Business Research Method

Semester Project

Submitted to:
Ma’am Asia Bibi

Prepared by:
Ermina Ashraf/ Fa-2020/ BBA Hons/ 041
Ayesha Saeed/ Fa-2020/ BBA Hons/ 050
Khadija Tariq/ Fa-2020/ BBA Hons/ 066

Lahore Garrison University

9th December, 2022
LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION
LETTER OR TRANSMITTAL
 DEDICATION

This study is wholeheartedly dedicated to our beloved parents, who have been our source of
inspiration and gave us strength when we thought of giving up, who continually provide their
moral, spiritual, emotional, and financial support.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Firstly, we would like to thank Allah Almighty for enabling us to finish this report
successfully within the deadline. We would like to express our special thanks of gratitude to
our course instructor Ma’am Asia Bibi who gave us this golden opportunity to work on this
project based on Employee Job Performance which helped us gain insight in this topic and
learn new things related to the course of BRM. It has been a great privilege and honor to
work and study under her guidance.

The completion of this report could not have been possible without the collective effort and
teamwork of all group members. Special thanks to our friends and class fellows who have
shown a keen interest in our report and have motivated us throughout the process.
 ABSTRACT

Organizations both in the private and public sector across the globe rely on their workforce
for optimum productivity which will in turn result to organizational efficiency. In this case,
the need for ensuring employee job satisfaction becomes a matter of necessity to every
organization. Though, studies have been conducted by various researchers and scholars in
this area, there is however the need to conduct more studies on job satisfaction and
performance of an employee since the employees are believed to be an indispensable part of
an organization. Therefore, this study aims to examine the relationship between job
satisfaction and work performance of employees. Dissatisfaction is believed to be one of the
major factors that demotivates and demoralize employees in the workplace which can lead to
which can result to lower productivity thereby affecting the overall performance of an
organization. In the analysis it has been found that there is a positive relationship between job
satisfaction and employees job performance. In other words, employees job satisfaction has
positive impact on their performance. Job satisfaction is also one of the most important
factors in the organization. If employees are satisfied with organizations policies, then they
will stay for a long time with the organization. Previous research also supports that the job
satisfaction and job performance of the subordinate would be closely tied to the state of the
relationship with supervisor. This research paper will delve into all these different subjects
and the reason why they play a huge role in employee job performance and job satisfaction.
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Employee job performance has always been a major challenge in organizational management
and adopting effective ways to motivate employees to achieve and deliver higher job
performance as well as increase the organizational competitiveness is the main objective of
every business organization. It is therefore believed that employee performance is
instrumental to organizational growth and profitability. The employees are regarded as the
major business resources that facilitate the daily activities and operations of an organization
asserted that organizational effectiveness and efficiency depends on how effective and
efficient the employees in the organization are. Employer’s ability to comprehend employee’s
satisfaction as it relates to schedules and daily responsibilities will impact greatly on
employee productivity and performance. Howard (2009) view job satisfaction as a blend of
likable and unlikable moods or behavior of an individual worker on their work schedule,
implying that when an individual is employed such individual might come along with desires,
wants and anticipations which define their meaning for being there. Satisfaction on a job
symbolizes the enormousness to which optimism are align with real rewards and benefits.
According to Mowday, Porter, and Steers (2013), most employees of today have a high
degree of job dissatisfaction which create attitudes that are undesirable on the job and in turn
degenerate their performance ability and that their working place as well.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION ……………………………………………………………ii

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL …………………………………………………………….. iii

DEDICATION …………………………………………………………………………….....iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ……………………………………………………………………v

ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………………………………….vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY …………………………………………………………………...x

TABLE OF CONTENTS …………………………………………………………………….xi

LIST OF TABLES …………………………………………………………………………..xii

LIST OF FIGURES ………………………………………………………………………...xiii

CHAPTER ONE ……………………………………………………………………………..1

INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………………...1

1.0 Background of the Study ………………………………………………………………….1

1.2 Objectives of the study ……………………………………………………………………4

1.3 Research Questions ……………………………………………………………………….5

1.4 Overview of the Methodology ……………………………………………………………5

CHAPTER TWO …………………………………………………………………………….6

LITERARURE REVIEW …………………………………………………………………...6

2.0 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………….7

2.1 Employee Performance ……………………………………………………………………

2.2 Measures for employee performance ……………………………………………………..

2.3 Job satisfaction ……………………………………………………………………………..

2.3.1 Factors determining Job Satisfaction …………………………………………………….

2.3.2 Importance of Job Satisfaction …………………………………………………………...

2.4 Job Promotion ……………………………………………………………………………...

2.4.1 Models of Job Promotion ………………………………………………………………..

2.4.2 Determinants of Job Promotion …………………………………………………………

2.4.3 Consequences of Promotion …………………………………………………………….

2.5 Relationship between job promotion and job satisfaction ………………………………..

2.6 Organizational commitment ………………………………………………………………

2.7 Relationship with supervisor ……………………………………………………………..

CHAPTER THREE …………………………………………………………………………

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY …………………………………………………………..

3.1 Research Strategy …………………………………………………………………………

3.2 Research Paradigm ………………………………………………………………………..

3.3 Research Assumption …………………………………………………………………….

3.4 Sampling Design …………………………………………………………………………

3.5 Research Instrument ………………………………………………………………………

3.6 Data Collection Method …………………………………………………………………..

3.7 Population of Study ………………………………………………………………………

3.8 Variable of Operationalization ……………………………………………………………

CHAPTER FOUR …………………………………………………………………………..

SUMMARY, RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ……………..

4.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………….

4.2 Summary …………………………………………………………………………………

4.3 Results …………………………………………………………………………………….

4.4 Conclusions ……………………………………………………………………………….

4.5 Recommendations …………………………………………………………………………

REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………………………

APPENDICES ………………………………………………………………………………..
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.0 Background of the Study

Employee job performance has always been a major challenge in organizational management
and adopting effective ways to motivate employees to achieve and deliver higher job
performance as well as increase the organizational competitiveness is the main objective of
every business organization (Lee & Wu 2011). It is therefore believed that employee
performance is instrumental to organizational growth and profitability. The employees are
regarded as the major business resources that facilitate the daily activities and operations of
an organization (Mudah, Rafiki & harahap 2014). Similarly, Oluwafemi (2010) asserted that
organizational effectiveness and efficiency depends on how effective and efficient the
employees in the organization are.

Employer’s ability to comprehend employee’s satisfaction as it relates to schedules and daily

responsibilities will impact greatly on employee productivity and performance. Howard
(2009) view job satisfaction as a blend of likable and unlikable moods or behavior of an
individual worker on their work schedule, implying that when an individual is employed such
individual might come along with desires, wants and anticipations which define their
meaning for being there. Satisfaction on a job symbolizes the enormousness to which
optimism are align with real rewards and benefits. According to Mowday, Porter, and Steers
(2013), most employees of today have a high degree of job dissatisfaction which create
attitudes that are undesirable on the job and in turn degenerate their performance ability and
that their working place as well.

The concept of employee performance is preferably stressed lately in the viewpoint of

transparency (Hood & Healed, 2006), managerial accountability (Broadbent & Laughlin,
2003), a performance measurement (Ferreira & Ottley, 2005) and managerial control (Berry,
Broadbent & Ottley, 2005). Organizations can use promotions as a reward for highly
productive workers, creating an incentive for workers to exert greater effort. Promotions are
the only effective mechanism for eliciting greater effort if workers place significant value on
the promotion itself. Nevertheless, the use of pay increase can induce employees to give
off their best. Job satisfaction has also received significant attention from economists in
recent years. Part of the interest in job satisfaction is due to the correlation between
satisfaction and employee behavior. More satisfied workers are less likely to leave
their employer (Clark 2001; Shields and Ward 2001), have lower rates of absenteeism
(Clegg 1983) and have higher productivity (Mangione and Quinn 1975). In this
context, reported job satisfaction can be seen as a revelation of workers‟ preferences
over jobs. Workers reporting a high degree of satisfaction with the job are signaling
their preference for the current job, which is also exhibited in the lower quit rates of
highly satisfied workers. In the absence of more direct measures, job satisfaction
provides the closest proxy for the utility individuals derive from their employment
(Kosteas, 2011). Understanding the determinants of economic wellbeing is a key
concern of economic science, and job satisfaction is a key facet of overall wellbeing.
As human resource of an organization is considered as an important resource, organizations
wish to keep well trained and effective work force. Employees, who satisfy with their job
exert high effort to organization wish to satisfy their employees for getting effective more
work done. To make the best use of people as a valuable resource of the organization
attention must be given to the relationship between staff and the nature and content of their
jobs. The organization and the design of jobs can have a significant effect on the workforce.
The managers need to understand how best to make work more satisfying for staff and to
overcome obstacles for effective performance. Nowadays competition is very high.
Therefore, every organization must compete with other organizations to achieve competitive
advantage. For this the organization must retain work for employees. Therefore, job
satisfaction is needed to achieve the organizations goals and objectives.

1.2 Objectives of the Study

The general objective of this research is to assess the determinants of independent variables
and the extent of job satisfaction among the workers of different organizations.

The specific objectives of this study are therefore to:

1. Whether job satisfaction of the employees determines their work performance or not?

2. To what extent employee’s job satisfaction exists?

1.3 Research Questions

The study is identified to achieve the following objectives:

1. To examine job satisfaction of employees,

2. To examine factors that cause job satisfaction,

3. To identify work performance of the employees,

4. To suggest some measures to improve employees work performance through job

satisfaction.

In line with these objectives, the following research hypothesis are formulated:

• H1: Job satisfaction is positively related to organizational commitment/ The greater

the employees job satisfaction, the greater the organizational commitment and vice
versa.

• H2: Reasonable pay system will lead to a higher level of employee’s performance.

• H3: Employee training leads to higher level of job satisfaction.

 • H4: High level of good promotion system will lead to high level of job performance.

• H5: Positive relationship with supervisor will lead to higher level of work
performance.

Framework of Employee Job Performance:

 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 Introduction

This chapter reviews existing literature on the concept of employee performance, job
promotion, determinants of job promotion, job satisfaction concept and theories of job
satisfaction concept. It also reviews the concept of organizational commitment and the
relationship of employees with their supervisor as factors that could lead to job satisfaction
and improve employee job performance.

2.1 Employee Performance

Employee job performance has always been an important concern for managers of
organizations (Kelidbari, Dizgah, & Yusefi, 2011). Similarly, employee performance is key
edifice of an organization therefore, aspects that place the grounds for high performance must
be scrutinized critically by the organizations for them to succeed (Abbas & Yaqoob, 2009).
According to Lee, et-al, (2011), in a study titled ―The effects of internal marketing, job
satisfaction and service attitude on job performance among high-tech has always been
regarded as an important item in organizational management‖ defined job performance as
workers’ total performance in meeting the anticipated worth and achievement of tasks under
the procedure and time requirements of the organization. Similarly, Liao et-al, (2012), define
job performance as the standard for advancements, redundancy, rewards, punishments,
reviews, and salary changes. It also satisfies the needs for employees to realize themselves.
Ahmad and Khurram (2011), also argue that employee performance symbolizes the broad
belief of the personnel about their behavior and contributions towards the achievement of the
organization.

According to Ahmad and Shahzad (2011), apparent employee performance embodies the
whole belief of the employee about their conduct and contributions to the accomplishment of
the organization and further stated that compensation practices, performance evaluation and
promotional practices as a determinant of employee performance. Similarly, Anitha, (2013)
define employee performance as an indicator of financial or other outcome of the employee
that has a direct connection with the performance of the organization as well as its
achievement, further revealed that working atmosphere, leadership, team and co-worker
relationship, training and career development, reward programme, guidelines and
procedures and workstation wellbeing as well as employee engagement are major factors
that determine employee performance.

However, a study conducted by Alagaraja1 and Shuck (2015) aimed to discover prevailing
viewpoints of organizational configuration and employee engagement in order to
understand reasons associated with enhancing individual performance argue that employee
performance can be enhanced through training and development. Furthermore, Thomas
and Feldman, (2010) adopted measures of employee performance as core task performance,
which includes in-role performance, safety performance, and creativity, followed by
citizenship performance, categorized into both targets-specific and general organizational
citizenship behaviors and lastly, counterproductive performance that consists of general
counterproductive work behaviors, workplace aggression, substance use, tardiness, and
absenteeism.

Therefore, employee performance brings about innovation performance and firm

performance, in such a way that successful effort of fulfilled, inspired, and devoted human
resources produce innovative ideas for new products or services and increase quality
performance, operative performances, and client satisfaction directly (Sadikoglu & Cemal,
2010).

2.2 Measures for employee performance

Ahmad and Shahzad (2011) argued that seeming performance of an employee expresses the
entire conviction of an employee regarding the actions and input to the attainment of the
organization’s goals and mission. They further mentioned that practices of compensation,
evaluation of performance and practices concerning promotion of and employee are the
benchmark for performance of a worker. So also, Anitha (2013) stated that performance of an
employee is a gauge or pointer of monetary or other result of the employee that has
undeviating relationship with organization performance and accomplishment as well. Anitha,
(2013) additionally disclose that atmosphere at which employee perform task and other
schedules, relationship with bosses, co-employee relationship and that of team, compensation
procedure, and engagement of an employee are determining factors for performance.

Conversely, Alagaraja1 and Shuck (2015) disclose that employee performance can be
measured by means of regular training and improvement. In addition, Thomas and Feldman,
(2010) take on measures of employee performance as core job performance, that includes in-
role performance, security performance, and inventiveness, trailed by citizenship
performance, branded into equally targets-specific and wide-ranging organizational
citizenship. As far as this study is concerned however, dimensions for measuring employee
performance provided in the study of Liao et-al (2012) were chosen. This is due to the fact
that the dimensions in those studies’ employee performance was measured from the point of
view of the organization, the employee as well as, the job itself i.e. organizational objective,
employee objective, performance development and employee satisfaction are used as
measures of employee performance which makes it more wide-ranging.

Performance of an employee, hence, gives room for innovativeness among employees and
general firm’s performance and innovativeness, in a manner that prosperous work of
accomplished, inspired and zealous human resources yields groundbreaking concepts for
newer goods or services and also upsurge performance quality and satisfaction of the clients
(Sadikoglu & Cemal, 2010).

2.3 Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction is believed not to have a generally agreed definition despite of its significance
and wide usage in the field of industrial psychology and organizational behavior, which make
it vital that before clear meaning is given, there is the need to put into consideration the
significance and nature activities of human beings all around the globe (Aziri 2011). Several
scholars and authors have defined job satisfaction base on their views. A definition given by
Hop pock (1935) states that job satisfaction is seen as any form of blend of psychological
environmental as well as physiological circumstances that can make an individual admit in all
honesty that I am gratified with the employment I do for a leaving. Based on this definition,
level of job satisfaction is represented by what causes the feeling of satisfaction. Another
definition given by Vroom (1964) effective orientation of individual in respect to their task
and schedules is what defines job satisfaction; this definition put much emphasis on the role
played by an employee in the working place.

The most widely used meaning of job satisfaction is the coined by Spector (1997) which
states that job satisfaction centers mostly on the feelings on individuals about their entire job,
which emphasizes on the level to which individuals like or hate their jobs. Therefore, job
satisfaction serves as a benchmark on how employee either feel positive or negative about
their job and that is the main reason why job satisfaction and dissatisfaction are always
present at certain point and situation (Davis, Nestrom 1985). Similarly, Aziri (2011) assert
that the level of job satisfaction is within the range of extreme satisfaction and extreme
dissatisfaction.

Also, according kaliski (2007), job satisfaction can be perceived as feelings of

accomplishment and how successful an employee is on his/her job which can have a direct
relationship to employee performance as well as wellbeing of the employee. Moreover,
George and Jones (2008) suggest that job satisfaction is composed to beliefs and feelings that
individuals perceive about their respective jobs. However, job satisfaction is believed to be
multi- dimensional and intricate, it can be viewed in many ways by different individuals,
usually it is related to motivation even though the scope of the connection is still not very
clear Aziri (2011).

2.3.1 Factors Determining Job Satisfaction

Rue and Ryaes (2003) suggest that job satisfaction is determined by some element in the
workplace which include financial packages like salaries, opportunities, advancement,
working conditions, and work group, further the resultant effect of the determinant serves as
yardstick for job satisfaction of dissatisfaction as well as what the outcome will be, as
asserted by Aziri (2011) that when discussing issues regarding job satisfaction, job
dissatisfaction should be considered in order to ensure balance. Squires, Hoben, Carleton and
Graham (2015) argued that though, dissatisfied employees may not quit their jobs, but such
feeling of dissatisfaction can impact on them, their colleagues as well as the their quality of
performance and the service they deliver in the sense that such dissatisfied employees have
tendencies of displaying hostility on other employees in the workplace.

In addition, a study conducted by Bos, Donders, and Bounman- Bowner (2009) aimed at
obtaining a intuition concerning job satisfaction from employee’s view point opined that job
satisfaction has five determinants which consist of independence, skill discretion, support
from superior, chances to further education and relationship with co- workers.

As a result, measurement of employee’s job satisfaction as one of the notable dynamics when
it comes to aptitude and usefulness of personnel. In practicality the first-hand decision-
making model which sorts it as indispensable that employees should be preserved and well
thought-out fundamentally as human beings that have their own desires, needs, and own
cravings are a very good scale for the prominence of job satisfaction in modern-day
companies (Usman & Jamal, 2013). In the process analysing job satisfaction, the sagacity that
a satisfied employee is a pleased employee and a pleased employee is an active employee
(Aziri, 2011).

On the contrary Aziri (2011) further argue that there is no strong nexus between job
satisfaction and employee performance considering the fact that a meta-analysis of previous
research studies fines 0.17 best-estimate relationship between job satisfaction and employee
performance. He further asserts that an employee with high level of job satisfaction may not
necessarily have a higher level of performance.

Furthermore, in a study by Rose, Kumar and Pak, (2011) aimed at observing the connection
job satisfaction and work performance by a sample of public service officials in Malaysia
realise thatorganizational learning was establish to be positively akin to organizational
commitment, job satisfaction, and work performance. In the same vein, Raza, Rafique, Ali,
Mohsin, and Shah, (2015) also conduct a study with the gaol of probing the connection
between job satisfaction and sales representative’s performance with adaptive selling deeds
of organisations, the study divulges that that there is a strong association of sales person
performance and job satisfaction. Moreover, in the work of Vermeeren, Kuipers and Steijn,
(2014) in a study aims to observe the affiliation concerning public organizational
performance and workers management with specific emphasis on job satisfaction as a
credible mediating variable between organizational performance and HRM, on the impact of
a supervisor’s management smartness on the application of human resource (HR)
practices. However, their discoveries direct that job satisfaction is positively related to
employee performance.

Furthermore, in a study carried out by Al- Ahmadi (2009) in order ascertain causes impelling
performance of hospital nurses in Riyadh Region, Saudi Arabia came to the conclusion
that job satisfaction has a positive correlation to employee performance.

2.3.2 Importance of Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction is a very important attribute which is frequently measured by

organizations. According to Mitchell and Lasan, (1987), it is generally recognized in
the organizational behaviour field that jobs satisfaction is the most important and
frequently studied attitude.

Job satisfaction is so important in that its absence often leads to lethargy and reduced
organizational commitment (Levinson, 1997; Moser, 1997). Lack of job satisfaction is
a predictor of quitting a job (Jamal, 1997). Sometimes workers may quit from public
to the private sector and vice versa. At the other times the movement is from one
profession to another that is considered a greener pasture. This later is common in
countries grappling with dwindling economy and its concomitant such as poor
conditions of service and late payment of salaries (Nwagwu, 1997). In such countries,
people tend to migrate to better and consistently paying jobs (Fafunwa, 1971).
Job Satisfaction can be an important indicator of how employees feel about their jobs
and a predictor of work behaviors such as organizational citizenship (Organ & Ryan,
1995), absenteeism (Weggeret „al, 2007) and turnover (Saari & Judge, 2007). Further,
job satisfaction can partially mediate the relationship of personality variables and
deviant work behaviors (Mount and Johnson, 2007) One common research finding is that job
satisfaction is correlated with life
satisfaction (Rain & Steiner, 1991).

This correlation is reciprocal, meaning people who are satisfied with life tend to be
satisfied with their job and people who are satisfied with their job tend to be satisfied
with life. However, some research has found that job satisfaction is not significantly
related to life satisfaction when other variables such as non-work satisfaction and core
self-evaluations are considered (Rode, 2004).

Job satisfaction has received significant attention from research and practitioners in
recent years. Part of the interest in job satisfaction is due to the correlation between
satisfaction and employee behavior. More satisfied workers are less likely to leave
their employer (Clark, 2001; Shields and Ward, 2001), have lower rates of
absenteeism (Clegg, 1983) and have higher productivity (Mangione and Quinn, 1975
as quoted by Kosteas, 2008).

2.4 Job Promotion

Job promotion is the advancement of an employee's rank or position in an

organizational hierarchy system (Goblar et. al., 2002). Goblar et. al., 2002, further
allude that, promotion may be an employee's reward for good performance that is,
positive appraisal. Before a company promotes an employee to a particular position it
ensures that the person is able to handle the added responsibilities by screening the
employee with interviews and tests and giving them training or on-the job experience.
A promotion can involve advancement in terms of designation, salary and benefits,
and in some organizations the type of job activities may change a great deal (Kalesh
et. al., 2007).

It is usually symbolized with a change of job and title. It can be attached with an
increase in pay, power, and responsibility. Or, it can also include an increase in
freedom or independence, or a decrease in danger or discomfort. It may mean less
inconvenience in terms of hours or location for some employees (Kalesh et. al., 2007).
Based on the above discussion, employees often feel satisfied with these incentives
and stimulated to perform better in the new job. They are motivated to increase their
knowledge or skill and to gear for higher levels of productivity. With better jobs,
employees may decline any opportunities at other companies. Hence, promotions can
increase employees‟ loyalty to the company and reduce career change intention at
lower levels.

An employee‟s opportunities for promotion are also likely to exert an influence on

job satisfaction (Landy, 1989; Moorhead & Griffen, 1992). Robbins (1998) maintains
that promotions provide opportunities for personal growth, increased responsibility,
and increased social status (Robbins & Judge, 2007). Drafke and Kossen (2002) was
of the opinion that many workers experience satisfaction when they believe that their
prospects are bright and good, and this may according to Bull (2005) “translate
into opportunities for advancement and growth in their current workplace, or enhance
the chance of finding alternative employment”. It was stressed further that if people
feel they have limited opportunities or chance for career advancement in any
organization, their job satisfaction may decrease which consequently may lead to
career change.

According to McCormick and Ilgen (1985), employees‟ satisfaction with promotional

opportunities will depend on several factors, including the probability that
employees will be promoted, as well as the basis and the fairness of such promotions.
Moreover, not all employees wish to be promoted. The reason therefore is related to
the fact that promotion entails greater responsibility and tasks of a more complex
nature, for which the individuals may consider themselves unprepared.

If employees perceive the promotion policy as unfair, but do not desire to be

promoted, they may still be satisfied. A promotion is the prize that is allocated to the worker
who ranks higher than all other workers in a group of new hires over a given period.
The probability of winning depends on the workers' productivity, and the winners are
moved to positions that involve higher responsibility and higher earnings.

Promotions may take a variety of different forms and are generally accompanied by
different rewards (Luthans, 1992). Equally, promotional opportunities therefore have
differential effects on career intention, and it is essential that this be taken into
account in cases where promotion policies are designed to enhance employee
satisfaction. Tuwei et al. (2013) affirm that employees are more committed to them
jobs when they believe that the organization, they work for pursues a promotion from
within policy. If they believe a promotion from within policy is not exercised, they
would feel less uncertain regarding the future of their career in the organization,
becoming more motivated to consider career change. Overall, employees often feel
satisfied with these incentives and stimulated to perform better in the new job. They
are motivated to increase their knowledge or skill and to gear for higher levels of
productivity. With better jobs, employees may decline any opportunities at other
organizations. Hence, promotions can increase employees‟ loyalty to the organization
and reduce intention to change careers at lower level (Gaertner & Nollen, 1989).

2.4.1 Models of Job Promotion

There are several theoretical frameworks that explain job promotion within
firms. For example, the models developed by Lazear and Rosen (1981) and Rosen
(1986) view a promotion as a tournament.

Because the new hires know that not all of them will receive a promotion, the
probability of promotion provides an incentive to exert effort without the need for any
formal contract between workers and firm. Landers, Rebitzer and Taylor (1996) argue
that the income sharing typical of professional employment relationships with adverse
selection (e.g., large law firms) creates incentives to promote those with greatest
propensity to work hard. Since this propensity is unobservable, firms will use
indicators of it (such as, hours of work or overtime hours) for the purpose of selecting
workers for promotion.

While tournament theory largely ignores the fact that external labor markets also
provide incentives for workers (and firms), other models emphasize the strategic role
played by promotion, which makes the firm's knowledge about the worker available
to the public. Waldman (1984) and Bemhardt and Scoones (1993) show that, if a
worker's ability can only be observed by the worker's employer, competing firms can
only infer the employee's ability level indirectly from his/her curriculum vitae (e.g.,
past positions, education, training).

Since it is optimal to promote only the relatively able workers, competing employers
must revise upward their expectations of a worker's ability upon promotion. The
magnitude of the associated wage increase may either encourage other firms to
compete for that worker or discourage them from doing so.

On the other hand, a firm has an incentive to exploit its private information about an
able worker by not promoting the worker as quickly or often as is socially optimal.
Furthermore, in cases where multi-tasking concerns matter, firms (and typically, but
not exclusively, large firms) may want to use subjective measures of performance to
evaluate their workers, whereby pay is at the discretion of the impressions of a
superior or supervisor (Prendergast and Topel 1996). In these cases, a promotion may
be a means of constraining favoritism or rent-seeking activities.

Lazear and Rosen (1990) presented another model of the promotion process in which
the receipt of promotions and training is based on the individual's revealed ability at
the job. While men and women are assumed to have similar labor market abilities,
women are assumed to have greater nonmarket abilities and opportunities, and
consequently, they are more likely than men to depart the firm. Since job leaving
among those promoted imposes a cost on the firm, the employer will have a higher
promotion standard for women and be less likely to promote women than men.

Promotions may also be the result of human capital investments. The human capital
model suggests that workers often receive training specific to a particular job, which
makes them more valuable to the employer providing the training (Mincer, 1974). The
accumulation of firm-specific human capital usually involves joint investment by both
the employer and the employee, so that both parties have an incentive to maintain a
long-term relationship (Becker, 1975). A promotion ladder that is, a process by which
jobs are assigned by seniority and wages are attached to jobs in a fixed distribution of
prizes-may lead to firm-specific human capital investment and efficient turnover
(Carmichael, 1983).

Individuals acquire skills and experience in one job that are transferable to a higher-level job
along the worker's career. Job match theory indicates that information about
the quality of a job match reveals itself over time (Jovanovich, 1979).
A promotion may be the firm's optimal response after learning about the worker's
productivity. Furthermore, the longer a worker's tenure, the more specific human
capital accumulated, and the more costly it would be for the firm to find another
external candidate who could outperform the internal worker (Chan 1996).
2.4.2 Determinant of Job Promotion

Firms‟ promotion policies are a means of increasing productivity within an

organization by increasing human capital acquisition, increasing effort, of inducing
separating equilibria in terms of worker types (Chang and Wang, 1995), or even of
constraining favoritism (Prendergast and Topel, 1996). Firms may backload
compensation to elicit higher levels of effort, where effort may be proxied by hours of
overtime work (Landers et al., 1996). If women are constrained by family factors
from working long hours, this may lead to gender differences in promotion rates. Any
change in the determinants of promotion, as one moves up the organizational ladder,
would reveal how an individual's ultimate occupational achievement is patterned by
particular background variables. For example, while race and gender may have little
impact on advancement prospects in low salary grades, it has been suggested (e.g.,
Auster 1988, p. 138 cited in Spilerman & Lunde, 1991) that these personal attributes
are significant factors in promotion decisions at higher levels.

Booth and Francesconi (2000) opined that there may also be gender differences in the
way family responsibilities affect promotion and mobility if women are more likely
to quit, firms will be less likely to train and promote them. On the other hand, if
women view promotion as unlikely due to discriminatory promotion practices, they
may be less prone to put themselves forward for training programmes at the firm.

At the instance of opening of a suitable position in the firm, a promotion is likely to

occur when the employer holds a combination of positive beliefs about the worker.
In the study of Job Mobility in 1990s, Booth and Francesconi (2000) suggested that
job promotion in an organization may be influenced by tenure in the current job,
labor market experience, highest educational qualification, usual hours of overtime
work, marital status, number of children by three age groups (aged 0 to 4; 5 to 11; and
12 to 16), union coverage, working in the public sector, establishment size,
occupation of origin, cohort of entry into the labor market, and local unemployment
rate.

2.4.3 Consequences of Job Promotions

There can be a constellation of effects that a promotion triggers. A promotion may

serve as a formal method to increase wages and responsibilities or may be a
mechanism by which workers move along their wage-tenure profiles and firms
increase their workers' job attachment. Not all wage increases are necessarily
promotions. Francesconi (2001) advocated that there must be something about a
promotion that makes it different from a wage gain.

Furthermore, a promotion may have an impact on other aspects of the job, such as
training opportunities, career development, supervisory responsibilities, and status.
2.5 Relationship between job promotions and job satisfaction

In the study of job satisfaction and promotion, Kosteas (2011) after controlling for
wages and other firm and individual characteristics found that a promotion has
approximately the same impact on job satisfaction as a sixty-seven percent wage
increase. This finding indicates that workers value the promotion itself, above and
beyond the wage increase that normally accompanies a promotion. Thus, promotions
may be a relatively effective mechanism for keeping workers happy. Kosteas found
that promotion expectations also affect job satisfaction; workers who believe a
promotion is possible in the next two years report higher job satisfaction.

Furthermore, past promotions continue to have an impact on job satisfaction.

however, the effect fades over time. Kosteas (2011) again reported that promotion
receipt has a larger effect on job satisfaction for workers who do not believe another
promotion is possible in the next two years compared with those who do believe a
promotion is possible. The positive correlation between job satisfaction and both
promotions and promotion belief persist even when controlling for other job amenities
and characteristics such as supervisory status and responsibilities. Koteas (2011)
further found that men have greater promotion expectations. The rate at which men
report a promotion is possible is 62.6 percent, as opposed to 53.7 percent for women.

Clark (2001) finds that both satisfaction with pay and job security are the most important job
satisfaction categories for determining future quits, while satisfaction with promotion
opportunities are not a significant factor. Using cross-sectional data on British nurses,
Shields and Ward (2001) find that dissatisfaction with promotion and training
opportunities have a stronger effect on intentions to quit than dissatisfaction with
workload or pay. Shields and Ward also find that nurses who report promotion
prospects as the most important work characteristic do not have significantly different
job satisfaction than those who report other employment characteristics as most
important.

2.6 Organizational Commitment

Organization commitment plays an important role in any organization as employees much

satisfied and committed naturally work better in organization and improve the
productivity of the organizations (Oshagbemi, 1997; Yousef, 2000). According to Jaros
(1997), organizational commitment is an important part of an employee’s psychological
state because employees who experience high organizational commitment are theorized to
engage in behaviour such as citizenship activities and high job performance that are
believed to be beneficial to the organization. Organizational commitment is a
psychological state that binds the individual to organization in which they work (Allen
& Mayer, 1991). Organizational commitment can influence organizational productivity and
employee’s wellbeing (Meyer and Herscovitch 2001). Meyer and Allen (1997) argue
that organizational commitment consists of individual's psychological status which
specifies the individual's relation with organization that leads to making decision about
staying with the organization. Moday, et al (1982) also define organizational commitment
as staff's holding conviction to organizational goals and values, having tendency toward
significant efforts representing organization as well as high interest in maintaining one's
membership in organization. Researchers explained in their studies that organizational
commitment is important factor to be familiar with organizational behaviour.
Commitment to the organization is the strength of involvement with an organization
(Brown 1969; Hall and Schneider 1972; Moday et al. 1979).

2.7 Relationship with supervisor

Most people in the labor force have experienced times when their direct supervisor met
one of two qualities. In one case, they may have a supervisor that has been really encouraging
and been part of a great supervisor to employee relationship. On the other side of this, there
may have been a supervisor that was counteractive to positive relationships and been part of a
negative supervisor to subordinate relationship. This paper aims to delve into the world of
supervisor to subordinate relationships and see what these relationships can do to the job
performance of an employee, the overall job satisfaction that an employee finds in their job,
and how a positive relationship with a supervisor can increase corporate loyalty.

As we dig into this subject-matter, it is important to start with the positive nature of good
supervisor to employee relationships. Justin Conway, in his paper titled, “Effects of
Supervisor Employee Relationship on Job Performance,” speaks heavily on a concept called
Perceived Organizational Support (POS). This term stems from Organizational Support
Theory (qtd. In Eisenberger, 1986). This is a term that he defines as the degree that an
employee feels that they are well appreciated by their organization and how they perceive
their work to be deemed as beneficial to the organization. POS is defined as, “the extent to
which an employee believes that his/her company cares about them and appreciates his/her
contributions to the company” (Eisenberger, 1986). Conway follows this with the idea that an
employee’s POS is greatly altered by the relationship that they have with their supervisor.
This leads to an employee making personal decisions on their thoughts related to their current
standing in the company.

Perceived performance of employees shows the employee’s general belief about contribution
and behaviour of organizational success. Employee performance has three factors due to
which employee shows good performance than other, these determinants are motivation,
procedural knowledge and declarative knowledge. Carlson et al explained that five practices
of human resource management influence the performances which are maintaining morale,
competitive compensation, recruitment package, training and development, and performance
appraisal. Tessema and Soeters also describe that eight HRM practices such as selection
practices, recruitment, performance evaluation, compensation, grievance procedure, training,
and promotion which affects the employee’s performance. Performance is the result after
doing a job. It shows the requirements of official role, achievement level of job, expectations,
and organizational regulations. Performance is referred as attainment of action’s outcomes
with employee’s skills that do job in few situations

Past studies support the relation of organizational commitment and employee performance.
For example, Negin et al. [16] explain that organizational commitment influences the job
performance of Malik Bank employees. The results indicate that the dimensions of
organizational commitment such as continual, normative, and affective have relationship with
job performance of employees. Qaisar et al. [52] demonstrate the influence of organizational
commitment (continual, normative, and affective) on employee’s performance in the context
of Pakistani police. Statistical results showed that organizational commitment (continual,
normative, and affective) independently and jointly predicts the employee’s performance.
Furthermore, the study which is conducted on university teachers also concluded that
organizational commitment (continual, normative, and affective) has a positive relation with
employee’s performance. Suliman and Lles [53] investigate the organizational commitment
and employee performance in three industrial units. This study showed that organizational
commitment is a three-dimensional concept, and it has positive relationship with job
performance. One more study, represents that organizational commitment have positive
relation with job performance.
 CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Strategy

3.2 Research Paradigm

3.3 Research Assumptions

3.4 Sampling Design

3.5 Research Instrument

3.6 Data Collection

3.7 Population of Study

3.8 Variable of Operationalization

 CHAPTER FOUR

SUMMARY, RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Summary
4.3 Results

4.4 Limitations

4.5 Conclusions

4.6 Recommendations
 REFERENCES

Abbas, Q., & Yaqoob, S. (2009). Effect of leadership development on employee performance
in Pakistan. Pakistan Economic and Social Review, 269-292.

Adeniji, M. A., & Adekunjo, O. A. (2010). The Role and Impact of Non-Academics Staff
Union (NASU) in Two Nigerian Universities. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal),
332.

Aneela Maqsood. (2011). Work environment, burnout, organizational commitment, and

role of personal variables as moderators.

Crossman, A., & Abou-Zaki, B. (2003). Job satisfaction and employee performance of
WY. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 2(4), 632-640.

Garima Mathur (2013). Organizational commitment and Job Satisfaction: A study of

Manufacturing Sector.

Hampton, Charles T. Jr. (2019). "Supervisor-Subordinate Relationships and Its Effect on Job
Satisfaction and Job Performance" (2019). Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects.

Hafiz AZ (2017) Relationship between Organizational Commitment and Employee’s

Performance Evidence from Banking Sector of Lahore. Arabian J Bus Manag Review 7: 304.

Marina Palomo., Helen Beinart., & Myra J Cooper. (2009). Development and validation of
the Supervisory Relationship Questionnaire (SRQ) in UK trainee clinical psychologists, 131-
49.

Mohammed Inuwa. (2016). Job Satisfaction and Employee Performance: An Empirical

Approach.

Steven W. Schmidt “The Job Training and Job Satisfaction Survey”.

Victoria Korang Boamah. (2014). An assessment of promotional satisfaction among the

workers of cocoa marketing company limited.

https://dclinpsych.leeds.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/26/2018/10/4c-Supervisor-
Relationship-Questionnaire_PDFlong-version.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24441510_Development_and_validation_of_t
he_Supervisory_Relationship_Questionnaire_SRQ_in_UK_trainee_clinical_psychologis
ts

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED494451.pdf

https://www.academia.edu/40531477/Likert_Scale_Questionnaire_for_measure_Emplo
yee_Performance_of_the_Crest_Fashions_Pvt_Ltd
 APPENDIX A

Employee Job Performance Framework Questionnaire

Consent Form:

Respected Sir/Ma’am,

We are students of BBA at Lahore Garrison University pursuing this research as a part of our
business research project. All responses you provide will be kept confidentional. Upon
reporting the results of the study, you will not be indentified by name or personal information
that could be used to infer your indentity. Your partcipation in this survey is volunatry. You
may withdraw your consent and discontinue partcipation at any time. Your refusal to
partcipate will not in any way adversely impact upon you. We shall be grateful for your
responses.

Name of the participant: __________________

Date: ___________
Section A: Demographic Data: Information about the profile of the respondent. Please Tick
(√) in the box relevant to you.

A. Age:

What is your age range?

Young: less than 20 years.

Young: 20-29 years.
Old: 30-39 years.
Old: 40-49 years.
Old: 50 years and above.

B. Gender:

What is your gender?

Male.
Female.

C. Marital Status:

What is your marital status?

Married
Single
Widowed
Divorced

D. Staff Cadre

What is your current cadre?

Junior cadre
Senior cadre

E. Educational Qualification:

What is your educational qualification?

Primary Certificate
Secondary Certificate
Diploma
Degree
 Masters
PhD

Section B: The statement in this section describes job satisfaction. Please tick (√) any option
among the listed options to indicate your preferred answer to the questions.

Interpretations of the scales: Strongly Disagree (1); Disagree (2); Neutral (3); Agree (4);
and Strongly Agree (5).

Sr Statements 1 2 3 4 5
1 Generally, I am satisfied with my job.
2 I find my job very interesting.
3 My current job meets my expectations.
4 My current job is pleasant.
5 I am satisfied with my current job position.
6 I am satisfied with my salary and other
incentives.

Section C: The statement in this section describes employee job performance. Please (√)
any option among the listed options to indicate your preferred answer to the questions.

Interpretations of the scales: Strongly Disagree (1); Disagree (2); Neutral (3); Agree (4);
and Strongly Agree (5).

Sr Statements 1 2 3 4 5
1 I understand the criteria of performance review
of my organization.
2 I understand my job and how to carry it out.

3 I can resolve unexpected schedules on time.

4 I maintain good record of attendance in this
organization.
5 I can carry out assigned duties effectively and
efficiently.

6 I am vert conversant with the standard opening

procedure of my job.
Section D: The statement in this section describes organizational commitment. Please (√)
any option among the listed options to indicate your preferred answer to the questions.

Interpretations of the scales: Strongly Disagree (1); Disagree (2); Neutral (3); Agree (4);
and Strongly Agree (5).

Sr Statements 1 2 3 4 5

1 I am willing to put in a great deal of effort

beyond that normally expected to help this
organization be successful.
2 I talk up this organization to my friends as a
great organization to work for.
3 I feel very little loyalty to this organization.
4 I would accept almost any type of job
assignment to keep working for this
organization.
5 I find that my values and the organization’s
values are very similar.
6 I am proud to tell others that I am part of this
organization.
7 I could just as well be working for a different
organization if the type of work was similar.
8 This organization really inspires the very best
in me in the way of job performance.
9 It would take very little change in my present
circumstances to cause me to leave this
organization.
10 There’s not much to be gained by sticking with
this organization indefinitely.
11 Often, I find it difficult to agree with this
organization’s policies on important matters
relating to its employees.
12 I really care about the fate of this organization.

13 For me it is the best of all possible

organizations for which to work.
14 Deciding to work for this organization was a
definite mistake on my part.
Section E: The statement in this section describes relationship with supervisor. Please (√)
any option among the listed options to indicate your preferred answer to the questions.

Interpretations of the scales: Strongly Disagree (1); Disagree (2); Neutral (3); Agree (4);
and Strongly Agree (5).

Sr Statements 1 2 3 4 5
1 My supervisor was respectful of my views and
ideas.
2 My supervisor and I were equal partners in
supervision.
3 My supervisor had a collaborative approach in
supervision.
4 I feel safe in my supervisor sessions.
5 My supervisor was non-judgmental in
supervision.
6 My supervisor treated me with respect.
7 My supervisor was open-minded in
supervision.
8 Feedback on my performance from my
supervisor felt like criticism.
9 The advice I received from my supervisor was
prescriptive rather than collaborative.
10 I felt able to discuss my concerns with my
supervisor openly.
11 Supervision felt like an exchange of ideas.
12 My supervisor gave feedback in a way that felt
safe.
13 My supervisor treated me like an adult.
14 I was able to be open with my supervisor.
15 I felt if I discussed my feelings openly with my
supervisor, I would be negatively evaluated.

Section F: The statement in this section describes training within the organization. Please
(√) any option among the listed options to indicate your preferred answer to the questions.

Interpretations of the scales: Strongly Disagree (1); Disagree (2); Neutral (3); Agree (4);
and Strongly Agree (5).
 Sr Statements 1 2 3 4 5
1 The on job training I receive is applicable to my
job.
2 Overall, the training I receive on the job meets
my needs.
3 Overall, I am satisfied with the amount of
training I receive on the job.
4 I deliberately seek out learning opportunities
rather than be sent to training.
5 I am generally able to use what I learn in on-the-
job training in my job.
6 My department provides learning and training
opportunities to meet the changing needs of the
workplace.
7 In my department, learning is planned and
purposeful rather than accidental.
8 Training and development are encouraged and
rewarded in my department.

Section G: The statement in this section describes the work environment of the
organization. Please (√) any option among the listed options to indicate your preferred
answer to the questions.

Interpretations of the scales: Strongly Disagree (1); Disagree (2); Neutral (3); Agree (4);
and Strongly Agree (5).

Sr Statements 1 2 3 4 5
1 People go out of their way to help a new
employee feel comfortable.
2 People pay a lot of attention to getting word
done.
3 There is a constant pressure to keep working.
4 There’s not much group spirit.
5 Employees have a great deal of freedom to do as
they like.
6 Rules and regulations are somewhat vague and
ambiguous.
7 This is a highly efficient work-oriented place.
 8 The details of assigned jobs are generally
explained to employees.
9 Employees often talk to each other about their
personal problems.
10 Employees are encouraged to make their own
decisions.

Section H: The statement in this section describes the job promotion of the organization.
Please (√) any option among the listed options to indicate your preferred answer to the
questions.

Interpretations of the scales: Strongly Disagree (1); Disagree (2); Neutral (3); Agree (4);
and Strongly Agree (5).

Sr Statements 1 2 3 4 5
1 My organization provides opportunities for career
advancement.
2 Opportunities for promotion are limited in my
organization.
3 The promotion policy is unfair.
4 Promotion exercise is held regularly.
5 Promotion in my organization is based on
performance.
6 The promotion policy is based on qualification.
7 Promotion is based on knowledge and skills in my
organization.
8 I am generally satisfied with the practice of
promotion in my organization.