JOB SATISFACTION OF “LEVEL 1 LEARNERS” WITHIN

MASONITE (AFRICA) LTD.

By

Harry Prando

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Masters in Business Administration

Business Studies Unit, Durban University of Technology

in the Faculty of Commerce

Supervisor: Mr. Peter Raap

November 2006

i
 SUPERVISOR’S APPROVAL

To Whom It May Concern:

Approval for Submission

This research project has been reviewed by the undersigned and hereby

permission is granted for submission for examination.

Name of Supervisor

Academic qualifications

Date

ii
DECLARATION

This work has not been previously accepted in substance for any degree and is

not being concurrently submitted in candidature for any degree.

Signed…………………………… Date………………………..

STATEMENT 1

This dissertation is being submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

the degree of Masters in Business Administration.

Signed…………………………… Date………………………..

STATEMENT 2

This dissertation is the result of my own independent work/investigation, except

where otherwise stated.

Other sources are acknowledged by footnotes giving explicit references. A

bibliography is appended.

Signed…………………………… Date………………………..

STATEMENT 3

I hereby give consent for my dissertation, if accepted, to be available for

photocopying and for inter-library loan, and for the title and summary to be made

available to outside organizations.

Signed…………………………… Date………………………..

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to express my gratitude, thanks, and appreciation to my family, in

particularly my wife Sandra, for her continued support and endurance, through

the journey of my MBA.

I would like to firstly thank Mr. Tony Venton, our Manufacturing Director, for

allowing me the opportunity to conduct this research project. Secondly, special

thanks go to my MBA Ladysmith group for their teamwork, to my first research

supervisor, Melanie Lourens, for getting me on track and to my second

supervisor, Peter Raap, for his support, his decisive manner, and for keeping me

on track.

Without these people, this dissertation would not have been possible.

iv
 ABSTRACT

In 2005, Masonite (Africa) Ltd embarked on a level 1 learnership program, in line

with the National Skills Development Strategy. Within a few months, it became
apparent that there was a need to investigate the job satisfaction of the level 1
learners (learners) in the work component of their learnership program.

To investigate their job satisfaction, a study was conducted which was guided by
three objectives. These were: firstly to determine the general job satisfaction of
the learners; secondly, to assess the satisfaction of the learners according to
twenty dimensions of the job, as measured by the Minnesota Satisfaction
Questionnaire (MSQ) and thirdly, to investigate the relationship between the job
satisfaction of the learners and their demographic variables gender, age, work
experience and level of education.

The instrument used to assess the job satisfaction of the learners was the long
form of the MSQ, measuring both general job satisfaction and satisfaction
according to twenty job dimensions.

Ninety-four learners were surveyed, using a questionnaire consisting of one page

for demographic data and three pages covering the MSQ questions. Responses
were collected via the group contact method, and the data was analyzed using
descriptive and inferential statistical techniques.

The study showed that firstly, the learners surveyed were, in general, only slightly
satisfied with their jobs. Secondly, according to the twenty job dimensions, the
learners were satisfied with respect to getting along with their co-workers, not
satisfied with the pay they received for the work they did and only slightly
satisfied with the remaining eighteen job dimensions. The study also found that
certain demographics had a statistically significant influence on the level of job
satisfaction experienced by the learners. It was found that learners with previous
work experience were, in general, more satisfied than learners who had never
worked before. These learners were also more satisfied when it came to keeping
busy in the job, and doing different work. It was also found that male learners
were more satisfied than female learners with the opportunity to work alone.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE I

APPROVAL FOR SUBMISSION ii

DECLARATION iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv

ABSTRACT v

LIST OF TABLES x

LIST OF DIAGRAMS xii

CHAPTER ONE – STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 1

1.1) Introduction 1

1.2) Purpose of the Study 2

1.3) Justification of the Study 3

1.4) Research Questions 5

1.5) Key Terms 6

1.6) Organization of the Study 8

CHAPTER TWO – LEARNERSHIPS AND LEARNERS 9

2.1) The Learnership Program in South Africa 9

2.2) Learnerships at Masonite Africa (Ltd) 11

vi
CHAPTER THREE – JOB SATISFACTION 16

3.1) Theories of Job Satisfaction 16

3.2) Effects of Job Satisfaction 18

3.3) Assessing Job Satisfaction 21

3.3.1) Demographic Characteristics 21

3.3.2) Work Factors 23

3.4) Measurement of Job Satisfaction 27

3.5) MSQ - Instrument of Choice 31

3.6) Instrument Evaluation – Validity and Reliability 32

CHAPTER FOUR – RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 35

4.1) The Research Design 35

4.2) The Population 36

4.3) The Data Collection Procedure 36

4.4) Instrumentation 37

4.4.1) Demographic Data Questionnaire 38

4.4.2) The Minnesota Job Satisfaction Questionnaire 39

4.5) Instrument Validity and Reliability 41

4.6) Data Analysis 43

vii
CHAPTER FIVE – ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS 46

5.1) Demographic Analysis 46

5.2) Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire Scale 48

5.3) Analysis of Objective 1 49

5.4) Analysis of Objective 2 50

5.5) Analysis of Objective 3 57

5.5.1) Analysis of Objective 3a 59

5.5.2) Analysis of Objective 3b 61

CHAPTER SIX – DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS 91

6.1) Summary of Descriptive Findings 92

6.1.1) Objective 1 92

6.1.2) Objective 2 92

6.2) Summary of Statistical Findings 94

6.2.1) Objective 3a 99

6.2.2) Objective 3b 100

6.3) Conclusion 101

6.4) Discussion of Results 102

6.5) Limitation of the Study 105

6.6) Recommendations 106

viii
BIBLIOGRAPHY 108

APPENDIX A Demographic Data Sheet 111

APPENDIX B Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire 112

APPENDIX C Acknowledgement of Consent 115

APPENDIX D MSQ Matrix 116

APPENDIX E Coding Sheet for Data Analysis 117

ix
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Instrument Reliability 42

2 Demographic Characteristics of the Learner Population 47

3 MSQ Rating Scale 48

4 Satisfaction Results for General Job Satisfaction 49

5 Satisfaction Results for the Twenty MSQ Job Dimensions 51

6 Percentage Frequency Distribution of Learner Satisfaction

according to Job Dimension 56

7 Demographic Satisfaction Results for General Job Satisfaction 59

8 Demographic Satisfaction Results for Dimension – Co-workers 61

9 Demographic Satisfaction Results for Dimension – Activity 63

10 Demographic Satisfaction Results for Dimension – Social

Services 65

10a Scheffe post hoc test for the Demographic Education

Level and Dimension Social Services 66

11 Demographic Satisfaction Results for Dimension – Achievement 67

12 Demographic Satisfaction Results for Dimension – Moral Values 68

13 Demographic Satisfaction Results for Dimension – Variety 69

14 Demographic Satisfaction Results for Dimension – Social Status 72

15 Demographic Satisfaction Results for Dimension – Supervision

Technical 73

x
16 Demographic Satisfaction Results for Dimension – Company

Policies and Practice 74

17 Demographic Satisfaction Results for Dimension – Ability

Utilization 75

18 Demographic Satisfaction Results for Dimension – Responsibility 77

19 Demographic Satisfaction Results for Dimension – Supervision

Human Resources 78

20 Demographic Satisfaction Results for Dimension – Independence 79

21 Demographic Satisfaction Results for Dimension – Creativity 82

22 Demographic Satisfaction Results for Dimension – Advancement 83

23 Demographic Satisfaction Results for Dimension – Recognition 84

24 Demographic Satisfaction Results for Dimension – Security 85

25 Demographic Satisfaction Results for Dimension – Authority 87

26 Demographic Satisfaction Results for Dimension – Working

Conditions 88

27 Demographic Satisfaction Results for Dimension – Compensation 89

xi
 LIST OF DIAGRAMS

Diagram Page

1 Frequency Distribution for General Job Satisfaction 50

2 Average Job Satisfaction for the MSQ Job Dimensions 52

3 Frequency Distribution for the dimension Advancement 53

4 Frequency Distribution for the dimension Working Conditions 54

5 Frequency Distribution for the dimension Compensation 54

6 General Job Satisfaction for the Demographic Work Experience 60

7 Job Satisfaction for the Dimension Activity and

the Demographic Work Experience 64

8 Job Satisfaction for the Dimension Variety and

the Demographic Work Experience 71

9 Job Satisfaction for the Dimension Independence

and the Demographic Gender 81

10 Job Satisfaction According to Gender 95

11 Job Satisfaction According to Age 96

12 Job Satisfaction According to Work Experience 97

13 Job Satisfaction According to Education Level 98

xii
 CHAPTER ONE

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

1.1) Introduction

In January 2005, Masonite (Africa) Ltd (MAL), in common with many other

industries in South Africa, commenced with a learnership program in line with the

legislated National Skills Development Strategy (NSDS).

The very nature of such a previously untried program placed MAL, now as the

employer of a large number of learners, in a position where it had to extend its

traditional in house training systems to include outcomes based training

methods. It was also imperative that MAL, fully and quickly, integrate the learners

into its work environment, for two crucial reasons: firstly, the work-based

component of the learnership program had to be fulfilled in order to comply with

the curriculum and secondly, the learners had to be developed into a productive

and efficient component of the work force in order to recoup the costs of the

program.

Within approximately three months after the programme commenced, it became

apparent that both management and the learners in the work place were

experiencing significant problems. Discussions with various departmental

managers, and the company‟s training center personnel responsible for

1
managing the learnership program, indicated that, while learner classroom and

workplace assessments were showing positive results, attitudinal, behavioral,

and performance related problems were being experienced in the work place.

A review of current organizational behavior literature, suggested that these

problems were significantly related to the level of job satisfaction experienced by

the learners within the work environment. The similarity between the problems

being experienced in the work place and the organizational variables reviewed in

the literature, prompted the researcher to consider an investigation into the job

satisfaction of the learners.

1.2) Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study was to determine the job satisfaction of the group of

learners currently on the wood products skills development learnership program

at MAL.

The focus of the study was to assess the job satisfaction of the learners, out of

the classroom and in their work environment, by determining their general level

of job satisfaction and their level of job satisfaction according to the twenty job

dimensions as measured by the MSQ. The study also undertook to investigate

the relationship between the job satisfaction of the learners and certain of their

demographics.

2
1.3) Justification of the Study

The NSDS, in South Africa, was developed to overcome the problem of a low

skills base in a country of high unemployment and low labour absorption. The

strategy, of which the learnership programs form an integral part, was based on a

shared obligation between the employer, the sector education and training

authorities (SETA‟s), and the learner. The implication was that a learner entered

into a contractual agreement with the SETA to be trained and educated, and with

the employer to acquire work-related skills (South Africa. Dept. of Labour,

2001a).

The success of the strategy was therefore based not only on the successful

training and education of the learners, but also on their acquisition of work

related skills in the various business sectors throughout the country.

Surprisingly, the researcher found that, to date, there is a disturbing absence of

information pertaining to the progress of the NSDS, or to the progress and

experiences within industry, of the various learnership programs in South Africa.

Soon after the introduction of the learnership program within MAL, it became

apparent that a perception existed on the shop floor that the learners were not

the “same” as the general employees. This perceived difference was mainly

expressed by the learners, but was also reciprocated by full time employees and

3
managers. When coupled with the observed attitudinal and behavioral problems

within the group of learners, this perceived difference negatively affected their

successful integration and resulted in a deterioration of their expected

performance standards.

A large body of evidence, supported in the literature, shows that job satisfaction

is significantly related to a large number of organizational variables. The

evidence indicates that the absence of job satisfaction, which manifests itself in

disruptions such as absenteeism, destructive behavior, attitudinal problems, and

departure of employees, results in a work environment wherein an employee, or

work group, cannot be productive or meet the requirements of acceptable

organizational citizenship behavior (Kreitner, Kinicki & Buelens, 2002).

It was anticipated that determining the level of job satisfaction of the learners

would assist MAL and its management, in formulating successful policies and

strategies, which would ensure the success of the skills development initiative

within the company and maximize its return on the learnership investment.

It was also hoped that this study, while aimed at the unique population within

MAL, would also contribute to the higher body of knowledge, in both job

satisfaction and South Africa‟s burgeoning skills development initiative.

4
In conclusion, the need for this research within MAL was best justified by quoting

from James (2005: 2). “Amongst all the excitement and hype, very few employers

(and SETA’s for that matter) were considering the implications and challenges

involved with managing the process and the various stakeholders in the

learnerships, particularly at the workplace”.

1.4) Research Questions

A clear need was identified, within MAL, to investigate the less-than-satisfactory

situation being experienced by the company, with the learners in the work

environment.

Research conducted in this regard established that a causal link existed between

the observed behavior of the learners, and their job satisfaction. To successfully

assess learner satisfaction, and to establish the effects of personal and work

related factors on their satisfaction, the following objectives, which guided the

study, were formulated.

Objective 1: To measure the general level of job satisfaction of learners.

Objective 2: To measure the level of satisfaction of learners according to the

twenty dimensions of the job as measured by the MSQ.

5
Objective 3a: To determine the relationship between general job satisfaction of

learners and the demographic variables gender, age, work

experience, and level of education.

Objective 3b: To determine the relationship between the satisfaction of learners

according to the twenty dimensions of the job as measured by the

MSQ, and the demographic variables gender, age, work

experience, and level of education.

1.5) Key Terms

The following is a list of terms and their definitions, used throughout the study.

Masonite (Africa) Ltd (MAL) – A medium sized company, owned by Masonite

International Corporation, and situated in Estcourt, KwaZulu Natal. The company

processes and converts timber into value-added wood-based products, primarily

for the building industry.

Learnership Program – The learnership program run at MAL is part of the

government‟s Skills Development Initiative. The program consists of a classroom

component delivered by an external provider, and a work-based practical

component, managed by the company. The whole program is co-coordinated by

the Training and Development Manager. The learnership program was

6
specifically designed to empower the learners with skills that are portable within

the wood manufacturing and processing industry sector in South Africa.

Level 1 learners (learners) – A unique group of black employees, currently

enrolled in the first level of the Skills Development Learnership program,

supported and managed internally by MAL.

Dimensions – Refers to the various facets, components, or aspects of one‟s job.

For example: the pay that goes with a job; the degree of responsibility associated

with the job; the opportunities for advancement in the job; etc. A person can be

satisfied with one aspect of the job and dissatisfied with another (Kreitner, et al.;

2002).

Job satisfaction – An effective or emotional response towards one‟s job, or

towards a dimension of the job. Job satisfaction can be defined as an individual‟s

cognitive, affective, and evaluative reaction towards the job. It manifests itself as

a feeling and/or attitude towards one‟s job. (Greenberg & Baron, 1993).

Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) – An instrument consisting of a

questionnaire used in measuring job satisfaction. The instrument is capable of

measuring general job satisfaction, as well as satisfaction according to twenty job

dimensions (Weiss, Davis, England & Lofquist, 1967; Kreitner, et al.; 2002).

7
1.6) Organization of the Study

This study has been organized into six chapters.

The first chapter contains an introduction to the study; a description of its

purpose and its justification; and states the research questions that guided the

study. A list of key terms used throughout the study is provided in this chapter.

Chapters two and three contain a review of current literature pertinent to the

study. Chapter two reviews the literature on the skills development learnership

program. Chapter three gives a review of job satisfaction; its assessment and

measurement and justifies the instrument of choice in the study.

Chapter four describes the research design, the methodology and the

procedures followed in the study.

Chapter five details the analysis of the data obtained in the study.

Chapter six concludes the study, with a summary of the analyses, the

conclusions reached based on the objectives of the study, a discussion of the

findings, highlights the limitations of the study and puts forward

recommendations for further research.

8
 CHAPTER TWO

LEARNERSHIPS AND LEARNERS

This is the first of two chapters, which summarize the findings of the literature

reviewed in support of the study. This chapter discusses the skills development

learnership program in South Africa and reviews the learnership situation within

MAL.

2.1) The Learnership Program in South Africa

Skills development, through education and training, has always been considered

to be the most powerful force for improving individual opportunity and

organizational competitiveness throughout the world. Middleton, et al (1993, as

cited in Nel, Gerber, van Dyke, Hassbroek, Schultz, Sono & Werner, 2002: 437)

believed that two factors, namely labour productivity and flexibility, are generally

considered to be the prime determinants of the quality of a work force.

Globally, it is apparent that national vocational and training systems form a

fundamental part of the socio-economic environment and well being of

industrialized countries. The Australian government‟s national strategy for

education and training is an example that clearly demonstrates this importance. It

believes that forces arising from complex economic, technological and social

changes influence the training and development environment (Nel, et al.; 2002).

9
South Africa is no longer isolated globally and therefore is not immune to the

changes brought about by the drivers of a world economy and patterns of trade.

Indications are that international competition and opportunities, technological

developments, structural changes in the labour market, the demand for efficiency

and effectiveness, growth of SMME‟s and societal changes, have brought about

changes to the South African individual. As a result of these changes, the South

African Department of Labour (2001b) believes that demands for skills and an

educated work force, will therefore increase across all sectors and occupations,

and skills development will become a life long commitment.

The NSDS, signed off in 2001, introduced the learnership concept as a strategy

to counteract unemployment of the ever-increasing and most vulnerable young,

black, labour market. Data suggests that from the year 2000, the number of new

entrants to the labour market would increase by at least 70 000 per year, in an

employment market undergoing continuous restructuring. In this context, it is

believed that a lack of work experience and skills would become effective

barriers of entry into the job market (South Africa. Dept. of Labour, 2001b).

The learnership program, as part of the NSDS, and promulgated in 2001, was

thus specifically designed to counteract these barriers of entry, by providing

potential entrants to the labour market with both theoretical and practical

experience over a wide range of business sectors and population demographics

and in so doing, empower these potential entrants with a formal recognition of

10
skills development, within a national qualifications framework.

To achieve the intended goals of the learnership concept, learnership programs

are designed to be outcomes based and as such, organizations are looked at to

provide not only the funding in the form of a national skills levy, but also the work

experience, by supplying contractual employment to the learners (South Africa.

Dept. of Labour, 2001c).

The aim of the learnership strategy is thus to improve the skills in South Africa,

so that its people and the economy as a whole, will be more productive and

make the work place more equitable for everyone.

2.2) Learnerships at Masonite Africa (Ltd)

Within MAL, the work related performance of the learners has, as yet, not met

expectations and is below the company norm when it comes to issues such as

absenteeism, lateness, absconding and work performance.

A review of the situation within the company has shown some disturbing trends

amongst the group of learners. In 2005, 42% of the learners were absent on

occasion with 19% of these on more than one occasion. 18% of the learners had

undergone disciplinary action for repeated occurrences of late coming, poor

attitude, not meeting objectives and insubordination. Of particular note, the

11
number of learners who have left the program reached 18%. The current 2006

situation, whilst showing an improvement, due mainly to interventions instituted

by the training and development department, shows that the occurrence of

absenteeism and repeat absenteeism is at 26% and 7% respectively, disciplinary

action is at 10%, and the number of learners who have left the program is at 9 %

(Masonite Africa Ltd, 2005).

Learnership programs at MAL, and in general, are work-based learning

programs, consisting of both class learning and a practical component on a

30/70-percentage split. The 70 % practical component within the work

environment, while related to the theoretical classroom work, has been seen,

particularly within MAL, to be at the behest of the employer‟s requirements. It is

for reasons such as this, that concern has been expressed in the literature, that

the present methods of assessing learner performance or competency may not

be effective. It is also believed that present assessment methods do not

adequately identify the challenges faced by learners, or deal with work related

factors that are known to have a negative effect on work-based learning

(Walklett, 2005).

Challenges arising in the work place, particularly those due to the employer‟s

work requirements, that have been observed to adversely affect the well being of

learners, if not effectively met, are as follows:

12
 Deadlines – Deadlines for the unit standards in the learnership program

may be compromised due to interruptions and postponements and may be

beyond the control of the learner.

Communication – Effective two-way communication may be difficult and

conflicting, especially when teachers, mentors and supervisors

simultaneously interact with the learners.

Loss of learning priority at work – Work-based learning can deteriorate to

“just work”, sidelining the learning component.

Unclear value of learning – The relevance of the learner‟s work to the

learner‟s unit standard may become unclear and lose meaning. Work

requirements and changing methods and practices, in the work

environment; do not always correspond to learner unit standards being

covered at a particular time.

Walklett (2005), opinionates, that over and above these challenges facing

learners in their work based learning programs, a number of additional factors,

correlated to job satisfaction, are known to have the potential of negatively

impacting on the individual if not acknowledged and addressed.

13
These factors are as follows:

Intimidation, prejudice and verbal and sexual abuse in the work place.

Inadequate training, or the absence of meaningful work.

Unrealistic assumptions, by management, of learner‟s abilities.

Unrealistic pressure to achieve.

Lack of dialogue between learner and supervisors.

Learners working in isolation, without direction, focus, or mentoring.

Potential societal pressures such as lack of transport and cultural

differences.

Low pay.

Unrealistic working hours, difficult conditions and physically taxing work.

A thorough literature review in relation to the above challenges and factors,

possibly due to the infancy of the skills development strategy, has, as yet, failed

to yield any specific data particularly relevant to the existing leanership

outcomes. Nor has it rendered any comparative data pertaining to the

performance and well being of learners within the work place, in the South

African environment.

The literature reviewed did, however, indicate that one way of addressing these

challenges and negative factors, would be to determine the current level of job

satisfaction of the learners and in so doing, diagnose organizational issues that

14
have the potential to and often do, affect learnership programs. Arnold &

Feldman (1986) also believe that the assessment of learner satisfaction, together

with its sources and correlates, will lead to an understanding of the causes of

aberrant behavior, and create an environment that will stimulate essential and

effective communication between management and the learners.

15
 CHAPTER THREE

JOB SATISFACTION

This chapter is divided into two major sections. The first section reviews the

current literature on job satisfaction. It presents a summary of the theories of job

satisfaction, the effect of job satisfaction on the work environment and the

sources of job satisfaction. The second section of the chapter investigates the

measurement of job satisfaction, justifies the choice of instrument used in the

study and finally, discusses the validity and reliability issues surrounding the

instrument chosen for the study.

3.1) Theories of Job Satisfaction

There is consensus in the literature that job satisfaction can be defined as the

feelings that an employee has towards his job. These feelings manifest

themselves as an attitude or emotional response, based on an individual‟s

perception of the differences between what was expected; and what is actually

experienced in the job.

While there appears to be a common understanding of what job satisfaction is,

there are a multitude of theories, either supported or challenged by researchers

in the literature, describing its causes.

16
A review of the five most predominant and current models of job satisfaction are

described by Kreitner, Kenicki & Buelens (2002) as follows:

Need Fulfillment – These models propose that job satisfaction is determined by

the extent to which the characteristics of a job allow an individual to fulfill his

needs. Although these theories are controversial, it is generally accepted that

need fulfillment and job satisfaction are correlated.

Discrepancies – These models propose that job satisfaction is a result of met

expectations. When expectations are greater than what is received, a person will

be dissatisfied, while if outcomes are greater than expectations, the person will

experience satisfaction. A Meta analysis of a large number of studies showed

that met expectations, such as pay and promotion, were significantly related to

job satisfaction.

Value Attainment – These theories support the idea that job satisfaction stems

from the perception that a job allows for fulfillment of a person‟s important work

values. Generally, research has supported the prediction that the fulfillment of

work values such as reward, recognition and work conditions is positively related

to job satisfaction.

Equity – In this model, job satisfaction is dependent on an individual‟s perception

that work outcomes, relative to inputs, compare favorably to those of significant

17
others. This model has been considered as promising and has been supported

by a large number of studies over a significant number of industries.

Dispositional / Genetic Components – This model is based on the belief that job

satisfaction is partly a function of both personal traits and genetic factors. The

model implies that stable individual differences are just as important as the

characteristics of the work environment, in explaining job satisfaction. Although

only a few studies have been conducted and further research is needed to test

the model, the studies to date have supported a positive and significant

relationship between personal traits and job satisfaction.

The above review provides an insight into the complexities of job satisfaction and

researchers continue to test these theories and explore the causes of job

satisfaction.

3.2) Effects of Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction has consequences within the work environment and thousands

of studies have been conducted examining the relationship between job

satisfaction and organizational variables. A review of current literature has shown

that there are a significant number of variables that are, to a lesser or greater

extent, either positively or negatively related to job satisfaction.

18
From the standpoint of the less than satisfactory situation with the learnership

program at MAL, the following variables were found to be of particular relevance:

Motivation – A meta-analysis of nine studies and 2237 workers showed a

strongly positive relationship between motivation and job satisfaction (Kreitner, et

al.; 2002). Motivation has not only been aptly described in the literature as the

psychological processes that arouse and direct goal directed behavior, but is

deemed to be the keystone in the principles of learning (Walklin, 1990).

In this context, the need for the effective motivation of the learners within MAL is

particularly important because they are tenured for only one year and are thus

contingent employees, with no guarantee of permanent employment. Gerber, Nel

& van Dyke (1989) state that intrinsic motivators, such as the job itself, the

challenge and feelings of accomplishment; as well as extrinsic motivators such

as working conditions, reward, praise and prestige, are therefore important

factors in both their learning and working environment.

Turnover – A meta-analysis of 78 studies covering 27543 people showed a

moderately negative relationship between turnover and job satisfaction.

Field studies have supported the predictions of equity theory in that distributive

and procedural justice are negatively related to intentions to leave, absconding

and turnover and positively related to job satisfaction (Kreitner, et al.; 2002).

19
These studies support the observations made on the learners at MAL, who, as

part of their training, are expected to perform a number of tasks equivalent to

those performed by permanent employees, but due to their status as learners,

with perceived dissimilar outcomes. This factor, coupled to an unconventional

decision-making process required by management in administering the training,

has had the potential of creating an environment perceived to be inequitable,

possibly establishing the link between job satisfaction and the relatively high

number of learners leaving the program.

Job Performance – Findings would suggest that while individual performance and

job satisfaction is not directly linked, there is ample evidence that organizational

job satisfaction and organizational performance are positively related to a small

extent (Greenberg & Baron, 1993).

When considering that the learners at MAL, due to their apparent “difference”,

may be classified not only as individuals but as a group, then the high incidents

of poor attitude, absenteeism, late coming, and insubordination, may be

considered as factors of unacceptable citizenship behavior resulting in the poor

performance observed for the group as a whole (Robbins. 2001).

Absenteeism – Research has shown that low levels of job satisfaction contribute

to a higher incident of absenteeism. However, Meta analyses of a number of

studies have shown the relationship to be relatively weak. This is believed to be

20
due to the fact that job satisfaction is just one of the many different factors

affecting an individual‟s decision to report to work, or not to report to work

(Greenberg & Baron, 1993).

3.3) Assessing Job Satisfaction

In assessing job satisfaction, the sources of job satisfaction must to be taken into

consideration. The major factors, falling into two categories, are those relating to

the demographic characteristics of the individuals and those relating to work

factors.

The literature reviewed indicates that the demographic factors which influence

job satisfaction, and which are also relevant to the group of learners in this study,

are as follows.

3.3.1) Demographic Characteristics

Gender - Research has indicated that gender affects job satisfaction.

Psychological studies have shown that women are more willing to conform to

authority, while men are more aggressive (Greenberg & Baron, 1993; Robbins,

2001). The significant changes that have occurred in terms of an increasing

female participation in the work place, may bear out findings that females are

more likely to be more satisfied and seek further learning, in work based training

21
programs (United Kingdom. Learning and Skills Council, 2004).

Age - Studies continue to validate the fact that job satisfaction varies with age

and that in general, older workers tend to be more satisfied with their job

(Robbins, 2001). Conversely, it has been shown that younger learners are more

satisfied in work-based learning programs than older learners. Research has

shown that younger learners feel they benefit more and have more to gain from

these programs (United Kingdom. Learning and Skills Council, 2004).

Level of Education - Surveys have shown that learners in work-based learning

programs who have higher qualifications, are more likely to consider undertaking

further learning, while learners with a lower level of education are more likely to

undertake the learning for social aspects (United Kingdom. Learning and Skills

Council, 2004).

Work Experience - Tenure has been shown to be negatively related to both

absenteeism and turnover and positively related to job satisfaction (Robbins,

2001). Within this study, this variable could prove to be a moderator, when

considering that some learners were either unemployed but had worked before,

or had never worked before at all.

22
3.3.2) Work Factors

Work factors, which affect job satisfaction, were found, in the literature, to fall

within five broad categories:

The Reward System - Research clearly indicates that an organization‟s reward

system is strongly related to job satisfaction. This refers not only to how pay and

promotions are distributed but also to how fairly they are distributed.

Adam‟s equity theory of motivation predicts that people are motivated to maintain

a balance between their cognitive beliefs and their behavior, in typically give and

take situations.

In the work place, employees will evaluate whether the rewards they receive for

their input, match those received by relevant others. Employees will tend to

compare themselves to others, who are similar in certain respects, such as: the

work they do, gender, educational level, etc.

Field research has also shown that perceptions of distributive and procedural

justice are positively related to job satisfaction and negatively so, to attitudinal

problems such as absenteeism, intentions to quit and turnover (Kreitner, et al.;

2002).

23
Locke‟s value theory, along similar lines, claims that job satisfaction is related to

the extent to which job outcomes, such as reward, match those desired by the

individual. The closer the perception that individuals value the reward they

receive, the higher will be the job satisfaction. The greater the perceived

discrepancy, between what is expected and what one gets, the lower will be the

job satisfaction.

A study conducted by Rice, Macfarlin & Bennet (1989, as cited in Greenberg &

Baron, 1993) on a diverse group of employees, was fully consistent with the

above theory.

Quality of Supervision - Studies have determined that job satisfaction is high

when employees believe their superiors: are competent; have their best interest

at heart; and treat them with dignity and respect. The converse is that satisfaction

is low when supervision is perceived to be of poor quality, incompetent and

uncaring (Greenberg & Baron, 1993).

Research has shown that not only is poor supervision one of the leading causes

of dissatisfaction amongst employees, but that poor scheduling of work,

unfriendly relations, lack of support, unwillingness to listen, and lack of teaching

ability were also the major contributors to dissatisfaction (Beach, 1985).

Decentralization of Power - When power is decentralized, many employees can

24
make decisions and freely participate in the decision-making process. Such

situations tend to promote job satisfaction. The converse is also true in that when

power is concentrated, employees tend to believe that they are relatively

powerless and helpless. Such a situation reduces job satisfaction (Greenberg &

Baron. 1993).

Research has shown that employee participation in performance appraisals was

positively related to job satisfaction and that participation in the work place had a

small, but significant, effect on job performance and a moderate link to job

satisfaction (Kreitner, et al.; 2002). Participative management, power sharing and

empowerment are consistent with Maslow‟s need theory and the Job

Characteristics model of Hackman and Oldham.

Maslow‟s theory proposed that motivation was a function of five basic needs,

arranged in a graduated hierarchy. As each need is achieved, it loses its ability to

motivate and the next need in the hierarchy is sought. These needs range from

the basic psychological needs of survival, safety and love, through to those of

esteem and self-actualization, as the most sophisticated of motivators.

The Job Characteristics model predicts that increased internal work motivation

can be realized by experiencing meaningfulness, responsibility and knowledge of

results, when five core job characteristics are present. These core characteristics

are: skill variety, task identity and significance, autonomy and feedback.

25
These two theories predict that motivation will be increased and job satisfaction

attained by fulfilling basic needs, autonomy, meaningful work, and interpersonal

contact (Kreitner, et al.; 2002).

Work and Social Stimulation - People tend to be more satisfied with jobs that

provide an overall work load and level of variety, that is not low, but also not so

high that it becomes overwhelming and unduly challenging.

Recent research shows that this factor applies particularly to career orientated

individuals as opposed to those who see the position as short term or temporary.

The latter individuals would be more satisfied with the social aspects of the job

rather than the challenge of the job (Greenberg & Baron, 1993).

The Job Characteristics model is also effective in describing the growth need

strength of the individual and his desire for personal growth and development.

The model predicts that individuals who are not interested in these attributes, are

not expected to experience the theorized psychological reactions to the core

dimensions of the job, or to consequently enjoy the beneficial personal and work

outcomes, as described by the model. They would again, be more inclined to the

social aspects of the job.

Pleasant Working Conditions - Research has shown that job satisfaction is

positively related to pleasant working environments (Greenberg & Baron, 1993).

26
While these factors are not directly associated with the job itself, they are

associated with the context in which the job is performed. Working conditions are

relevant because they impact and influence life, both inside and outside of work.

Factors such as hours of work and over-time have a direct bearing on life

satisfaction and recreation.

Generally, unless work conditions are either very bad or very good they are taken

for granted. Research has shown that complaints about working conditions could

be a manifestation of deeper frustrations such as anger towards management

and feelings of a lack of appreciation. (Arnold & Feldman, 1986)

3.4) Measurement of Job Satisfaction

Measuring job satisfaction involves the measurement of attitudes or feelings.

Attitudes and feelings are not always freely divulged and because they cannot be

directly measured, make the measurement of job satisfaction difficult.

A review of the literature has shown that several techniques, falling into three

categories, are available for measuring job satisfaction.

The first method, known as the critical incident method, involves individuals

describing incidents, which they found to be especially satisfying or dissatisfying.

The replies are examined to uncover underlying themes and reactions.

27
A second method is the use of interviews and face-to-face meetings, which

permit a more in-depth exploration of individual‟s attitudes and reactions to their

work.

These two methods, while providing valuable insights, are lengthy to administer

and may, under certain circumstances, lead to a lack in standardization

(Greenberg & Baron, 1993).

A third method for measuring job satisfaction is the use of standardized

questionnaires using rating scales and self report.

Within this category, the literature reviewed indicates that the three most popular

instruments are as follows:

The Job Descriptive Index (JDI) - Developed in 1969 by Pat Smith. This

instrument uses 72 questions answered “yes”, “no”, and ”uncertain”, to measure

the reaction to five job dimensions which are, the work itself, pay, promotion,

opportunities, and coworkers. The JDI has been widely used and has been

validated over a number of studies (JDI Research Group, 2006).

While the three-point scale was found easy to use, studies have indicated a

methodological issue of concern in that the “uncertain” response was more

indicative of dissatisfaction than satisfaction, and overall the three-point scale

showed statistical skewness over the five job dimensions. A further criticism of

28
the JDI is that it does not follow its own conceptualization of measuring feelings

but asks employees to describe their jobs (Seigle, 2005).

The Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) - Developed in 1997 by Paul Spector. This

instrument uses 36 items to measure nine job dimensions, which collectively

assess the attitude of employee, and the aspects of the employee‟s job. A

summated six point rating scale format is used ranging from "strongly disagree"

to "strongly agree", with the items written in both directions, requiring reverse

scoring in half the responses.

The nine job dimensions are Pay, Promotion, Supervision, Fringe Benefits,

Contingent Rewards (performance based rewards), Operating Procedures

(required rules and procedures), Co-workers, Nature of Work, and

Communication (Spector, 1994).

Other than the large number of response options, and the difficulty in the scoring

system, no serious negative aspects in the use of this instrument were evident in

the literature.

The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) - Developed in 1967 by Weis

and Associates. The MSQ is the second most popular measure of job

satisfaction in use to this day. The MSQ is available in a long and a short version.

The long-form asks participants to respond to 100 items, measuring general job

29
satisfaction and satisfaction according to twenty job dimensions, using a five-

point rating scale response format. The short form uses the same response

format, but contains only twenty items, and only measures intrinsic and extrinsic

satisfaction.

The dimensions measured using the long form are ability, achievement, activity,

advancement, authority, company policies and practices, compensation, co-

workers, creativity, independence, moral values, recognition, responsibility,

security, social service, social status, supervision-human relations, supervision-

technical, variety and working conditions. Combinations of these dimensions also

render information on intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction (Weiss, et al.; 1967).

Early investigations revealed that results from the MSQ, because of the Likert

scale used, comprising the response options “very dissatisfied”, “dissatisfied”,

“neither”, “satisfied” and “very satisfied”, were markedly negatively skewed, with

most responses alternating between “very satisfied” and “satisfied”. To correct

this ceiling effect, the scale options were later changed to “not satisfied”, “slightly

satisfied”, “satisfied”, “very satisfied” and “extremely satisfied” (Weiss, et al.;

1967).

30
3.5) MSQ - Instrument of Choice

Based on the literature reviewed, the researcher opted to use the MSQ, for the

following reasons.

The MSQ is based on the rationale that employees have a set of expectations

concerning their work environment, which are derived from their histories,

individual abilities, and interests. They also have a set of attitudes that emerge

from fulfilling these expectations, and these attitudes constitute their evaluation of

their job satisfaction (Newby, 1999). This is in contrast to criticism of the JDI,

which does not follow its own conceptualization of measuring feelings, but asks

employees to describe their jobs.

Compared to the JDI and the JSS, which measure the job satisfaction of five and

nine job dimensions respectively, the MSQ allows for the computation of

satisfaction for twenty job dimensions and also supports the evaluation of general

job satisfaction. The broad dimension specific detail of the results will allow an in

depth evaluation of the aspects affecting the job satisfaction of the learners, over

and above those considered in the literature review.

All three instruments use the Likert scale to measure the level of job satisfaction.

However, the five point rating scale used by the MSQ is considered preferable

compared to the three point scale of the JDI, which has been shown to result in

31
statistical skewness due to the “uncertain” response. It also has an advantage

over the six point scale adopted by the JSS, wherein the items are written in both

directions, requiring reverse scoring in half the responses which could lead to

confusion (Spector, 1994).

The MSQ has been used in a wide variety of settings, is internationally

recognized, and is reported as being reliable, stable, and valid. It can be

administered in a short time of fifteen to twenty minutes, the questions are easy

to read, being set at fifth grade reading level and they are gender neutral

(Spector, 1994; Weiss, et al.; 1967).

3.6) Instrument Evaluation – Validity and Reliability

For an instrument to be valid, it must measure that which it is intended to

measure and yield scores the differences of which reflect the true differences of

the variable being measured (Strydom, Fouche & Delport, 2002).

The MSQ, chosen by the researcher, has been proven to be a valid measure of

job satisfaction. The MSQ meets the requirements of construct validity by

successfully measuring the conceptual expectations of the instrument. Job

satisfaction was expected and found to be a function of the correspondence

between the individual‟s needs and the re-enforcer system of the job. Concurrent

validity is also evidenced by the analysis of the data from 25 occupational

32
groups, where one-way analysis of variance, and Bartlett‟s test for homogeneity

of variance, shows that it could distinguish between different occupational

groups. These differences are statistically significant at the 0.001 level for both

means and variances. Content validity is supported by the results of factor

analysis, which indicates that the factor structure of satisfaction varied amongst

occupational groups (Weiss, et al.; 1967).

Reliability is concerned with how well the "what" is being measured; the more

reliable an instrument, the more consistent and dependable the results will be

(Strydom, et al.; 2002).

Based on the review of current literature, the researcher deemed that the most

appropriate method for establishing the reliability of the responses to the MSQ

was the internal-consistency method. The advantage of this method is that it

involves the administration of one instrument, one time. Other methods, such as

the test-retest method, and the equivalent form method, require measuring the

consistency between the same instruments more than once and between two

different instruments at the same time, respectively (Seigel, 2005).

The variation of the internal consistency method chosen by the researcher was

the Cronbach Alpha. This method can be used not only for dichotomous data, but

also for data falling along a continuum such as will be encountered in this study.

33
It is also applicable to instruments that have multiple similar questions such as

the MSQ (Seigel, 2005).

34
 CHAPTER FOUR

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Chapter four describes the procedures that were used, to determine the job

satisfaction of the learners within MAL and thereby answer the research

questions posed. This chapter discusses the design of the research, the

population under investigation, the data collection procedure, the instrument

utilized for the research and the methods used to analyze the data.

4.1) The Research Design

This research aimed to assess the level of job satisfaction of the learners within

MAL. As such, the study is primarily concerned with determining “what is” and is

therefore descriptive in nature.

The research employed a questionnaire to gather data and utilized specific

statistical techniques to evaluate the data and reach conclusions. The study is

quantitative in nature and, as the assessment of job satisfaction was also

conducted across a number of demographic variables, the study is based on a

single cross sectional research design (Welman & Kruger, 2003).

35
4.2) The Population

As the researcher was interested in the job satisfaction of the learners within

MAL, the study comprised of all the learners within MAL. A census was therefore

conducted, providing a potential respondent population size of N=106.

4.3) The Data Collection Procedure

The study was administered by using a questionnaire according to the group

contact method. A review of the literature indicated that this method of data

collection was the most appropriate for the study conducted at MAL, because in

the context of the study, this method lent itself for the following reasons (Welman

& Kruger, 2003).

Firstly, MAL‟s resource and training center could be made available, thereby

supplying a suitable venue, with easy access to the subjects. Secondly, the

population of respondents was dealt with in four groups of approximately 30, over

a time period of four weeks; saving time and cost, as well as ensuring a high

response rate. Lastly, the researcher, in his normal course of work, did not

interact with the respondents and could therefore control and assist in the

administration of the questionnaire, without influencing the respondents, or

introducing bias in their responses.

36
The procedure which was followed in the collection of the data, commenced with

the researcher introducing himself and outlining the purpose of the research and

its significance. It was emphasized to the learners that participation in the study

was completely voluntary and anonymous and withdrawal from answering the

questionnaire could be done at any time.

The questionnaire and its contents were carefully explained and reviewed with

the learners and all queries or questions were dealt with prior to handing the

questionnaires out. The acknowledgement of consent was also reviewed and

handed out together with the questionnaire.

A request by the researcher that the questions were to be answered individually

and not to be discussed, was, in all cases, fully supported. A time period of half

an hour was recommended to complete the questionnaire but was not enforced.

The researcher remained present during the answering period to deal with any

problems and queries, but in no other way participated during this period.

4.4) Instrumentation

The questionnaire for this study was comprised of four pages. The first page

covered the demographic details (Appendix A) and the last three pages

consisted of the standard, long form of the MSQ (Appendix B).

37
Each respondent signed a notice of consent prior to completing the

questionnaire. This notice guaranteed anonymity and confirmed the voluntary

nature of the study (Appendix C).

4.4.1) Demographic Data Questionnaire

The first page of the four-page questionnaire was used to obtain data on the

demographics of the participants. The choice of the independent demographic

variables, used in the study, are based, primarily, on the findings of the literature

reviewed on job satisfaction and are as follows:

Gender – Referred to the sex of the respondent, which was measured by

the respondent selecting either “male” or female”.

Age – Referred to the age of the respondent and was measured by the

respondent selecting of the appropriate age class. The age classes used

in the study were arrived at by dividing the minimum and maximum age of

the respondent in the learnership program into four equal classes.

Work experience – Referred to whether the respondent had, at one time

or another, worked before, or had never worked at all. This was measured

by the respondent selecting either “never worked before” or “worked

before”.

38
 Level of education – Referred to the level of education of the respondent.

This was measured by the respondent selecting the appropriate level of

education. The selection of the education classes used in the study was

based on the categorization of all the education levels of the respondents

in the learnership program.

4.4.2) The Minnesota Job Satisfaction Questionnaire

The instrument used for the collection of job satisfaction data in this study was

the long form of the MSQ, modified to eliminate the “ceiling effect”. The MSQ

measured the level of job satisfaction based on a five point Likert scale of 1 to 5,

corresponding to the options “not satisfied”, “slightly satisfied”, “satisfied”, “very

satisfied” and “extremely satisfied”.

The long form of the MSQ utilized 100 questions to measure general job

satisfaction, as well as the satisfaction of the learners according to twenty job

dimensions.

General job satisfaction was assessed by averaging the responses to twenty

questions, one question from each of the five questions comprising each of the

twenty job dimensions. The satisfaction of the learners across the twenty job

dimensions was assessed by averaging the responses to a group of five

questions, for each of the twenty dimensions of job satisfaction, dispersed

39
throughout the questionnaire, in blocks of twenty (Appendix D).

Descriptions of general job satisfaction and the twenty MSQ job dimensions are

as follows:

General Job Satisfaction

General job satisfaction - The satisfaction the learners experience in their

jobs, in general.

Dimensions of the job

1. Ability utilization – the chance to do something that makes use of my

abilities;

2. Achievement – the feeling of accomplishment one gets from the job;

3. Activity – being able to keep busy all the time;

4. Advancement – the chances for advancement on this job;

5. Authority – the chance to tell other people what to do;

6. Company policies and procedures – the way company policies are put

into practice;

7. Compensation – the pay I receive for the amount of work I do;

8. Co-workers – the way my co-workers get along with each other;

9. Creativity – the chance to try my own methods of doing the job;

40
 10. Independence – the chance to work alone on the job;

11. Moral values – being able to do things that don‟t go against my

conscience;

12. Recognition – the praise I get for doing a good job;

13. Responsibility – the freedom to use my own judgment;

14. Security – the way my job provides for steady employment;

15. Social services – the chance to do things for other people;

16. Social status – the chance to be “somebody” in the community;

17. Supervision, human relations - the way my boss handles his men;

18. Supervision, technical - the competence of my boss;

19. Variety – the chance to do different things from time to time;

20. Working conditions – the physical aspects of the work environment.

4.5) Instrument Validity and Reliability.

The MSQ has proven to be both a valid measure of job satisfaction across a wide

range of occupational groups and has been shown to have adequate internal

consistency reliability across the questionnaire scales.

In this study, the reliability of the instrument, with regard to the job satisfaction

responses of the learners, was measured using the Cronbach Alpha test for

internal consistency.

41
The Cronbach Alpha for the job satisfaction responses, measuring general job

satisfaction and the satisfaction according to each of the twenty job dimensions,

were computed and are displayed in Table 1.

Table 1

Instrument Reliability

Dimension No. Job Satisfaction Dimension Cronbach Alpha

General job satisfaction 0.88
1 Ability utilization 0.82
2 Achievement 0.71
3 Activity 0.69 *
4 Advancement 0.74
5 Authority 0.81
6 Company policies and procedures 0.68 *
7 Compensation 0.77
8 Co-workers 0.78
9 Creativity 0.79
10 Independence 0.75
11 Moral values 0.57 *
12 Recognition 0.80
13 Responsibility 0.71
14 Security 0.75
15 Social services 0.74
16 Social status 0.75
17 Supervision , Human resources 0.73
18 Supervision, Technical 0.71
19 Variety 0.57 *
20 Working conditions 0.75
* <0.70

The data, in Table 1, shows that the internal consistency coefficients ranged from

0.58 to 0.82 for the satisfaction responses to the twenty job dimensions and 0.88

for the responses to general job satisfaction. Of the twenty job dimensions, 80 %

42
had an alpha coefficient greater than 0.7 and were deemed to be acceptable.

The alpha coefficients for the dimensions: activity, company policies and

procedures, moral values and variety, were however, found to be below 0.7, and

the satisfaction results for these dimensions must, therefore, be considered with

caution in the final analysis.

4.6) Data Analysis

The aim of the study was to determine the following.

Objective 1: To measure the general level of job satisfaction of learners.

Objective 2: To measure the level of satisfaction of learners according to the

twenty dimensions of the job, as measured by the MSQ.

Objective 3a: To determine the relationship between general job satisfaction of

learners and the demographic variables: gender, age, work

experience and level of education.

Objective 3b: To determine the relationship between the satisfaction of learners

according to the twenty dimensions of the job, as measured by

the MSQ and the demographic variables: gender, age, work

experience and level of education.

43
In order to achieve the above objectives the following procedure was adopted:

1. Each questionnaire was numbered for reference in the data analysis.

2. The responses to the demographic characteristics and the MSQ

questions, which consisted of nominal and ordinal data, were coded for

statistical computer analysis (Appendix E).

3. The responses to the relevant 20 questions, from each questionnaire,

were averaged, to determine the general satisfaction level of the learners.

Measures of central tendency and dispersion were then computed on the

averaged data.

4. The responses to each of the relevant five questions defining each of the

twenty job dimensions, from each questionnaire, were averaged, to

determine the level of job satisfaction of the learners according to the

twenty job dimensions. Measures of central tendency and dispersion were

then computed on the averaged data. The resulting information was

ranked from the highest to the lowest, for interpretation and to reach

conclusions.

5. To investigate the relationship between the independent demographic

variables of the learners and both the general job satisfaction and the

44
 satisfaction according to the twenty job dimensions, the appropriate

responses from each questionnaire were firstly reduced to averages. The

averaged satisfaction data for the demographic variables was then treated

to hypothesis testing in order to determine if the variables considered in

the study had an affect on the job satisfaction levels.

6. Tables and diagrams were used throughout the analysis to depict and

provide a visual representation of the data and to assist in its

interpretation.

Following the above procedures the researcher was able to generate information

of sufficient value to address the objectives of the study and reach meaningful

conclusions.

45
 CHAPTER FIVE

ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS

This chapter presents the analysis of the data, which was obtained in the study of

the job satisfaction of the learners within MAL. The data for the study was

collected through the use of a questionnaire consisting of a data sheet for the

demographic data, and the long form of the MSQ.

This analysis commences with a presentation of the demographics of the learner

population within MAL and follows with an explanation of the MSQ scale used

throughout the analysis. The remaining sections of the chapter are structured on

the three objectives, which guided the study.

5.1) Demographic Analysis

At the commencement of the 2006 leanership program at Mal, 106 learners were

enrolled onto the program. At the time that the census for the study was

conducted, roughly half way through the program, 10 learners were no longer in

the program, and two declined to participate in the study. This left a usable

population of N = 94.

Table 2 describes the demographic make-up of this population.

46
Table 2

Demographic Characteristics of the Learner Population

Demographic Characteristic N %
Gender Male 59 62.8
Female 35 37.2
Total 94 100
Age 16 – 20 10 10.6
21 – 25 59 62.8
26 – 30 21 22.3
31 – 35 4 4.3
Total 94 100
Work exp Never worked 50 53.2
Worked before 44 46.8
Total 94 100
Ed level Std 8 - <Std 10 2 2.1
Std 10 82 87.2
Diploma 10 10.6
Total 94 100

From Table 2, it can be seen that there were approximately twice as many males

as there were females. 84 % of the respondents were in the 21 to 30 age group

and of these, 63 % were between 21 and 25. A very small percentage of the

respondents were older than 31. There were approximately equal proportions of

respondents that had never worked before and that had had some work

experience before joining the learnership program. The majority of respondents,

87 %, had a Std 10 level of education, 10 % had a post matric level of education

and only 2% had an education level below Std 10.

47
5.2) Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire Scale

The MSQ scale used in the analysis to measure the level of job satisfaction was

based on a Likert scale, ranging from 1 to 5, representing the response options:

“not satisfied”, “slightly satisfied”, “satisfied”, “very satisfied” and “extremely

satisfied”, respectively.

The responses to each of the MSQ questions were summed and averaged in the

statistical analysis procedure. Due to this averaging process, the scale used in

the final analysis and to draw conclusions from the findings, was converted to

class intervals, as depicted in Table 3. The brackets surrounding the class

interval indicate that “[“ is inclusive of the number, and ”)“ is exclusive of the

number.

Table 3

MSQ Rating Scale

MSQ Rating Likert Scale Class interval

Not Satisfied 1 [1 – 2)
Slightly Satisfied 2 [2 – 3)
Satisfied 3 [3 – 4)
Very Satisfied 4 [4 – 5)
Extremely Satisfied 5 [5]

48
5.3) Analysis of Objective 1

Objective 1 of the study, was to measure the general level of job satisfaction of

the learners.

Measures of central tendency and dispersion were computed on the responses

to the questions pertaining to general job satisfaction; the results of which are

depicted in Table 4.

Table 4

Satisfaction Results for General Job Satisfaction

Variable N X̄ SD ‫ﻼ‬2 p
General Job Satisfaction Results 94 2.38 0.63 4.37 0.74

From Table 4 it is evident that the general job satisfaction of the group of learners

within MAL had a mean of 2.38 and a standard deviation of 0.63, and therefore

fell within the “slightly satisfied” range.

The goodness of fit, Chi squared test for normality, at 4.37, shows that the

population was normally distributed around the mean. A visual representation of

the distribution of the responses is depicted in Diagram 1. The frequency

distribution also shows that the general job satisfaction level of “slightly satisfied”

49
applied to only 53 %of the respondents. 30 % of the respondents were in fact

“not satisfied” with their jobs, while only 16 % were “satisfied” in their jobs.

Diagram 1

Frequency Distribution for General Job Satisfaction

General Job Satisfaction

60
Percentage of Respondents

53
50

40
30
30

20 16

10
1 0
0
[1-2) [2-3) [3-4) [4-5) [5]
Job Satisfaction Level

5.4) Analysis of Objective 2

Objective 2 of the study, was to determine the level of job satisfaction of the

learners, according to the twenty job dimensions as measured by the MSQ.

Measures of central tendency and dispersion were computed on the responses

to the relevant questions pertaining to each of the twenty dimensions. A

50
goodness of fit, Chi Square test for normality, was also conducted on the data.

The results, depicted in Table 5, are ranked in descending order, according to

the mean satisfaction of the learners.

The analysis of Objective 2 concludes with a presentation, in Table 6, of the

frequency distribution of learner satisfaction responses for each of the twenty

MSQ job dimensions.

Table 5

Satisfaction Results for the Twenty MSQ Job Dimensions

Dimension Variable N X̄ SD ‫ﻼ‬2 p

8 Co-workers 94 3.01 0.83 4.49 0.72

3 Activity 94 2.82 0.76 7.33 0.40
15 Social services 94 2.76 0.80 8.99 0.25
2 Achievement 94 2.73 0.78 2.87 0.90
11 Moral values 94 2.67 0.75 6.22 0.51
19 Variety 94 2.59 0.71 11.79 0.11
16 Social status 94 2.54 0.85 5.72 0.57
18 Supervision Technical 94 2.53 0.71 2.39 0.94
6 Company policies/practice 94 2.51 0.76 5.14 0.64
1 Ability utilization 94 2.49 0.94 5.37 0.61
13 Responsibility 94 2.49 0.79 6.67 0.46
17 Supervision HR 94 2.47 0.80 6.76 0.45
10 Independence 94 2.43 0.85 7.33 0.40
9 Creativity 94 2.41 0.97 7.50 0.38
4 Advancement 94 2.41 0.74 25.27 0.00*
12 Recognition 94 2.39 0.90 10.14 0.18
14 Security 94 2.34 0.75 3.16 0.87
5 Authority 94 2.31 0.88 8.24 0.31
20 Working conditions 94 2.00 0.66 16.58 0.02*
7 Compensation 94 1.67 0.70 41.89 0.00*
* p<0.05

51
The results in Table 5 show that at a mean of 3.01 and a standard deviation of

0.83, the learners were “satisfied” with respect to getting along with their co-

workers. Conversely, at a mean of 1.67 and a standard deviation of 0.70, the

learners were “not satisfied” with the amount of pay they received for the work

they did. For the remaining 18 job dimensions, at mean satisfactions ranging

from 2.00 to 2.82 and with standard deviations of 0.66 to 0.94, the learners were,

on average only “slightly satisfied”.

A visual representation of the mean satisfaction data is depicted in Diagram 2.

Diagram 2

Mean Job Satisfaction for the MSQ Job Dimensions

Mean Job Satisfaction for the twenty MSQ Dimensions

3.5
Job Satisfaction Level

3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Independence
Advancement
Achievement

Compensation

Moral values

Social status

conditions
Authority

Recognition

Variety
Supervision HR
Security

Supervision
Responsibilty
Activity

Social services
Creativity
Ability utilisation

policies/practice

Co-workers

Technical

Working
Company

Dimension

52
The analysis of the data for Objective 2, also shows that, at a level of significance

of 0.05, the satisfaction for the job dimensions; opportunity for advancement,

working conditions and compensation, are not normally distributed around the

mean. The Chi Square test results of 25.3, 16.6 and 48.9, for these three job

dimensions, respectively, indicate that their distribution is positively skewed to

the right. The implication of this finding is that the computed mean satisfaction for

these three job dimensions is not a true and accurate representation of the

satisfaction of the learners. The frequency distributions for the three job

dimensions are depicted graphically in Diagrams 3, 4, and 5 and clearly highlight

the effect of the skewness to the right.

Diagram 3

Frequency Distribution for the dimension Advancement

Job Satisfaction for the Dimension Advancement

60 53
Percetage of Respondents

50

40

30 26

20 16

10 5
0
0
[1,2) [2,3) [3,4) [4,5) [5]
Job Satisfaction Level

53
Diagram 4

Frequency Distribution for the dimension Working Conditions

Job Satisfaction for the Dimension Work Conditions

Percetage of Respondents

60
48
50 41
40
30
20
10
10 1 0
0
[1,2) [2,3) [3,4) [4,5) [5]
Job Satisfaction Level

Diagram 5

Frequency Distribution for the dimension Compensation

Job Satisfaction for the Dimension Compensation

70 66
Percetage of Respondents

60
50
40
28
30
20
10 5
1 0
0
[1,2) [2,3) [3,4) [4,5) [5]
Job Satisfaction Level

54
The above Diagrams: 3, 4, and 5, show that.

For the job dimension, advancement, for which the mean was only

“slightly satisfied” at 2.41, a significant proportion of 16 % of the

respondents were “ satisfied” and a further 5 % were, in fact, “very

satisfied”.

For the job dimension, work conditions, for which the mean was just

“slightly satisfied”, at 2.00, a major proportion of 48 % of the respondents

were, in fact, “not satisfied”.

For the job dimension, compensation, the positive skewness to the right

did not materially effect the rating of “not satisfied”, but it did highlight the

fact that the major proportion of the respondents, that is, 66 % of them,

were “not satisfied”.

The analysis of Objective 2, concludes with a presentation of the satisfaction of

the learners according to the twenty MSQ job dimensions. The percentage

frequency distribution for the satisfaction responses is depicted in tabular form in

Table 6.

55
Table 6

Percentage Frequency Distribution of Learner Satisfaction according to Job

Dimension

Job Satisfaction class [1,2) [2,3) [3,4) [4,5) [5]

Not Slightly Very Extremely
Satisfied
Job Satisfaction rating Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied
1 Ability utilization 26 44 21 9 1
2 Achievement 12 47 34 7 0
3 Activity 12 45 34 9 1
4 Advancement 26 53 16 5 0
5 Authority 36 39 20 4 0
6 Company policies/practice 22 46 28 4 0
7 Compensation 66 28 5 1 0
8 Co-workers 9 36 40 15 0
9 Creativity 35 34 21 10 0
10 Independence 29 50 13 9 0
11 Moral values 14 50 29 7 0
12 Recognition 30 41 22 6 0
13 Responsibility 27 47 20 6 0
14 Security 29 50 20 1 0
15 Social services 11 50 33 4 2
16 Social status 24 41 29 5 0
17 Supervision HR 28 43 27 3 0
18 Supervision Technical 17 52 28 3 0
19 Variety 16 53 27 4 0
20 Working conditions 48 41 10 1 0

A study of the data in Table 6, shows that, with the exception of the job

dimensions: advancement, work conditions and compensation, which exhibit

positive skewness, the satisfaction of the learners, for the remaining job

dimensions, was evenly distributed around the “satisfied” mean for co-workers

and around the “slightly satisfied” mean, for the remaining dimensions.

56
The data also shows that, for these remaining job dimensions, approximately 90

% of the responses are in the “not satisfied” to “satisfied range”; with a small

percentage of 1% to 10 % in the “very satisfied” range and a very small

percentage of 1% to 2 % in the “extremely” satisfied range.

5.5) Analysis of Objective 3

Objective 3 of the study consisted of two parts:

The first part, Objective 3a, was to determine the relationship between

general job satisfaction of the learners and the independent demographic

variables: gender, age, work experience, and level of education.

The second part, Objective 3b, was to determine the relationship between

the satisfaction of the learners according to the twenty MSQ job

dimensions and the independent demographic variables: gender, age,

work experience, and level of education.

The procedure that was followed in answering the objectives, was to analyze the

general job satisfaction level and the satisfaction levels for each of the twenty

MSQ job dimensions, according to the independent demographic variables, using

inferential hypothesis testing techniques.

57
For the demographic variables, gender and work experience, which consist of

two categories each, the Student t test was employed to investigate the

relationship. For the demographic variables, age and education level, each of

which has more than two categories, the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test was

used. In all cases the significance level was set at 0.05.

A comparison of the t test to t crit was made, or the Scheffe post hoc test was

computed, as appropriate, if significant differences at p < 0.05 were observed in

the results. Statistically significant differences in the means, attributable to the

independent demographic variable, were complemented with frequency

distribution diagrams for clarification.

58
5.5.1) Analysis of Objective 3 a

The analysis of general job satisfaction according to demographic variables is

depicted in Table 7 and is followed by a summary of these results.

Table 7

Demographic Satisfaction Results for General Job Satisfaction

Demographic Variable N X̄ SD F T p
Gender Male 59 2.43 0.64
Female 35 2.30 0.62
Total 94 2.38 0.63 0.97 0.34
Age 16 - 20 10 2.15 0.64
21 - 25 59 2.39 0.59
26 - 30 21 2.50 0.75
31 - 35 4 2.29 0.61
Total 94 2.38 0.63 0.71 0.55
Work exp Never worked 50 2.24 0.52
Worked before 44 2.55 0.71
Total 94 2.38 0.63 2.36 0.02 *
Ed level Std 8 - <Std 10 2 2.35 0.64
Std 10 82 2.39 0.62
Diploma 10 2.38 0.77
Total 94 2.38 0.63 0.00 1.00
*p < 0.05

The results in Table 7, show that all the satisfaction scores, for general job

satisfaction, fell within a narrow spread in the “slightly satisfied” range. Within this

range, the most satisfied were the learners who had had previous work

experience and those within the 26 – 30 age group. The least satisfied, were

those who had never worked before and those in the 16 – 20 age group.

59
The Student t test indicates a statistically significant difference in the level of

general job satisfaction of the learners for the demographic variable, work

experience, at p = 0.02, T = 2.36 and Tcrit = 1.99. This indicates that although in

the “slightly satisfied” range, learners who had worked before, were more

satisfied, in general, than those who had never worked before.

The frequency distributions of the demographic work experience, in Diagram 6,

shows that, in contrast to learners that had never worked before, there was a

greater proportion of learners who had previous work experience in the “satisfied”

range and a small proportion of these in the “very satisfied” range.

Diagram 6

General Job Satisfaction for the Demographic Work Experience

General Job Satisfaction for the Demographic Work

Experience
Percentage of Respondents

60 54 52
50
40 36
Never Worked
30 23 23 Worked Before
20
10
10
0 2 0 0
0
[1-2) [2-3) [3-4) [4-5) [5]
Job Satisfaction Rating

60
5.5.2) Analysis of Objective 3 b

The analyses of learner satisfaction, for each of the twenty MSQ job dimensions

according to the demographic variables, are depicted in Tables 8 through 27.

Each table is followed by a summary of the results. The analysis is presented

according to the job dimensions ranked from highest to the lowest in satisfaction.

Co-Workers

Table 8

Demographic Satisfaction Results for the Dimension – Co-workers

Demographic Variable N X̄ SD F T p
Gender Male 59 3.07 0.87
Female 35 2.91 0.74
Total 94 3.01 0.83 0.89 0.38
Age 16 – 20 10 2.46 0.87
21 – 25 59 3.01 0.81
26 – 30 21 3.25 0.80
31 – 35 4 3.15 0.77
Total 94 3.01 0.83 2.17 0.10
Work exp Never worked 50 2.86 0.72
Worked before 44 3.19 0.91
Total 94 3.01 0.83 1.94 0.06
Ed level Std 8 - <Std 10 2 2.30 0.42
Std 10 82 3.02 0.82
Diploma 10 3.10 0.93
Total 94 3.01 0.83 0.80 0.45

61
The results, in Table 8, show that the learners‟ satisfaction, with regard to their

feelings on how they got along with their co-workers, was in the “satisfied“ range

for males; those in the age groups 21 – 35; those with previous work experience

and those with an education level of Std 10 and higher. The level of satisfaction

was the highest for the age group 26 – 30. The lowest level of job satisfaction fell

in the “slightly satisfied” range for females, the age group 16 – 20, those never

having worked before and those with an education level below Std 10.

The satisfaction of the learners, when it came to getting along with their co-

workers, was found not to be dependent on any of their characteristics, at a

significance level of 0.05.

62
Activity

Table 9

Demographic Satisfaction Results for the Dimension – Activity

Demographic Variable N X̄ SD F T p
Gender Male 59 2.91 0.71
Female 35 2.67 0.81
Total 94 2.82 0.76 1.44 0.15
Age 16 - 20 10 2.40 0.54
21 - 25 59 2.96 0.74
26 - 30 21 2.59 0.80
31 - 35 4 2.95 0.87
Total 94 2.82 0.76 2.53 0.06
Work exp Never worked 50 2.67 0.70
Worked before 44 2.99 0.79
Total 94 2.82 0.76 2.10 0.04 *
Ed level Std 8 - <Std 10 2 1.90 0.42
Std 10 82 2.87 0.72
Diploma 10 2.58 0.96
Total 94 2.82 0.76 2.22 0.11
* P<0.05

The results in Table 9 show that the learners‟ satisfaction, with regard to keeping

busy in their jobs was overall, only “slightly satisfied”. Within this range, the most

satisfied were males, those who had worked before and those in the age group

21 – 25 and 31 – 35. The least satisfied, within the range, were those in the age

group 16 – 20. Learners with an education level below Std 10 were “not satisfied”

with their ability to keep busy.

63
In this job dimension, the Student t test indicates a statistically significant

difference in the level of satisfaction for the demographic variable, work

experience, at p = 0.04, T = 2.10 and Tcrit = 2.0. This indicates that, although in

the “slightly satisfied” range, learners who had worked before, were more

satisfied than those who had never worked before, when it came to keeping busy

in their jobs.

Diagram 7 shows that, in contrast to learners who had never worked, there was a

greater proportion of the learners who had worked before, in the “very satisfied”

range, as well as some who were in the “extremely satisfied” range.

Diagram 7

Job Satisfaction Results for the Dimension Activity according to the Demographic

Work Experience

Job Satisfaction for the Demographic Work Experience on

the MSQ Dimension Activity

50 46
Percentage of Respondents

43
45
40 34 34
35
30
Never Worked
25
20 16 Worked Before
14
15
10 7
4 2
5 0
0
[1-2) [2-3) [3-4) [4-5) [5]
Job Satisfaction Rating

64
Social Services

Table 10

Demographic Satisfaction Results for the Dimension – Social Services

Demographic Variable N X̄ SD F T p
Gender Male 59 2.81 0.84
Female 35 2.68 0.73
Total 94 2.76 0.80 0.74 0.46
Age 16 - 20 10 2.46 0.60
21 - 25 59 2.84 0.86
26 - 30 21 2.73 0.74
31 - 35 4 2.50 0.60
Total 94 2.76 0.80 0.80 0.50
Work exp Never worked 50 2.64 0.70
Worked before 44 2.90 0.89
Total 94 2.76 0.80 1.56 0.12
Ed level Std 8 - <Std 10 2 2.20 0.00
Std 10 82 2.70 0.76
Diploma 10 3.32 1.01
Total 94 2.76 0.80 3.30 0.04 *
* p<0.05

The results in Table 10, show that the level of satisfaction of the learners with

regard to being of service to others, was only “slightly satisfied”, with the

exception of learners with a diploma level of education, who were found to be in

the “satisfied” range. In the “ slightly satisfied” range, the most satisfied were

males, those who had worked before, and those in the 21 – 30 age group. The

learners least satisfied, were those in the 31 – 35 age group and those with an

education less than Std 10.

65
In this job dimension, the analysis of variance indicates a statistically significant

difference in the satisfaction level for the demographic variable, education level,

at p = 0.04, F = 3.3 and Fcrit = 3.3. A Scheffe post hoc test, depicted in Table 10a,

conducted to determine which pairs were significantly different, did not, however,

support the findings of statistically significant difference in the means.

Therefore, the satisfaction of the learners, when it came to being of service to

others, was found not to be dependent on any of their characteristics, at a

significance level of 0.05.

Table 10a

Scheffe post hoc test for the Dimension Social Services according to the

Demographic - Education Level

Scheffe post hoc X̄ - X̄ S

Std 8 - Std 10 0.50 1.39

Std 8 – Diploma 1.12 1.51
Std 10 – Diploma 0.62 0.65

66
Achievement

Table 11

Demographic Satisfaction Results for the Dimension – Achievement

Demographic Variable N X̄ SD F T p
Gender Male 59 2.71 0.76
Female 35 2.76 0.83
Total 94 2.73 0.78 0.32 0.75
Age 16 - 20 10 2.30 0.78
21 - 25 59 2.81 0.75
26 - 30 21 2.78 0.87
31 - 35 4 2.30 0.50
Total 94 2.73 0.78 1.66 0.18
Work exp Never worked 50 2.72 0.74
Worked before 44 2.73 0.84
Total 94 2.73 0.78 0.07 0.94
Ed level Std 8 - <Std 10 2 2.60 0.00
Std 10 82 2.71 0.77
Diploma 10 2.86 0.99
Total 94 2.73 0.78 0.18 0.83

The results in Table 11, show that the satisfaction levels of learners, with regard

to their feelings of accomplishment on the job, were “slightly satisfied”. Within this

range, those with a diploma and those in the age group 21 – 30, were the most

satisfied, while those in the age group 16 – 20, and 31 – 35, were the least

satisfied.

The satisfaction of the learners, when it came to their feelings of accomplishment

on the job, was found not to be dependent on any of their characteristics, at a

67
significance level of 0.05.

Moral Values

Table 12

Demographic Satisfaction Results for the Dimension – Moral Values

Demographic Variable N X̄ SD F T p
Gender Male 59 2.74 0.74
Female 35 2.57 0.77
Total 94 2.67 0.75 1.06 0.29
Age 16 - 20 10 2.10 0.62
21 - 25 59 2.74 0.73
26 - 30 21 2.72 0.73
31 - 35 4 2.80 1.12
Total 94 2.67 0.75 2.26 0.09
Work exp Never worked 50 2.64 0.70
Worked before 44 2.71 0.81
Total 94 2.67 0.75 0.44 0.66
Ed level Std 8 - <Std 10 2 3.10 0.71
Std 10 82 2.64 0.73
Diploma 10 2.84 0.94
Total 94 2.67 0.75 0.64 0.53

The results in Table 12, show that the level of satisfaction of the learners with

regard to their feelings of not doing things contrary to their morals, was only

“slightly satisfied”. The exception in this job dimension, was the learners with an

education level of less than Std 10, who were “satisfied”. In the “ slightly satisfied”

range, the most satisfied were those with a diploma and those in the age group

31 – 35. The learners least satisfied, were those in the age group 16 – 20.

68
The satisfaction of the learners, when it came to not having to do things contrary

to their morals, was found not to be dependent on any of their characteristics, at

a significance level of 0.05.

Variety

Table 13

Demographic Satisfaction Results for the Dimension – Variety

Demographic Variable N X̄ SD F T p
Gender Male 59 2.63 0.72
Female 35 2.53 0.69
Total 94 2.59 0.71 0.67 0.51
Age 16 - 20 10 2.48 0.77
21 - 25 59 2.58 0.65
26 - 30 21 2.67 0.85
31 - 35 4 2.55 0.91
Total 94 2.59 0.71 0.16 0.92
Work exp Never worked 50 2.42 0.68
Worked before 44 2.78 0.70
Total 94 2.59 0.71 2.48 0.02 *
Ed level Std 8 - <Std 10 2 2.50 0.42
Std 10 82 2.58 0.68
Diploma 10 2.72 1.00
Total 94 2.59 0.71 0.20 0.82
* p<0.05

The results in Table 13, show that the satisfaction of the learners with regard to

their feelings about the opportunity they have to do different things in their jobs,

was narrowly spread within the “slightly satisfied” range. Those learners with

work experience, as well as those with a diploma, showed the highest job

69
satisfaction within the range, while those that had never worked before and in the

age group of 16 – 20, showed the lowest.

In this dimension, the Student t test indicates a statistically significant difference

in the level of satisfaction of the learners for the demographic variable, work

experience, at p = 0.02, T = 2.48 and Tcrit = 1.99. This indicates that, although in

the “slightly satisfied” range, learners who had worked before were more satisfied

than those who had never worked before; when it came to the opportunity they

had to do different things in their jobs.

Diagram 8 shows that, in contrast to learners that had never worked, there were

a greater proportion of the learners who had worked before in both the “satisfied”

and “very satisfied” levels.

70
Diagram 8

Satisfaction Results for the Dimension Variety according to Work Experience

Job Satisfaction for the Demographic Work Experience on

the MSQ Dimension Variety

60
Percentage of Respondents

54 52
50

40 34
Never Worked
30 24
20 Worked Before
20

10 7 7
2 0 0
0
[1-2) [2-3) [3-4) [4-5) [5]
Job Satisfaction Rating

71
Social Status

Table 14

Demographic Satisfaction Results for the Dimension – Social Status

Demographic Variable N X̄ SD F T p
Gender Male 59 2.54 0.85
Female 35 2.53 0.85
Total 94 2.54 0.85 0.06 0.95
Age 16 - 20 10 2.32 0.72
21 - 25 59 2.59 0.82
26 - 30 21 2.54 0.96
31 - 35 4 2.30 1.01
Total 94 2.54 0.85 0.39 0.76
Work exp Never worked 50 2.47 0.83
Worked before 44 2.61 0.86
Total 94 2.54 0.85 0.81 0.42
Ed level Std 8 - <Std 10 2 2.70 0.71
Std 10 82 2.50 0.79
Diploma 10 2.84 1.24
Total 94 2.54 0.85 0.76 0.47

The results in Table 14, indicate that the level of satisfaction of the learners, with

regard to their feelings towards the respect they felt for the community in the

work environment, was, overall, “slightly satisfied”. Within this range, the most

satisfied were the learners with a diploma level of education; while the least

satisfied were those in the age group of 31 – 35.

The satisfaction of the learners, when it came to the respect they felt for the

community in the work environment, was found not to be dependent on any of

72
their characteristics, at a significance level of 0.05.

Supervision – Technical

Table 15

Demographic Satisfaction Results for the Dimension – Supervision Technical

Demographic Variable N X̄ SD F T p
Gender Male 59 2.64 0.72
Female 35 2.35 0.66
Total 94 2.53 0.71 1.91 0.06
Age 16 - 20 10 2.24 0.76
21 - 25 59 2.58 0.71
26 - 30 21 2.59 0.76
31 - 35 4 2.35 0.25
Total 94 2.53 0.71 0.76 0.52
Work exp Never worked 50 2.44 0.66
Worked before 44 2.64 0.77
Total 94 2.53 0.71 1.31 0.19
Ed level Std 8 - <Std 10 2 1.80 0.85
Std 10 82 2.53 0.69
Diploma 10 2.70 0.89
Total 94 2.53 0.71 1.34 0.27

The results in Table 15, show that the satisfaction of the learners with regard to

their feelings about the technical supervision they received in their jobs, was

“slightly satisfied”. The exception, were those learners with an education level

below Std 10, who were “not satisfied”.

73
The highest satisfaction within the “slightly satisfied” range, were for those

learners with a diploma and for those who had worked before; while the least

satisfied were those in the age group of 31-35.

The satisfaction of the learners, when it came to their feelings towards technical

supervision, was found not to be dependent on any of their characteristics, at a

significance level of 0.05.

Company Policies and Practices

Table 16

Demographic Satisfaction Results for the Dimension – Company Policies and

Practice

Demographic Variable N X̄ SD F T p
Gender Male 59 2.59 0.81
Female 35 2.38 0.68
Total 94 2.51 0.76 1.31 0.19
Age 16 - 20 10 2.26 0.95
21 - 25 59 2.49 0.70
26 - 30 21 2.70 0.87
31 - 35 4 2.40 0.67
Total 94 2.51 0.76 0.80 0.50
Work exp Never worked 50 2.37 0.67
Worked before 44 2.67 0.84
Total 94 2.51 0.76 1.96 0.05
Ed level Std 8 - <Std 10 2 2.50 0.71
Std 10 82 2.55 0.78
Diploma 10 2.22 0.65
Total 94 2.51 0.76 0.81 0.45

74
The results in Table 16, show that the satisfaction of the learners with regard to

their feelings towards the company‟s policies and practices, was in the “slightly

satisfied” range. Those learners with work experience, as well as those in the

age group of 16 – 20, showed the highest job satisfaction within the range, while

those with a diploma level of education, showed the lowest.

The satisfaction of the learners, when it came to company‟s policies and

practices, was found not to be dependent on any of their characteristics, at a

significance level of 0.05.

Ability Utilization

Table 17

Demographic Satisfaction Results for the Dimension – Ability Utilization

Demographic Variable N X̄ SD F T p
Gender Male 59 2.45 0.95
Female 35 2.55 0.92
Total 94 2.49 0.94 0.47 0.64
Age 16 - 20 10 2.04 0.72
21 - 25 59 2.52 0.91
26 - 30 21 2.65 1.07
31 - 35 4 2.30 0.93
Total 94 2.49 0.94 1.05 0.37
Work exp Never worked 50 2.50 0.85
Worked before 44 2.47 1.03
Total 94 2.49 0.94 0.16 0.87
Ed level Std 8 - <Std 10 2 2.70 0.71
Std 10 82 2.47 0.94
Diploma 10 2.62 0.96
Total 94 2.49 0.94 0.17 0.85

75
The results in Table 17, show that the satisfaction of the learners with regard to

their feelings towards being able to utilize their abilities in their work, was

narrowly spread within the “slightly satisfied” range. Those learners in the 26 – 30

age group and those with an education level below Std 10, had the highest level

of job satisfaction within the range, while those in the age group of 16 – 20, had

the lowest.

The satisfaction of the learners, when it came to their opportunity of being able to

utilize their abilities in their work, was found not to be dependent on any of their

characteristics, at a significance level of 0.05.

76
Responsibility

Table 18

Demographic Satisfaction Results for the Dimension – Responsibility

Demographic Variable N X̄ SD F T p
Gender Male 59 2.47 0.76
Female 35 2.51 0.85
Total 94 2.49 0.79 0.23 0.82
Age 16 - 20 10 2.02 0.88
21 - 25 59 2.51 0.75
26 - 30 21 2.67 0.81
31 - 35 4 2.50 0.96
Total 94 2.49 0.79 1.56 0.20
Work exp Never worked 50 2.37 0.75
Worked before 44 2.63 0.82
Total 94 2.49 0.79 1.60 0.11
Ed level Std 8 - <Std 10 2 2.70 0.14
Std 10 82 2.49 0.78
Diploma 10 2.44 0.98
Total 94 2.49 0.79 0.09 0.92

The results in Table 18, show that the satisfaction of the learners with regard to

the feelings they have towards being able to implement their own judgment in

doing their work, was narrowly spread within the “slightly satisfied” range. Those

learners in the 26 – 30 age group, those with an education level below Std 10

and those with previous work experience, showed the highest level of job

satisfaction within the range, while those in the age group of 16 – 20, showed the

lowest.

77
The satisfaction of the learners, when it came to implementing their own

judgment in doing their work, was found not to be dependent on any of their

characteristics, at a significance level of 0.05.

Supervision – Human Resources

Table 19

Demographic Satisfaction Results for the Dimension – Supervision Human

Resources

Demographic Variable N X̄ SD F T p
Gender Male 59 2.48 0.85
Female 35 2.46 0.72
Total 94 2.47 0.80 0.11 0.91
Age 16 – 20 10 2.24 1.00
21 – 25 59 2.45 0.74
26 – 30 21 2.76 0.84
31 – 35 4 1.95 0.70
Total 94 2.47 0.80 1.82 0.15
Work exp Never worked 50 2.32 0.71
Worked before 44 2.65 0.88
Total 94 2.47 0.80 1.97 0.05
Ed level Std 8 - <Std 10 2 2.10 0.99
Std 10 82 2.48 0.82
Diploma 10 2.52 0.73
Total 94 2.47 0.80 0.23 0.79

The results in Table 19, show that the satisfaction of the learners with regard to

their feelings about their relationship with their supervisors, was “slightly

satisfied”, with the exception of those in the age group 31 – 35, who were “not

78
satisfied”. The highest level of satisfaction, within the “slightly satisfied” range,

was for the learners in the age group 26 – 30.

The satisfaction of the learners, when it came to their relationship with their

supervisors, was found not to be dependent on any of their characteristics, at a

significance level of 0.05.

Independence

Table 20

Demographic Satisfaction Results for the Dimension – Independence

Demographic Variable N X̄ SD F T p
Gender Male 59 2.60 0.88
Female 35 2.16 0.71
Total 94 2.43 0.85 2.48 0.01 *
Age 16 – 20 10 2.16 0.55
21 - 25 59 2.54 0.86
26 - 30 21 2.26 0.87
31 - 35 4 2.45 1.23
Total 94 2.43 0.85 0.97 0.41
Work exp Never worked 50 2.31 0.81
Worked before 44 2.58 0.88
Total 94 2.43 0.85 1.55 0.12
Ed level Std 8 - <Std 10 2 2.60 1.13
Std 10 82 2.37 0.74
Diploma 10 2.92 1.41
Total 94 2.43 0.85 1.95 0.15
* p<0.05

79
The results in Table 20, show that the satisfaction of the learners with regard to

their feelings towards being able to work alone, was quite widely spread within

the “slightly satisfied” range. Learners who were male and those who had an

education level of a diploma and less than Std10, showed the highest job

satisfaction within the range, while female learners and those that are in the 16 –

20 age group, showed the lowest.

In this dimension, the Student t test indicates a statistically significant difference

in the satisfaction level of the learners, for the demographic variable, gender, at p

= 0.01, T = 2.48 and Tcrit = 1.99. This indicates that, although in the “slightly

satisfied” range, male learners were more satisfied than female learners, when it

came to the opportunity to work alone in their job.

Diagram 9 shows that in contrast to learners that were female, there were a

greater proportion of male learners in both the “satisfied” and “very satisfied”

range, and far fewer who were “not satisfied”.

80
Diagram 9

Satisfaction Results for the Dimension Independence according to the

Demographic Gender

Job Satisfaction for the Demographic Gender on the MSQ

Dimension Independence

60
Percentage of Respondents

53
50 46 46

40
Male
30
Female
19 19
20
10
10 6
3
0 0
0
[1-2) [2-3) [3-4) [4-5) [5]
Job Satisfaction Rating

81
Creativity

Table 21

Demographic Satisfaction Results for the Dimension – Creativity

Demographic Variable N X̄ SD F T p
Gender Male 59 2.31 0.96
Female 35 2.58 0.98
Total 94 2.41 0.97 1.31 0.19
Age 16 - 20 10 2.06 0.85
21 - 25 59 2.43 0.98
26 - 30 21 2.58 1.00
31 - 35 4 2.15 1.14
Total 94 2.41 0.97 0.75 0.53
Work exp Never worked 50 2.38 0.89
Worked before 44 2.45 1.07
Total 94 2.41 0.97 0.30 0.76
Ed level Std 8 - <Std 10 2 2.90 0.42
Std 10 82 2.36 0.95
Diploma 10 2.76 1.20
Total 94 2.41 0.97 1.02 0.37

The results in Table 21, show that the satisfaction of the learners with regard to

their feelings towards being able to try their own methods, was quite widely

spread within the “slightly satisfied” range. Learners that had an education level

of a diploma and those with less than Std 10, showed the highest satisfaction

within the range, while males and those in the age group 16 – 20, as well as the

31 – 35 age group, showed the lowest.

82
The satisfaction of the learners, when it came to trying their own methods on the

job, was found not to be dependent on any of their characteristics, at a

significance level of 0.05.

Advancement

Table 22

Demographic Satisfaction Results for the Dimension – Advancement

Demographic Variable N X̄ SD F T p
Gender Male 59 2.44 0.80
Female 35 2.35 0.61
Total 94 2.41 0.74 0.59 0.56
Age 16 - 20 10 2.04 0.55
21 - 25 59 2.44 0.73
26 - 30 21 2.50 0.86
31 - 35 4 2.30 0.20
Total 94 2.41 0.74 1.02 0.39
Work exp Never worked 50 2.30 0.64
Worked before 44 2.53 0.82
Total 94 2.41 0.74 1.51 0.14
Ed level Std 8 - <Std 10 2 2.20 0.00
Std 10 82 2.45 0.72
Diploma 10 2.08 0.87
Total 94 2.41 0.74 1.22 0.30

The results in Table 22, show that the satisfaction of the learners with regard to

their feelings about their opportunity for advancement, was narrowly spread

within the bottom half of the “slightly satisfied” range. Learners who had worked

before and those in the 26 – 30 age group, showed the highest job satisfaction

83
within the range, while males, those in the 16 – 20 age group and those that had

a diploma, showed the lowest.

The satisfaction of the learners, when it came to their feelings on the opportunity

for advancement, was found not to be dependent on any of their characteristics,

at a significance level of 0.05.

Recognition

Table 23

Demographic Satisfaction Results for the Dimension – Recognition

Demographic Variable N X̄ SD F T p
Gender Male 59 2.28 0.92
Female 35 2.57 0.86
Total 94 2.39 0.90 1.47 0.14
Age 16 – 20 10 2.00 0.73
21 – 25 59 2.41 0.94
26 – 30 21 2.53 0.87
31 – 35 4 2.25 0.91
Total 94 2.39 0.90 0.85 0.47
Work exp Never worked 50 2.36 0.86
Worked before 44 2.42 0.95
Total 94 2.39 0.90 0.29 0.77
Ed level Std 8 - <Std 10 2 2.60 0.57
Std 10 82 2.38 0.90
Diploma 10 2.46 0.98
Total 94 2.39 0.90 0.09 0.91

The results in Table 23, show that the job satisfaction of the learners with regard

84
to their feelings towards being recognized for the work they do, was narrowly

spread within the bottom half of the “slightly satisfied” range. Female learners

and those in the 26 – 30 age group, showed the highest job satisfaction within

the range, while those learners in the 16 – 20 age group and those learners with

a diploma, showed the lowest.

The satisfaction of the learners, when it came to being recognized for the work

they do, was found not to be dependent on any of their characteristics, at a

significance level of 0.05.

Security

Table 24

Demographic Satisfaction Results for the Dimension – Security

Demographic Variable N X̄ SD F T p
Gender Male 59 2.46 0.74
Female 35 2.14 0.74
Total 94 2.34 0.75 1.99 0.05
Age 16 – 20 10 2.08 0.79
21 – 25 59 2.36 0.72
26 – 30 21 2.51 0.84
31 – 35 4 1.75 0.41
Total 94 2.34 0.75 1.64 0.19
Work exp Never worked 50 2.22 0.74
Worked before 44 2.47 0.76
Total 94 2.34 0.75 1.61 0.11
Ed level Std 8 - <Std 10 2 2.50 0.99
Std 10 82 2.35 0.76
Diploma 10 2.20 0.75
Total 94 2.34 0.75 0.23 0.80

85
The results in Table 24, show that the satisfaction of the learners with regard to

their feelings towards the job providing them with future employment, was

narrowly spread within the bottom half of the “slightly satisfied” range. The

exception, were those learners in the age group of 31 – 35, who fell into the “not

satisfied” level. Within the “slightly satisfied” range, males, those in the 26 – 30

age group and those who had worked before, showed the highest job

satisfaction, while females, learners with a diploma and those who had never

worked before, showed the lowest level of job satisfaction within the range.

The satisfaction of the learners, when it came to their feelings about the job

providing them with future employment, was found not to be dependent on any of

their characteristics, at a significance level of 0.05.

86
Authority

Table 25

Demographic Satisfaction Results for the Dimension – Authority

Demographic Variable N X̄ SD F T p
Gender Male 59 2.35 0.89
Female 35 2.24 0.88
Total 94 2.31 0.88 0.56 0.58
Age 16 - 20 10 1.90 0.91
21 - 25 59 2.38 0.89
26 - 30 21 2.42 0.82
31 - 35 4 1.60 0.57
Total 94 2.31 0.88 1.89 0.14
Work exp Never worked 50 2.17 0.78
Worked before 44 2.46 0.97
Total 94 2.31 0.88 1.64 0.10
Ed level Std 8 - <Std 10 2 2.10 0.71
Std 10 82 2.29 0.87
Diploma 10 2.52 1.01
Total 94 2.31 0.88 0.37 0.69

The results in Table 25, show that the job satisfaction of the learners with regard

to their feelings towards being able to tell others what to do, was at the bottom of

the “slightly satisfied” range. In this job dimension, learners who were in the 16 –

20 and 31 – 35 age groups fell within the “not satisfied‟ range. The most satisfied

learners in the “slightly satisfied” range, were those who had worked before and

those with a diploma level of education.

87
The satisfaction of the learners, when it came to being able to tell others what to

do, was found not to be dependent on any of their characteristics, at a

significance level of 0.05.

Work Conditions

Table 26

Demographic Satisfaction Results for the Dimension – Working Conditions

Demographic Variable N X̄ SD F T p
Gender Male 59 2.04 0.69
Female 35 1.93 0.63
Total 94 2.00 0.66 0.77 0.44
Age 16 – 20 10 1.78 0.82
21 – 25 59 1.98 0.64
26 – 30 21 2.23 0.66
31 – 35 4 1.70 0.26
Total 94 2.00 0.66 1.52 0.22
Work exp Never worked 50 1.87 0.63
Worked before 44 2.15 0.68
Total 94 2.00 0.66 2.02 0.05
Ed level Std 8 - <Std 10 2 1.80 0.00
Std 10 82 2.03 0.67
Diploma 10 1.76 0.67
Total 94 2.00 0.66 0.85 0.43

The results in Table 26, show that the satisfaction of the learners with regard to

their feelings about their working conditions, was just in the “slightly satisfied”

level, with seven out of the eleven demographic variables falling within the “not

satisfied” level of satisfaction. Only male learners, learners who had worked

88
before, those in the 26 – 30 age group and those with Std 10, were “ slightly

satisfied”.

The satisfaction of the learners, when it came to their feelings of their working

conditions, was found not to be dependent on any of their characteristics, at a

significance level of 0.05.

Compensation

Table 27

Demographic Satisfaction Results for the Dimension – Compensation

Demographic Variable N X̄ SD F T p
Gender Male 59 1.72 0.72
Female 35 1.59 0.67
Total 94 1.67 0.70 0.87 0.39
Age 16 - 20 10 1.48 0.64
21 - 25 59 1.67 0.67
26 - 30 21 1.85 0.84
31 - 35 4 1.20 0.28
Total 94 1.67 0.70 1.30 0.28
Work exp Never worked 50 1.56 0.60
Worked before 44 1.79 0.79
Total 94 1.67 0.70 1.55 0.12
Ed level Std 8 - <Std 10 2 1.70 0.14
Std 10 82 1.68 0.73
Diploma 10 1.56 0.53
Total 94 1.67 0.70 0.14 0.87

89
The results in Table 27, show that the satisfaction of the learners with regard to

their feelings towards the pay they earned for the amount of work they did, was in

the “not satisfied” level. Within this level, learners that fell within the 26 – 30 age

group, had worked before and had a level of education below Std 10, were the

most satisfied. Learners in the 31- 35 age group were the least satisfied.

The satisfaction of the learners, when it came to the pay they received for the

work they did, was found not to be dependent on any of their characteristics, at a

significance level of 0.05.

90
 CHAPTER SIX

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

The purpose of the study was to determine the job satisfaction of the learners at

MAL. To fully address the objectives of the study, an in depth analysis was

conducted on the gathered data.

The findings of the study, based on the objectives that guided the research, can

be summarized into two groups. The first two objectives, which were to

determine both the general level of job satisfaction and the job satisfaction level

of the learners according to the twenty MSQ job dimensions, were descriptive in

nature. The third objective, comprising of two parts, was to investigate the

relationship between the levels of the satisfaction of the learners and their

demographic characteristics. This objective was addressed by using statistical

hypothesis testing.

This chapter concludes the study. The first section of the chapter summarizes the

descriptive and statistical findings of the study. The second section discusses the

findings and gives a conclusion to the study. The third and final section of the

study discusses the limitations of the study and makes recommendations for

future research.

91
6.1) Summary of Descriptive Findings

6.1.1) Objective 1

According to the MSQ, the general job satisfaction of the learners out of the

classroom and in their work environment, was found to be, on average, “slightly

satisfied”. The job satisfaction responses were normally distributed, with a mean

score of 2.38 and a standard deviation of 0.63.

6.1.2) Objective 2

The satisfaction of the learners out of the class room and in their work

environment, based on the 20 dimensions of the MSQ which describe the

components of a job, was found to be as follows:

On average, the learners were “satisfied” with respect to getting along with

their co-workers.

On average, the learners were “slightly satisfied” with:

being able to keep busy all the time;

the chance to do things for other people;

the feeling of accomplishment they got from the job;

being able to do things that were not contrary to their conscience;

92
 the chance to do different things from time to time;

the chance to be “somebody” in the community;

the technical competence of their boss in making decisions;

the way company policies were put into practice;

the chance to do something that made use of their abilities;

the freedom to use their own judgment;

the way their boss managed human relations and handled his men;

the chance to work alone on the job;

the chance to try their own methods of doing the job;

the chances for advancement;

the praise they got for doing a good job;

the way their job provided for steady employment;

the chance to tell other people what to do;

On average, the learners were “slightly satisfied” with their working

conditions; however, the distribution of the responses, shows, that a

large proportion of the learners were not satisfied.

On average, the learners were “not satisfied” with the amount of pay they

received for the work they did.

93
6.2) Summary of Statistical Findings

The following summary of the statistical findings, is preceded by a visual

representation of the satisfaction of the learners, according to the four

demographic categories, gender, age, work experience and education level.

The following Diagrams; 10, 11, 12, and 13, summarize the relative satisfaction

levels for variables in each demographic category, for both general job

satisfaction and satisfaction according to the twenty MSQ job dimensions.

94
 Average Job Satisfaction

0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Co-workers
Diagram 10

Activity

Social services

Achievement

Moral values

Variety

Social status

Supervision Technical

Company policies/practice
Job Satisfaction According to Gender

Ability utilisation

95
Responsibilty

Supervision HR

MSQ Dimension
Independence

Creativity

Advancement

Recognition

Security

Authority

Working conditions

Compensation

General J S
Job Satisfaction by MSQ Dimensions on Demographic Gender

Male
Female
 Average Job Satisfaction

0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Co-workers
Diagram 11

Activity

Social services

Achievement

Moral values

Variety

Social status

Supervision Technical
Job Satisfaction According to Age

Company policies/practice

Ability utilisation

96
Responsibilty

Supervision HR

Independence

MSQ D imension
Creativity

Advancement

Recognition

Security

Authority

Working conditions

Compensation
Job Satisfaction by MSQ Dimensions on Demographic Age

General J S
31 - 35
26 - 30
21 - 25
16 - 20
 Average Job Satisfaction

0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Co-workers
Diagram 12

Activity
Social services
Achievement
Moral values
Variety
Social status
Supervision Technical
Company policies/practice
Ability utilisation
Responsibilty
Supervision HR

97
Independence

MSQ D imension
Experience

Creativity
Job Satisfaction According to Work Experience

Advancement
Recognition
Security
Authority
Working conditions
Compensation
General JS
Job Satisfaction by MSQ Dimension on Demographic Work

Never Worked
Worked Before
 Average Job Satisfaction

0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Co-workers
Diagram 13

Activity
Social services
Achievement
Moral values
Variety
Social status
Supervision Technical
Company policies/practice
Ability utilisation
Responsibilty
Supervision HR

98
Independence

MSQ D imension
Education
Job Satisfaction According to Education Level

Creativity
Advancement
Recognition
Security
Authority
Working conditions
Compensation
General J S
Job Satisfaction by MSQ Dimensions on Demographic

Std 10
Diploma

Std 8 - < Std 10

6.2.1) Objective 3a

The influence of the demographic characteristics of the learners, when in their

work environment, on their level of general job satisfaction, was found to be as

follows:

The gender of the learners was found not to have an influence on their

level of general job satisfaction.

The age of the learners was found not to have an influence on their level

of general job satisfaction.

At a 0.05 level of significance, the work experience of the learners was

found to have an influence on their level of general job satisfaction.

Although both in the “slightly satisfied” range, learners who had had prior

work experience, were, in general, slightly more satisfied than those

learners who had never worked before.

The education level of the learners was found not to have an influence on

their level of general job satisfaction.

99
6.2.2) Objective 3b

The influence of the demographic characteristics of the learners, when in their

work environment, on their level of satisfaction according to the twenty MSQ job

dimensions, was found to be as follows:

At a significance level of 0.05, the gender of the learners was found to

have an influence on their level of satisfaction for the job dimension

independence. While both were in the “slightly satisfied” range, male

learners were slightly more satisfied than the female learners with regard

to their opportunity to work alone.

The age of the learners was found not to have an influence on their level

of satisfaction for any of the twenty MSQ job dimensions.

At a significance level of 0.05, the work experience of the learners was

found to have an influence on their level of satisfaction, for the job

dimensions, activity and variety. While both were in the “slightly satisfied”

range, learners who had, at one time or another, worked before, were

slightly more satisfied than learners who had never worked before, with

regard to being busy all the time and doing different things in their job.

100
 The education level of the learners was found not to have an influence on

their level of satisfaction for any of the twenty MSQ job dimensions.

6.3) Conclusion.

The purpose of the study was to determine the job satisfaction of the learners at

MAL, when in their work environment.

The findings revealed that in general, the learners were only slightly satisfied in

their jobs. The findings also showed that the learners were satisfied with how

their co-workers got along with each other but they were not satisfied with the

pay they received for the work they did, or, for a large majority of them, with the

physical conditions within their work environment.

The study revealed that at a stated confidence of 95 %, learners with prior work

experience, were, in general, slightly more satisfied than the learners who had

never worked, before joining the learnership program. These learners where also

slightly more satisfied when it came to the opportunity of keeping busy in their job

and doing work of a different nature. The study also revealed that male learners

were slightly more satisfied than female learners with regard to their opportunity

to work alone in the job.

101
Age and education level were found not to have had an impact on the learner‟s

level of job satisfaction.

6.4) Discussion of Results

The findings of the study are not surprising. It is clearly demonstrated in the

literature, that job satisfaction is correlated with a number of factors, observable

as the consequences of job satisfaction in the work place. Kreitner, Kenicki &

Buelens (2002), list a number of such factors, some of which closely resemble

those exhibited by the learners at MAL. These factors, which are correlated to job

satisfaction to varying degrees, are listed as:

Factors strongly related to job satisfaction - organizational commitment

and perceived stress.

Factors moderately related to job satisfaction - motivation, job involvement

and organizational citizenship behavior, turnover, heart disease, life

satisfaction, mental health and pro – union voting.

Factors weakly related to job satisfaction - absenteeism, tardiness, and

job performance.

102
It is, therefore, not surprising that the satisfaction level of the learners has been

found, to be in general, only “slightly satisfied”.

The absence of satisfaction, when it came to the feelings the learners had for the

pay they earned, for the amount of work that they did, was also not unexpected.

The researcher would speculate that, on the strength of Equity theory, the

perceived “difference” of the learners, coupled with the different pay received by

relevant others for similar work, would create an environment of dissatisfaction

for the learners.

Adam‟s Equity theory is based on the concept that people are motivated to

maintain a balance between their cognitive beliefs and their behavior and when

inconsistencies are perceived, changes occur to restore this balance. Such

changes generally take the form of changes in behavior and attitude (Kreitner, et

al.; 2002). Field studies support the researcher‟s view that the situation

experienced by the learners is perceived as both procedural and distributive

injustice, giving rise to an absence of job satisfaction, with the resulting

consequences of poor behavior and attitude, and high turnover and absenteeism

that have been experienced in the learnership program at MAL.

The highest level of satisfaction measured in the study, was the satisfaction the

learners experienced in their interaction with co-workers. While the learners are

part of MAL, their short stay of one year, their absence from the work place for

103
30% of the time due to classroom training and their uniqueness within the work

environment, may have forced them to be, to some extent, alienated from the

general company environment and culture.

It is the researcher‟s opinion that this alienation, together with the close group

work in the classroom, has resulted in the formation of a group exhibiting

effective co-operation, mutual trust and cohesiveness, within which the learners

have a feeling of satisfaction.

Literature on job satisfaction indicates that a number of socio-emotional factors,

such as self-esteem, tolerance to stress, and the belief that there is greater

control over outcomes, are prevalent in groups and teams and are positively

correlated to job satisfaction (Robins, 2001).

Contrary to the studies and conclusions in the literature reviewed by the

researcher, the findings of this study did not demonstrate the expected strength

in the relationship between the demographic variables of the learners and their

job satisfaction.

The study revealed that learners with prior work experienced were more satisfied

in general terms, in keeping busy all the time, and in doing different things in their

job. Male learners were also found to be more satisfied than female learners

104
when it came to working alone. These relations were however relatively weak

and did not materially effect the measured satisfaction levels.

Additional study of the literature conducted by the researcher, did reveal that in

some cases, the influence of these demographic variables was indirect and in

some instances was also irrelevant (Newby, 1999). It is hypothesized by the

researcher that in this study, work factors and the overall low satisfaction level

exhibited by the learners, overshadowed the expected effects of the

demographic variables.

6.5) Limitations of the Study.

The study was limited to a survey of the population of the learners within MAL.

The findings of this study can only describe the job satisfaction of this unique

group of learners and cannot, therefore, be generalized to other learnership

levels, learner groups, or populations, outside this company‟s environment.

In addition, the influence of the learners‟ macro and micro environment makes

this study valid only for that point in time in which the investigation was

conducted. At best, this investigation can act as a guide to further research in

field.

This study is also limited to the responses of the subjects to the questions

105
comprising general job satisfaction and satisfaction according to the twenty

MSQ job dimensions.

6.6) Recommendations

Comparison studies should be conducted within the industry sector to determine

if the findings and trends observed at MAL, are particular to the company or are

indicative of the job satisfaction of learners in various programs, in similar

industries. Whether this is found to be the case or not, such studies would

broaden the knowledge base of work-based training programs and would be of

particular benefit within the skills development initiative in South Africa.

Within Mal, the following are recommendations, based on the results of the

study:

The current, less than satisfactory job satisfaction of the learners, should be

further investigated by the human resources and training practitioners. Due to

remediation implemented by these practitioners, an improvement in the

attitude and behavior of the learners, has been noted in the second year of

the learnership program at MAL; however, the known correlates of job

satisfaction, examined in a multitude of studies, are an additional and

invaluable tool, that should be used in addressing the remaining problems in

the learner work place. These learners form an integral component of the

106
work force within the company and any increase in their job satisfaction would

be of benefit to both the learners and the company.

It is recommended that an alternate study, of learner job satisfaction within

the workplace, should be conducted, using either interviewing techniques, or

open-ended survey instruments. Such methods allow for greater respondent

interaction in the survey and would present respondents with the opportunity

to express ideas and to highlight any dissatisfaction with their day-to-day

activities in the work place.

Compensation ranked the lowest in the job satisfaction scores and the

learners surveyed were, unanimously, not satisfied with the pay that they

received for the work that they did. The factors contributing to this level of job

satisfaction should be investigated and dependent on the findings, alternative

methods of reward should be considered.

A study should be conducted on the higher levels of learnership programs

within the company to determine whether or not there is a difference between

the groups. Such differences could be further explored, the results of which

may contribute to improving the job satisfaction of learners on various

learnership programs, both within MAL and throughout the country.

107
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arnold, H., & Feldman, D. 1986. Organisational Behavior. 1st ed. Singapore:
McGraw-Hill.

Beach, D.1985. Personnel The Management of People at Work. 5th ed. New
York: Macmillan.

Gerber, P., Nel, P. & van Dyke, P. 1989. Human Resources Management.
Johannesburg: Southern Book Publishers (Pty) Ltd.

Greenberg, J., & Baron, R. 1993. Behavior in Organisations. 4th ed. Needham
Heights: Simon and Schuster.

James, I. 2005. „Field experience in the workplace implementation of

Learnerships‟ [online]. In: APPETD National Conference, Gauteng, 31 May 2005.
Dionysus.
Available from: http://www.dionysus.co.za [Accessed June 2005].

JDI Research Group. 2006. The Job Descriptive Index [online]. Bowling Green:
Bowling Green State University.
Available from: http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/psych/JDI/
[Accessed 15 March 2006]

Kreitner, R., Kinicki, A. & Buelens, M. 2002. Organisational Behavior. 2nd ed.
Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.

Masonite Africa Ltd. 2005. Learnership Personnel Records. Estcourt, South

Africa: Masonite Africa Ltd.

108
Nel, P., Gerber, P., van Dyke, P., Hassbroek, G., Schultz, H., Sono, T. & Werner,
A. 2002. Human Resource Management. 5th ed. Cape Town: Oxford University
Press.

Newby, J.E. 1999. Job Satisfaction of Middle School Principles in Virginia

[online]. Doctor of Education dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Available from:
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-031899-
164059/unrestricted/BIBLIO2.PDF [Accessed May 2005]

Robbins, S. 2001. Organisational Behavior. 9th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-
Hall.

Seigle, D. 2005. Instrument Reliability-Educational Research-Del Seigle [online].

Storrs, Connecticut: Neag School of Education-University of Connecticut.
Available from:
http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/Instrument%20Reliability%20and%2
0Validity/rel_val_concept.htm [Accessed June 2005]

South Africa. Dept. of Labour. The National Skills Development Strategy. 2001a.
Setting the Context. Pretoria: Labour Market Skills Development Programme.

South Africa. Dept. of Labour. The National Skills Development Strategy. 2001b.
Skills for Productive Citizenship for All. Pretoria: Labour Market Skills
Development Programme.

South Africa. Dept. of Labour. The National Skills Development Strategy. 2001c.
Understanding the Laws. Pretoria: Labour Market Skills Development
Programme.

109
Spector, P.E. 1994. Job Satisfaction Survey, JSS Page [online]. Tampa,
Florida:[s.n].
Available from: http://chuma.cas.usf.edu/~spector/scales/jsspag.html
[Accessed June 2005]

Strydom, H., Fouche, C.B. & Delport, C.S.L. 2002. Research at Grass Roots for
the social sciences and human services professions. 2nd ed. Pretoria: Van
Schaik.

United Kingdom. Learning and Skills Council. 2004. National Learner Satisfaction
Survey : Work- Based Learning Summary Report 2002/2003
LSC/AA000/0887/04. [online]. London: Learning and Skills Council.
Available from: http://www.lsc.gov.uk [Accessed July 2005].

Walklett, A. 2005. Specific Challenges of work based learning [online].

Cornwall: The Association of Paint Craft Teachers.
Available from: http://members.aol.com/pcta2002/WBL.htm
[Accessed June 2006]

Walklin, L. 1990. Teaching and Learning in Further and Adult Education.

London: Stanley Thornes (Publishers) Ltd.

Weiss, D. J., Davis, R. V., England, G. W. & Lofquist, L. H. 1967. Manual for the
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota
Press.

Welman, J., & Kruger, S. 2003. Research Methodology. 2nd ed. Cape Town:
Oxford University Press.

110
 APPENDIX A

DEMOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET

Dear Respondent,

Please answer all questions Ref. No.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Section A: Please tick the appropriate box.

1. Gender

Male
Female

2. Age

16 – 20
21 – 25
26 – 30
31 – 35

3. Work Experience

Never worked before

Worked before

4. Highest level of Education

Grade 10 / STD 8, but lower than grade 12 / Matric

Matric
Diploma

111
 APPENDIX B

MINNESOTA SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE

Section B: Please read each statement carefully and ask yourself:

How satisfied am I with this aspect of my work in the factory?

Please tick the appropriate box

Extremely satisfied
Slightly satisfied

Very satisfied
When I am working in the factory, this is how I feel about….

Not satisfied

Satisfied
1 The chance of being of service to others
2 The chance to try out some of my own ideas
3 Being able to do the job without feeling it is morally wrong
4 The chance to work by myself
5 The variety in my work
6 The chance to have other workers look to me for direction
7 The chance to do the kind of work I do best
8 The social position in the community that goes with the work
9 The policies and practices towards the learners of this company
10 The way my supervisor and I understand each other.
11 My job security.
12 The amount of pay for the work that I do.
13 The working conditions (heat, light, ventilation, cold, dust, smoke)
14 The opportunities for advancement with the company
15 The technical know how of my supervisors
16 The spirit of cooperation among my co-workers.
17 The chance to be responsible for the planning of my work.
18 The way I am noticed when I do a good job.
19 Being able to see the results of the work that I do.
20 The chance to be active much of the time.
21 The chance to be of service to people.
22 The chance to do new and original things on my own.
23 Being able to do things that don‟t go against my religious beliefs.
24 The chance to work alone on the job.
25 The chance to do different things from time to time.

112
 Extremely satisfied
Slightly satisfied
When I am working in the factory, this is how I feel about….

Very satisfied
Not satisfied

Satisfied
26 The chance to tell other workers how to do things
27 The chance to do work that is well suited to my abilities
28 The chance to be “somebody” in the community
29 Company policies and the way they are administered
30 The way my boss handles his/her learners
31 The way my work in the factory provides for a secure future
32 The chance to make as much money as my friends
33 The physical surroundings where I work
34 The chances of getting ahead in my work
35 The competence of my supervisor in making decisions
36 The chance to develop close friendships with my co-workers
37 The chance to make decisions on my own
38 The way I get full credit for the work I do
39 Being able to take pride in a job well done
40 Being able to do something much of the time
41 The chance to help people
42 The chance to try something different
43 Being able to do things that don‟t go against my conscience
44 The chance to be alone on the job
45 The routine in my work
46 The chance to supervise other people
47 The chance to make use of my best abilities
48 The chance to “rub elbows” with important people
49 The way learners are informed about company policies
50 The way my boss backs up his/her learners (with management)
51 The way my work in the factory provides for steady employment
52 How my pay compares with that for similar jobs in other companies
53 The pleasantness of the working conditions
54 The way promotions are given out on this job
55 The way my boss delegates work to others
56 The friendliness of my co-workers
57 The chance to be responsible for the work of others
58 The recognition I get for the work I do
59 Being able to do something worthwhile
60 Being able to stay busy
61 The chance to do things for other people
62 The chance to develop new and better ways of doing the work
63 The chance to do things that don‟t harm other people
64 The chance to work independently of others
65 The chance to do something different every day

113
 Extremely satisfied
Slightly satisfied
When I am working in the factory, this is how I feel about….

Very satisfied
Not satisfied

Satisfied
66 The chance to tell people what to do
67 The chance to do something that makes use of my abilities
68 The chance to be important in the eyes of others
69 The way company policies are put into practice
70 The way my boss takes care of the complaints of his/her learners
71 How steady my work is
72 My pay and the amount of work I do
73 The physical working conditions of the job
74 The chances for advancement in the factory
75 The way my boss provides help on hard problems
76 The way my co-workers are easy to make friends with
77 The freedom to use my own judgment
78 The way they usually tell me when I do my work well
79 The chance to do my best at all times
80 The chance to be “on the go” all the times
81 The chance to be of some small service to other people
82 The chance to try my own methods of doing the work
83 The chance to do the work without feeling I am cheating anyone
84 The chance to work away from others
85 The chance to do many different things in the factory
86 The chance to tell other what to do
87 The chance to make use of my abilities and skills
88 The chance to have a definite place in the community
89 The way the company treats the learners in the factory
90 The personal relationship between my boss and his/her learners
91 The way layoffs and transfers are avoided in my job
92 How my pay compares with that of other workers
93 The working conditions
94 My chances for advancement
95 The way my boss trains his/her learners
96 The way my co-workers get along with each other
97 The responsibility of my job
98 The praise I get for doing a good job
99 The feeling of accomplishment I get from the job
100 Being able to keep busy all the time

114
 APPENDIX C

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF CONSENT

Dear Learner,

I am currently undertaking a research project as part of my studies towards an

MBA with the Business Studies Unit at the Durban Institute of Technology.
The aim of the research is to determine the current level of job satisfaction of the
level 1 learners within Masonite Africa (Ltd).

The answers you will provide in the questionnaire will be for research purposes
only.
As you can see your name does not appear on the questionnaire ensuring that
your identity and your answers remain both confidential and anonymous.
Participation is completely voluntary and you may decide to withdraw from the
study at any time.

As a willing participant in this research can you please sign and date your
consent.

I ………………………………………………………voluntarily agree to participate

by completing the attached questionnaire and fully understand that I will remain
anonymous and may withdraw at any time.
Signature ………………………………….Date………………………………………..

Your participation in this research will be greatly appreciated.

Yours faithfully,
Harry Prando.
Masonite Africa (Ltd)

115
 APPENDIX D

MINNESOTA SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE MATRIX

General Satisfaction questions

24 25 28 30 35 43 51 61 66 67
69 72 74 77 82 93 96 98 99 100

Job dimension questions

Ability utilization 7 27 47 67 87
Achievement 19 39 59 79 99
Activity 20 40 60 80 100
Advancement 14 34 54 74 94
Authority 6 26 46 66 86
Company policies and practices 9 29 49 69 89
Compensation 12 32 52 72 92
Co – workers 16 36 56 76 96
Creativity 2 22 42 62 82
Independence 4 24 44 64 84
Moral values 3 23 43 63 82
Recognition 18 38 58 78 98
Responsibility 17 37 57 77 97
Security 11 31 51 71 91
Social services 1 21 41 61 81
Social status 8 28 48 68 88
Supervision – human resources 10 30 50 70 90
Supervision – technical 15 35 55 75 95
Variety 5 25 45 65 85
Working conditions 13 33 53 73 93

116
 APPENDIX E

Coding Sheet for Data Analysis

Min- Variable
Variable Coding
Max
Range
type
Questionnaire
reference Unique number 1-94 94 Ratio
number
1 = Male
1) Gender 1-2 2 Nominal
2 = Female
1 = 16-20
2 = 21-25
2) Age 1-4 4 Nominal
3 = 26-30
4 = 31-35
1 = Never worked before
3) Work
2 = Worked before 1-2 2 Nominal
Experience
1 = Std 8 - <Std 10
4) Level of
2 = Std 10 1-3 3 Nominal
Education
3 = Diploma
1 = Not satisfied
2 = Slightly satisfied
5) MSQ
3 = Satisfied 1-5 5 Ordinal
Likert Scale
4 = Very satisfied
5 = Extremely satisfied

117