Table 4.11 Reliability statistics for turnover intention

Table 4.12 indicates the reliability of the items grouped under the variable total job satisfaction the Cronbach alpha was used. Items 26-61 were grouped together under the variable total job satisfaction. The 9 items indicated in the table below refers to the 9 sub scales measured under total job satisfaction and this is made up of 41 questions. A Cronbach alpha of 0.743 was measured for these items. As shown in the table below, all the dimension of the items are reliable. Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha N of Items Based on Standardized Items

0,743 0,742 9 Table 4.12 Reliability statistics for total job satisfaction

4.5 Comparison with biographical data A natural way to comment on practical significance is to use the standardised difference between the means of two populations, i.e. the difference between the two means divided by the estimate for standard deviation. We introduce a measure that is called the effect size, which not only makes the difference independent of units and sample size, but relates it also with the spread of the data, see Steyn (1999) and Steyn (2000).

Gender: N Mean Std. Effect Deviation sizes Q1_12 Male 27 1,8148 0,44538 0,83

Female 13 2,3526 0,64564

32

Table 4.13 Group statistics on gender

Cohen's d coefficient of 0.83 indicates a large effect between the group means. This indicates that the difference in the mean scores between males and females can be interpreted as males perception of discrimination is less than that of females.

Employment type: N Mean Std. Std. Effect Deviatio Error sizes n Mean Q1_12 Academi 24 1,7986 0,42272 0,08629 0,73 c

Support 16 2,2760 0,65314 0,16328 JS_Promotion Academi 22 2,7576 1,15553 0,24636 0,60 c

Support 14 3,4524 1,08295 0,28943 JS_Coworkers Academi 22 4,1250 1,03150 0,21992 0,45 c

Support 14 4,6250 1,10397 0,29505 JS_Communicati Academi 22 2,9659 1,23273 0,26282 0,63 on c

Support 14 3,7857 1,30036 0,34754 Table 4.14 Group statistics on employment type

In table 4.14 the Cohen's d coefficients for the variables perceived discrimination (0.73), JS_promotion (0.60) and JS_communication (0.63) indicates a large effect between the group means. This indicates that the difference in the mean scores between academic and support staff can be interpreted as academics’ perception of discrimination is less than that of support staff. On JS_promotion academic staff are more optimistic than support staff while on JS_communication support staff experience communication better than academic staff. The Cohen's d coefficients for the variable JS_coworkers is 0.45, this indicates a medium effect between the two groups. This indicates that the difference in the mean scores between academic and support staff can be interpreted as support staff having better relations with co-workers than academic staff.

33

Race_new N Mean Std. Std. Effect Deviatio Error sizes n Mean Q1_12 Whit 31 1,9355 0,55181 0,09911 0,38 e

Othe 9 2,1759 0,62839 0,20946 r Q13_25 Whit 29 2,8382 0,86330 0,16031 0,02 e

Othe 8 2,8173 1,09786 0,38815 r JS_Pay Whit 29 2,8103 1,27765 0,23725 0,38 e

Othe 7 2,3214 1,10599 0,41802 r JS_Promotion Whit 29 2,9080 1,10157 0,20456 0,45 e

Othe 7 3,5238 1,37244 0,51873 r JS_Supervision Whit 29 4,7328 1,04354 0,19378 0,12 e

Othe 7 4,8571 0,85217 0,32209 r JS_Benefits Whit 29 3,1379 1,19071 0,22111 0,36 e

Othe 7 2,7143 0,85912 0,32472 r JS_Rewards Whit 29 3,6724 1,08789 0,20202 0,36 e

Othe 7 3,2143 1,27008 0,48004 r JS_Conditions Whit 29 2,6092 1,15494 0,21447 0,28 e

34

Othe 7 2,2857 0,59094 0,22335 r JS_Coworkers Whit 29 4,3103 0,95818 0,17793 0,03 e

Othe 7 4,3571 1,56030 0,58974 r JS_Work Whit 29 4,8621 1,23609 0,22954 0,04 e

Othe 7 4,8095 0,95950 0,36266 r JS_Communicatio Whit 29 3,1810 1,23544 0,22942 0,33 n e

Othe 7 3,7143 1,59706 0,60363 r JS_Total Whit 29 3,5805 0,61545 0,11429 0,06 e

Othe 7 3,5331 0,85953 0,32487 r Table 4.15 Group statistics on race

Looking at the effect sizes in table 4.15, there was a very small effect between the different race groups on perceived discrimination, organisational commitment, intention to leave and job satisfaction – taking into consideration that the majority of respondents were white.

Age: N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. 26-35 with Deviation

36-45 Q1_12 11 1,00 2,58 1,6742 0,42566 0,98 Q13_25 10 1,38 3,54 2,4846 0,68902 0,85 JS_Supervision 9 3,25 6,00 5,3333 0,93541 0,70 JS_Benefits 9 2,25 5,25 3,5278 1,01122 0,82 JS_Total 9 3,10 4,77 3,9537 0,55762 0,80

Age: N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. 36-45 with Deviation

35

46-55 JS_Promotion 13 1,00 4,00 2,5128 1,11068 0,74 JS_Supervision 13 3,00 6,00 4,4423 1,02141 0,87 JS_Total 13 1,92 4,27 3,4160 0,70854 0,76 Table 4.16 Group statistics on age

In table 4.16 when comparing the Cohen's d coefficients for the age group 26-35 with the age group 36-45 their perception of discrimination is less, based on the large effect size of 0.98. With regards to organisational commitment and turnover intention, the age group 26-35 experiences less commitment to the organisation compared to the age group 36-45. This is based on the large effect size of the mean which is 0.85. Looking at JS_supervision, the effect size is 0.70, this indicates a large effect size between the means, which further indicates that the 26-35 year olds experience higher levels of job satisfaction with supervision. With regards to JS_benefits and total job satisfaction, the 26-35 year olds experience less job satisfaction in comparison to the 36-45 year olds.

When comparing the age group 36-45 with 46-55 it can be concluded that they experience less satisfaction with promotion opportunities, and are more likely to experience a higher level of satisfaction with proper supervision. However, total job satisfaction is lower than that of the 46-55 year olds.

Qualification: N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Hons Deviation with PhD / JS_Coworkers 20 1,50 6,00 4,1375 1,08055 0,52 Masters JS_Communication 20 1,00 5,25 2,8500 1,23384 0,98 JS_Total 20 1,92 4,60 3,4347 0,70059 0,62 Table 4.17 Group statistics on qualification

When taking qualifications into consideration, most of the respondents either had a postgraduate qualification. If we compare the honours level with masters degrees and PhD’s there is a large effect size of the mean of 0.98 for JS-communication. This indicates that staff members with an honours degree experiences less job satisfaction if there is a lack of communication. There is a medium effect between the two groups on JS_coworkers (0.52) and total job satisfaction (0.62). Staff with an honours degree experience higher levels of job satisfaction than those with masters or PhD.

36

4.6 Correlation between constructs

Table 4.18 Correlation table

*

*

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

.394

.657

.533

.653

.438

.832

.474

.613

.564

1,000

0,000

0,001

0,000

0,008

0,000

0,003

0,017

0,000

0,000

0,000

0,000

0,011

-.418 -.562

-0,646

JS_Total

*

*

*

**

**

**

**

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

.355

.382

.657

.452

.543

0,000

1,000

0,293

0,180

0,034

0,006

0,001

0,606

0,089

0,071

0,304

0,022

0,589

0,093

0,039

-.345

0,002

0,486 -.491

-0,120

tion

JS_Communica

*

**

**

**

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36 36

36

.533

.678

.478

0,001

0,293

0,180

1,000

0,000

0,725

0,058

0,319

0,347

0,161

0,003

0,457

0,128

0,480

0,122

0,013

-.409

0,000

0,460

-0,061

-0,571

-0,127

JS_Work

*

*

*

**

**

**

**

**

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36 36

36

.355

.417

.335

.653

.678

.428

0,000

0,034

0,000

1,000

0,580

0,095

0,011

0,009

0,045

0,138

0,252

0,347

0,162

0,006

0,000

0,099

-.450

-.572 -0,279

JS_Coworkers

*

**

**

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

.438

.452

0,008

0,006

0,725

0,580

0,095

1,000

0,060

0,317

0,476

0,123

0,760

0,413

0,141

0,150

0,245

0,024

-.376

0,291

0,145

-0,061

-0,053

-0,181 -0,248

JS_Conditions

*

*

**

**

**

**

**

**

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

.417

.401

.832

.543

.481

.564

0,000

0,001

0,058

0,319

0,011

0,060

0,317

1,000

0,076

0,299

0,015

0,003

0,000

0,003

0,002

0,001

-.497 -.510

-0,488

JS_Rewards

*

*

**

**

**

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36 36

36

.474

.428

.449

0,003

0,606

0,089

0,347

0,161

0,009

0,476

0,123

0,076

0,299

1,000

0,102

0,221

0,209

0,006

0,026

-.370

0,049

-.330

0,100

-0,277 -0,279

JS_Benefits

*

*

*

*

**

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

.394

.335

.401

.478

0,017

0,071

0,304

0,003

0,045

0,760

0,015

0,102

1,000

0,352

0,160

0,463

0,385

0,091

0,025

-.373

-0,053

-0,277

-0,126 -0,149

-0,286

JS_Supervision

*

*

**

**

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36 .382

.375

.613

.481

0,000

0,022

0,457

0,128

0,138

0,252

0,413

0,141

0,003

0,221

0,209

0,352

0,160

1,000

0,024

0,466

0,058

0,425

-0,125

-0,319

-0,137

JS_Promotion *

*

**

**

**

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

.375

.564

.564

.449

0,000

0,589

0,093

0,480

0,122

0,347

0,162

0,150

0,245

0,000

0,006

0,463

0,024

1,000

0,047

-.334

0,366

0,114

-0,126

-0,155

-0,268 JS_Pay

Correlations

*

*

*

*

*

**

**

**

**

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

37

37

37

.673

0,000

0,039

-.345

0,013

-.409

0,006

0,024

-.376

0,003

0,026

-.370

0,385

0,466

0,047

-.334

1,000

0,000

0,255

0,192

-.562

-.450

-.488 -0,149

-0,125

Intention_Leave

*

**

**

**

**

**

**

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

37 37

37

.673

0,000

0,002

0,000

0,000

0,291

0,002

0,049

-.330

0,091

0,058

0,366

0,000

1,000

0,795

-.646

-.491

-.571

-.572

-.497

-0,181

-0,286

-0,319

-0,155 -0,044

Commitment

*

*

**

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

37

37

40

0,011

-.418

0,486

0,460

0,099

0,145

0,001

0,100

0,025

-.373

0,425

0,114

0,255

0,192

0,795

1,000

-.510

-0,120

-0,127

-0,279

-0,248

-0,279

-0,137 -0,268

-0,044 Q1_12

N

Sig. (2-tailed)Sig.

CorrelationCoefficient

N

Sig. (2-tailed)Sig.

CorrelationCoefficient

N

Sig. (2-tailed)Sig.

CorrelationCoefficient

N

Sig. (2-tailed)Sig.

CorrelationCoefficient

N

Sig. (2-tailed)Sig.

CorrelationCoefficient

N

Sig. (2-tailed)Sig.

CorrelationCoefficient

N

Sig. (2-tailed)Sig.

CorrelationCoefficient

N

Sig. (2-tailed)Sig.

CorrelationCoefficient

N

Sig. (2-tailed)Sig.

CorrelationCoefficient

N

Sig. (2-tailed)Sig.

CorrelationCoefficient

N

Sig. (2-tailed)Sig.

CorrelationCoefficient

N

Sig. (2-tailed)Sig.

CorrelationCoefficient

N Sig. (2-tailed)Sig.

CorrelationCoefficient

Discrimination

Perceived 20397925:

JS_Total

JS_Communication

JS_Work

JS_Coworkers

JS_Conditions

JS_Rewards

JS_Benefits

JS_Supervision

JS_Promotion

JS_Pay

Intention_Leave

Commitment Q1_12

37

Spearman'srho Perceived Discrimination is statistically significant to JS_Rewards at a level of 0.01, and practically significant at a level of The correlation coefficient of -0.510 between these variable indicate a negative relation, which means as the levels of perceived discrimination increase, Job Satisfaction – reward decreases and vice versa.

Lack of Commitment and Intention to leave are statistically significant at a level of 0.01, with a value of 0.673, and it is practically significant to a medium effect. Which indicates that an increase in the lack of commitment is related to an increase in Intentions to leave. This implies that if academics or support staff’s intentions to leave the organisations are high, their level of commitment to the organisation is low. The existing literature attests to this relationship (Yousef 2000:10), subsumed with research findings which confirm that organisationsal commitment has a significant negative correlation with turnover intentions (Pare & Tremblay 2007:326-357; Perez 2008:56).

Lack of Commitment and JS_Rewards are statistically significant at a level of 0.01, with a value of -0.497, and is practically significant to small effect. The value of -0.497 indicates that lack of commitment is negative related JS_Reward, meaning that as the lack of commitment increases there is a decrease in the Job satisfaction with rewards.

Lack of Commitment and JS_Coworkers are statistically significant at a level of 0.01, with a value of -.572**, and is practically significant to medium effect. This indicates that lack of commitment is negative related JS_Coworkers, meaning that as the lack of commitment increases there is a decrease in the Job satisfaction with co-workers.

Lack of Commitment and JS_Work are statistically significant at a level of 0.01, with a value of -.571, and is practically significant to medium effect. This indicates that lack of commitment is negative related JS_Work, meaning that as the lack of commitment increases there is a decrease in the Job satisfaction with work.

Lack of Commitment and JS_Communication are statistically significant at a level of 0.01, with a value of -.491, and is practically significant to small effect. This indicates that lack of commitment is negative related JS_Communication, meaning that as the lack of commitment increases there is a decrease in the Job satisfaction with communication.

Lack of Commitment and overall Job satisfaction are statistically significant at a level of 0.01, with a value of -.646, and is practically significant to medium effect. This indicates that lack of commitment is negative related to the total Job satisfaction experienced, meaning that as the

38 lack of commitment increases there is a decrease in the Job satisfaction. Since there is a statistically positive relationship between job satisfaction and organisational commitment, the impression is that if employees’ levels of satisfaction improve, then levels of organisational commitment would be affected in a positive direction (Azeem 2010:297).

Intentions to leave and JS_Rewards are statistically significant at a level of 0.01, with a value of -.488, and is practically significant to small effect. This indicates that intentions to leave is negatively related to the total Job satisfaction with Rewards, meaning that if employees intentions to leave increases, this is related to a decrease in the Job satisfaction of rewards, vice-versa.

Intentions to leave and JS_Cowokers are statistically significant at a level of 0.01, with a value of -.450, and is practically significant to small effect. This indicates that intentions to leave is negatively related to the total Job satisfaction related to Co-worker relations, meaning that if employees intentions to leave increases, this is related to a decrease in the Job satisfaction with their co-worker relation, vice-versa.

Intentions to leave and overall Job satisfaction are statistically significant at a level of 0.01, with a value of -0.562, and is practically significant to medium effect. This indicates that Intentions to leave is negative related to the total Job satisfaction experienced- that as the employees intentions to leave increases, the decrease in the Job satisfaction is a result. Research has shown that there is an inverse correlation between high levels of job satisfaction and low levels of turnover intention. Understanding this connection can provide employers with solutions to intervene in order to lower an individual’s intention to leave a university (Terranova 2008:38).

JS_Promotions and JS_Rewads are statistically significant at a level of 0.01, with a value of - .481, and is practically significant to small effect. This indicates a positive relationship between the two variables – as JS_Promotions increases JS_Rewards increase.

JS_Promotions and JS_Total are statistically significant at a level of 0.01, with a value of - .613, and is practically significant to medium effect. This indicates a positive relationship between the two variables – as JS_Promotions increases overall Job Satisfaction increase.

JS_supervision and JS_work are statistically significant at a level of 0.01, with a value of -.478, and is practically significant to small effect. This indicates a positive relationship between the

39 two variables – as employees experience higher levels of job satisfaction with supervision, there is an increases in JS_work.

JS_Benefits and JS_Pay are statistically significant at a level of 0.01, with a value of .449, and is practically significant to small effect. This indicates a positive relationship between the two variables – as employees experience job satisfaction with the benefits, there would be an increase in the JS_pay.

JS_Benefits and JS_Coworker are statistically significant at a level of 0.01, with a value of .428, and is practically significant to small effect. This indicates a positive relationship between the two variables – as employees experience job satisfaction with the benefits, there would be an increase in the JS_Coworker

JS_benefits and JS_Total are statistically significant at a level of 0.01, with a value of 0.474, and is practically significant to small effect. This indicates a positive relationship between the two variables – as JS_benefits increases overall Job Satisfaction increase

JS_Coditions and JS_Communication are statistically significant at a level of 0.01, with a value of 0.452, and is practically significant to small effect. This indicates a positive relationship between the two variables – as JS_Conditions increases, Job Satisfaction _ Communication increase

JS_Conditions and JS_Total are statistically significant at a level of 0.01, with a value of 0.438, and is practically significant to small effect. This indicates a positive relationship between the two variables – which means that as JS_conditions increases overall Job Satisfaction increase.

JS_Coworkers and JS_work are statistically significant at a level of 0.01, with a value of 0.678, and is practically significant to medium effect. This indicates a positive relationship between the two variables – as JS_Coworkers increases, Job Satisfaction _ work increases

JS_Coworkers and JS_Total are statistically significant at a level of 0.01, with a value of 0.533, and is practically significant to medium effect. This indicates a positive relationship between the two variables – which means that as JS_coworkers increases overall Job Satisfaction increase.

JS_Communication and JS_Total are statistically significant at a level of 0.01, with a value of 0.657, and is practically significant to medium effect. This indicates a positive relationship

40 between the two variables – which means that as JS_communication increases overall Job Satisfaction increase.

4.7 Conclusion The practical significance of results is not only important when the results of population data are reported but also to comment on the practical significance of a statistical significant result in the case of random samples from populations.

41

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusion This chapter will provide concluding remarks and recommendations of the study that are based on the research results presented and discussed in Chapter 4. This chapter will present the findings by firstly, focusing on the statistical results of the study conducted and presented in the previous chapter and secondly, reflecting back on the literature to determine the relationship between the research results and literature. In conclusion, recommendations will be made. These conclusions and recommendations are made in relation to the general objective of the study (to determine the extent to which perceived discrimination predicts/has an impact on job satisfaction, organisational commitment and employee turnover intention) as well as the specific objectives listed in Chapter 1 of the study:  To conceptualise the perceived discrimination, job satisfaction, organisational commitment and employee turnover intention according to the literature.  To discuss the relationship between perceived discrimination, job satisfaction, organisational commitment and employee turnover intention, if any.  To provide a critical analysis on whether perceived discrimination influences job satisfaction under staff at the Faculty of Engineering.  To provide a critical analysis on whether perceived discrimination influences organisational commitment under staff at the Engineering Faculty.  To provide a critical analysis on whether perceived discrimination influences employee turnover intention under staff at the Engineering Faculty.  To arrive at conclusions and make recommendations for the Faculty of Engineering on how to address the influence of perceived discrimination on job satisfaction, organisational commitment and employee turnover intention.

For the purposes of this study, perceived discrimination was defined as “an individual’s perception that they are being distinguished, excluded, or receiving deferential treatment to their detriment on the basis of one or more of the following grounds, namely: race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth and this does not include distinction, exclusion or deferential treatment in respect of a particular job based on inherent requirements

42 and regards such not as discrimination.” With regard to job satisfaction, for the purpose of this research, the definition of Spector (1997) in which it is stated that “individuals total feeling about their job and the attitudes they have towards various aspects or facets or their, as well as an attitude and perception that could consequently influence the degree of fit between the individual and organisation” was adopted. Furthermore, organisational commitment, for the purposes of this study, was referred to as “a psychological link between the individual and the organisation making it less likely that the individual will leave voluntarily”, as per Allen and Meyer (1990). Turnover intentions was defined as an individual’s behavioural attitude to withdraw from the organisation.

Based on the descriptive statistics there is evidence of a relationship between perceived discrimination, job satisfaction, organisational commitment and employee turnover intention. We found that if the perception of discrimination is high it will lead to lower levels of organisational commitment and job satisfaction which will result to higher turnover intention of employees. We did however find that the perception of discrimination of the majority of the respondents, which were white and male, were less than that of other respondents. Furthermore it has been proven that perceived discrimination does have an influence on job satisfaction, organisational commitment and employee turnover intention of staff within the Faculty of Engineering.

5.2 Recommendations This study has provided an overview of the relationships that exist among perceived discrimination, job satisfaction, organisational commitment and turnover intention. Based on the findings of the study, the researcher has made a number of recommendations to guide management of the faculty to enhance better conditions of employment and address the concerns of academic as well as support staff.

The results of this study indicated that job satisfaction has a positive influence on organisational commitment. This serves as a recommendation to management of the faculty of Engineering that they should begin to work towards developing a more profound understanding of job satisfaction by developing strategies and processes in collaboration with People & Culture. This will contribute to the overall improvement of the conditions of employment, which will later positively influence the commitment of academic and support staff which will result in

43 lower perceptions of discrimination. It is imperative for staff to be happy at work, given the amount of time they have to dedicate to the organisation throughout their career life span.

In order to manage the perceptions of discrimination, it is recommended that management provide the necessary training, e.g. diversity training, to address the issue of perceived discrimination among employees across all occupational levels.

Since the results of the study revealed that decreasing levels of perceived discrimination results in higher levels of job satisfaction, organisational commitment and lower chances of employees considering to leave the organisation for other employment opportunities, it is recommended that management should pay attention to intrinsic factors of motivation such as effective supervisory relationships and good opportunities for professional development and job autonomy, in order to maintain the above mentioned observations.

The results further indicated that a lack of organisational commitment has a negative influence on turnover intention. It is therefore recommended that management address this issue by putting measures in place to increase the level of commitment of staff members through engagement, as commitment is a measure of engagement.

44

REFERENCES Alberts, N.F. 2007. Research Methodology for Post Graduate Students. Unpublished notes for MBA students: Turfloop Graduate School of Leadership, Polokwane. Allen, N, J & Meyer, J, P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18. ALLEN, N.J. & MEYER, J.P. 1984. Testing the “side-bet theory” of organizational commitment: some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3):372-378. Alvarez-Galvez and Salvador-Curulla, 2010 Plos One "Perceived Discrimination and Self- Rated Health in Europe: Evidence from European Social Survey” 1- 10 Amburgey, W.O.D. 2005. An analysis of the relationship between job satisfaction, organizational culture, and perceived leadership characteristics. DEd. Dissertation. Florida: USF. Astrauskaite, M. Vaitkevicius, R., & Perminas, A. 2011. Job satisfaction survey: a confirmatory factor analysis based on secondary school teachers’ sample. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(5):41-50. Azeem, S.M. 2010. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment among employees in the Sultanate of Oman. Psychology, 1(4):295-299. Bobo, L., & Suh, S. A. (1995). Surveying racial discrimination: Analyses from a multiethnic labor market. Russell Sage Foundation. Clark, L. A, & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309-319. DELL Inc. (2017). STATISTICA (data analysis software system), version 13.2 www.statsoft.com. Dipboye, R.L. & Collela, A. 2005. Discrimination at work: the psychological and organizational bases. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Elisa, J., Grant, V., Ellen, A., Ensher, S., Donaldson, I. 2001. Effects of perceived discrimination on job satisfaction organizational commitment. Organizational Citizenship Behavior, and Grievances. Hum. Res. Dev. Q. 12:1. HINSHAW, A.S., SMELTZER, C.H. & ATWOOD, J.R. 1987. Innovative retention strategies for nursing staff. Journal of Nursing Administration, 17(4):8-16

45

HIRSCHFELD, R.R. 2000. Does revising the intrinsic and extrinsic subscales of the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire short from make a difference? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(2):255-270. Hom, P.W. & Kinichi, A.J. 2001. Towards a greater understanding of how dissatisfaction drives employee turnover. Academy of management journal, 44:975–981. International Labour Organisation, 2017 http://www.ilo.org/global/about-the- ilo/newsroom/features/WCMS_075613/lang--en/index.htm ILO: Workplace discrimination, a picture of hope and concern accessed 20 February 2017 International Labour Organization. 2003. Time for equality at work: global report under the follow-up to the ILO declaration on fundamental principles and rights at work. Geneva: International labour office. Kerlinger, F. N. (1975). Foundations of behavioral research (2'd 4.). London: Holt, Rinehart and Witon lnc. Kessler, R. C., Mickelson, K. D., & Williams, D. R. (1999). The prevalence, distribution, and mental health correlates of perceived discrimination in the United States. Journal of health and social behavior, 208-230. LEEDY, P.D. & ORMROD, J.E. 2010. Practical research: planning and design. 9th ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education. Leedy, P.D. and Ormrod, E.J. 2005. Practical Research. Planning and Design. 8th edition. Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey Columbus, Ohio. Manetje, O & Martin, N. (2009). The relationship between organisational culture. Southern African Business Review 13(1), 87-111. Martin, A. 2007. Perceptions of Organisational Commitment, Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intentions in a Post-Merger South African Tertiary Institution. University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg. MASEMOLA, S.E. 2011. Employee turnover intensions, organizational commitment and job satisfaction in a post-merger tertiary institution: the case of the University of Limpopo. MBA. Mini-dissertation. Polokwane: UL McNeilly, M.D., Anderson, N.B., Armstead, C.A., Clark, R., Corbett, M., Robinson, E.L., Pieper, C.F. & Lepisto, E.M. (1996).“The perceived racism scale: A multidimensional assessment of the experience of white racism among African Americans.” Ethnicity and Disease, 6 (1,2), 154-166.

46

Ozer G and Gunluk M 2010. The effects of discrimination perception and job satisfaction on Turkish public accountants’ turnover intention African Journal of Business Management 1500-1509. Pare, G. & Tremblay. M. 2007. The influence of high-involvement human resources practices, procedural justice, organisational commitment, and citizenship behaviors on information technology professionals’ turnover intentions. Group and Organization Management, 32(3):326-357. Pela, M. 2015. Labour condemns unfair remuneration and discrimination in workplace. http://www.gov.za/speeches/unfair-remuneration-and-discriminatory-treatment- workplace-illegal-delegates-told. Date of access: 28 Jan. 2017. Perez, M. 2008. Turnover intent. MA. Thesis. Bruttisellen: University of Zurich. Pienaar, J., Sieberhagen C, F & Mostert, K. (2007). Investigating turnover intentions by role overload, job satisfaction and social support moderation. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology 33(2), 62-67. Sager, J.K., Griffeth, R.W. and Hom, P.W. 1998. A Comparison of Structural Models Representing Turnover Cognitions. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 53 (2), 254 – 273. Sanchez, J.I. & Brock, P. 1996. Outcomes of perceived discrimination among Hispanic employees: is diversity management a luxury or a necessity? Acad. Manage. J., 39(3):704-719. SCHNEIDER, B., & SNYDER, R.A. 1975. Some relationships between job satisfaction and organizational climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(3):318 Sjöberg, A., & Sverke, M. (2000). The interactive effect of job involvement and organizational commitment on job turnover revisited: A note on the mediating role of turnover intention. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 41(3), 247–252. SMITH, P.C., KENDALL, L.M. & HULIN, C.L. 1969. The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company. Spector, P.E. (1997). Job Satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes and consequences. California: Sage Publications Inc. Spector, P.E. 1985. Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: development of the job satisfaction survey. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13(6):693-713. SPSS Inc. (2017). IBM SPSS Statistics Version 24, Release 23.0.0, Copyright© IBM Corporation and its licensors. http://www-01.ibm.com/software/analytics/spss/ Steyn, H.S. (jr.). 1999. PRAKTIESE BEDUIDENHEID: Die gebruik van Effekgroottes. Wetenskaplike Bydraes, Reeks B: Natuurwetenskappe nr. 117.

47

Publikasiebeheerkomitee, PU vir CHO, Potchefstroom. Steyn, H.S. (jr.). 2000. Practical significance of the difference in means, Journal of Industrial Psychology, 26(3), 1-3. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4" 4.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Terranova, A.B. 2008. Job satisfaction and intent to leave the profession of athletic training. D.Ed. Dissertation. Creensboro: UNC. Van der Werf, R. 2014. 3 Key Types of Organisational Commitment. https://www.effectory.com/thought-leadership/blog/3-key-types-of-organisational- committment/ Date of access: 21 Jan. 2017. Visagie,C, M & Steyn, C. (2001). Organisational commitment and responses to planned organisational change: an exploratory study. Southern African Business Review 15(3), 98-121. Yousef, D.A. 2000. Organizational commitment: A mediator of the relationships of leadership behaviour with job satisfaction and performance in a non-western country. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15(1):6-28.

48

Annexure A

NWU School of Business & Governance North-West University Private Bag X6001, Potchefstroom South Africa 2520 Prof CJ Botha Tel: (018) 299 1672 20801408 Email: [email protected] EKSTEEN LM, MR 22 May 2017

ETHICAL CLEARANCE

This letter serves to confirm that the research project of EKSTEEN LM has undergone ethical review. The proposal was presented at a Faculty Research Meeting and accepted. The Faculty Research Meeting assigned the project number EMSPBS16/11/25-01/58. This acceptance deems the proposed research as being of minimal risk, granted that all requirements of anonymity, confidentiality and informed consent are met. This letter should form part or your dissertation manuscript submitted for examination purposes.

Yours sincerely

Prof CJ Botha

Manager: Research - NWU Potchefstroom Business School Original details: Wilma Pretorius(12090298) C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\Briewe MBA\2017\

49

Annexure B This is a research project being conducted by Lionel Eksteen at the North West University. You are invited to participate in this research project because you are an employee within the Faculty of Engineering. Your participation in this research study is voluntary. You may choose not to participate. If you decide to participate in this research survey, you may withdraw at any time. If you decide not to participate in this study or if you withdraw from participating at any time, you will not be penalized.

The procedure involves filling an online survey that will take approximately 15 minutes. Your responses will be confidential and we do not collect identifying information such as your name, email address or IP address.

All data is stored in a password protected electronic format. To help protect your confidentiality, the surveys will not contain information that will personally identify you. The results of this study will be used for research purposes only and may be shared with the Faculty Management. Continue…

Demographic information of respondents Respondent profile by gender Male Female

Respondent profile by age Respondent profile by qualification 18-25 PhD / Masters 26-35 Hons / Post grad diploma 36-45 B degree 46-55 Grade 12 56 and older Less than grade 12

Respondent profile by race White Employment type Black Academic Coloured Support

Indian Other

50

Instruction: Here are some situations that can arise at work. Please indicate how often you have experience them in the last months Scale 1 = 2 = Less than once a 3 = A few times a year 4 = A few times a 5 = Once a week Never year month 1 How often are you unfairly given the jobs that no one else wants to do? 1 2 3 4 5 2 At work, when different opinions would be helpful, how often is your opinion not asked? 1 2 3 4 5 3 How often are you watched more closely than others? 1 2 3 4 5 4 How often does your supervisor/boss use racial/ethnic slurs/jokes? 1 2 3 4 5 5 How often does your supervisor/boss direct racial/ethnic jokes at you? 1 2 3 4 5 6 How often do your co-workers use racial/ethnic slurs/jokes? 1 2 3 4 5 7 How often do your co-workers direct racial/ethnic jokes at you? 1 2 3 4 5 8 How often do you feel that you have to work twice as hard as others at work? 1 2 3 4 5 9 How often you feel that you are ignored/not taken seriously by your boss? 1 2 3 4 5 10 How often do others assume that you work in a lower status job than you do and treat as 1 2 3 4 5 such? 11 How often has a co-worker with less experience and fewer qualifications gotten promoted 1 2 3 4 5 before you? 12 How often have you been unfairly humiliated in front of others at work? 1 2 3 4 5 Instruction: The following statements represent your attitude toward your organisation. Indicate to what extend you agree or disagree with each statement Scale 1 = Strongly 5 = Strongly 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree Disagree Agree 13 I really feel as if this organisation‟s problems are my own 1 2 3 4 5 14 I enjoy discussing about my organisation with people outside it 1 2 3 4 5 15 I really feel as if this organisation‟s problems are my own 1 2 3 4 5 16 I think that I could easily become as attached to another organisation as I am to this one 1 2 3 4 5 17 I do not feel like part of the family‟ at my organisation 1 2 3 4 5 18 I do not feel emotionally attached‟ to this organisation 1 2 3 4 5 19 This organisation has a great deal of personal meaning for me 1 2 3 4 5 20 I do not feel a strong‟ sense of belonging to my organisation 1 2 3 4 5

51

21 I feel that I could leave this job 1 2 3 4 5 22 I am actively looking for other jobs 1 2 3 4 5 23 I often consider quitting my job 1 2 3 4 5 24 I am looking for another job 1 2 3 4 5 25 I frequently ask around for a job somewhere else 1 2 3 4 5 Instruction: Please circle the one number for each question that comes closest to reflecting your opinion about it.

Scale 1 = Disagree very much 2 = Disagree moderately 3 = Disagree slightly 4 = Agree slightly 5 = Agree moderately 6 = Agree very much 26 I feel I am being paid a fair amount for the work I do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 27 There is really too little chance for promotion on my job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 28 My supervisor is quite competent in doing his/her job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 29 I am not satisfied with the benefits I receive. 1 2 3 4 5 6 30 When I do a good job, I receive the recognition for it that I should receive. 1 2 3 4 5 6 31 Many of our rules and procedures make doing a good job difficult. 1 2 3 4 5 6 32 I like the people I work with. 1 2 3 4 5 6 32 I sometimes feel my job is meaningless. 1 2 3 4 5 6 34 Communications seem good within this organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 35 Raises are too few and far between. 1 2 3 4 5 6 36 Those who do well on the job stand a fair chance of being promoted. 1 2 3 4 5 6 37 My supervisor is unfair to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 38 The benefits we receive are as good as most other organizations offer. 1 2 3 4 5 6 39 I do not feel that the work I do is appreciated. 1 2 3 4 5 6 40 My efforts to do a good job are seldom blocked by red tape. 1 2 3 4 5 6 41 I find I have to work harder at my job because of the incompetence of people I work with. 1 2 3 4 5 6 42 I like doing the things I do at work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 43 The goals of this organization are not clear to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 44 I feel unappreciated by the organization when I think about what they pay me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 45 People get ahead as fast here as they do in other places. 1 2 3 4 5 6 46 My supervisor shows too little interest in the feelings of subordinates. 1 2 3 4 5 6 47 The benefit package we have is equitable. 1 2 3 4 5 6 48 There are few rewards for those who work here. 1 2 3 4 5 6 49 I have too much to do at work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 50 I enjoy my coworkers. 1 2 3 4 5 6 51 I often feel that I do not know what is going on with the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 52 I feel a sense of pride in doing my job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 53 I feel satisfied with my chances for salary increases. 1 2 3 4 5 6 54 There are benefits we do not have which we should have. 1 2 3 4 5 6 55 I like my supervisor. 1 2 3 4 5 6 56 I have too much paperwork. 1 2 3 4 5 6 57 I don't feel my efforts are rewarded the way they should be. 1 2 3 4 5 6 58 I am satisfied with my chances for promotion. 1 2 3 4 5 6 59 There is too much bickering and fighting at work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 60 My job is enjoyable. 1 2 3 4 5 6 61 Work assignments are not fully explained. 1 2 3 4 5 6

52