IDENTIFYING ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS OF JOB SATISFATION:

THE CASE OF ONE SERBIAN COMPANY

Nebojša Janićijević
University of Belgrade, Faculty of Economics
Panta Kovačević
Singidunum University, Faculty of Media and Communications
Ivana Petrović
University of Belgrade, Faculty of Philosophy
IDENTIFYING ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS OF JOB SATISFATION:
THE CASE OF ONE SERBIAN COMPANY

Abstract
This paper presents the results of exploratory research, the objective of which was to identify
organizational factors of job satisfaction. A stratified random sample of 1,488 employees from a
Serbian company answered a specially designed questionnaire, which asked them to rate the
importance of and their satisfaction with fifty job different aspects. The survey results were
analysed by means of three factor analyses, firstly using the data on the importance of job aspects,
secondly using the data on satisfaction with the job aspects, and thirdly using data on the gap
between the importance and satisfaction ratings. By synthesizing the results of the three factor
analyse, a total of six job satisfaction factors was obtained, three of which are identical to
previously identified factors and can be found in job satisfaction theory, two of which are
modifications of already identified factors, and one factor which is new in this field of research
.

Key words: job satisfaction, factors of job satisfaction, organization, factor analysis

JEL classification: M12, M10, M50

1
 1. Introduction

Job satisfaction consists of individuals’ cognitive, affective, and evaluative

reactions to their jobs (Locke 1969, 1976). Job satisfaction is complex, since it is
the result of evaluation of different job aspects that an employee rates on a daily
basis: the job itself, managers, pay, promotion opportunities, and co-workers
(Kinicki et al. 2002). Complete information about job satisfaction is considered to
be based on information about satisfaction with various aspects of work combined
with their respective valences (Kovacevic and Petrovic 2006). Locke (1969) and
Porter (1962) defined valence as a value, i.e., the importance of a job aspect that
shows the extent to which the aspect ‘satisfies’ the employee.

An individual will be satisfied with a job to the extent to which the job provides
those things or results that he/she considers important. Job satisfaction is an
individual construct because it is an individual attitude based on personal
experience. This is precisely what separates it from organizational climate, which
represents the average individual or collective attitudes of employees towards
working in an organization (Schneider, Erhart, and Macey 2001). This is why job
satisfaction research is always conducted at the individual level, which is also the
case in this paper. The importance and popularity of the job satisfaction concept
stems from its assumed, although relatively insufficiently proven, effect on
employees’ performance (Judge et al. 2001). The implicit, common sense
assumption that workers who are satisfied with their jobs will work better, take
less days off, be less likely to quit, and, even more, will generally feel better has
not been widely justified. The issue of a link between job satisfaction and
behaviour at work has not been clarified and we are still not able to determine if
job satisfaction influences behaviour at work or vice versa, if behaviour at work is
a source of satisfaction, or whether there is any correlation at all (Kovacevic and
Petrovic 2006; Staw 1986). However, the primary motive for exploring job
satisfaction remains its assumed impact on productivity.

Numerous factors that affect job satisfaction at both the organizational and
individual levels have been identified so far (Luthans 2005). Factors of job
satisfaction identified at the organizational level include the compensation system,
job characteristics, working conditions, leadership style, promotion opportunities,
and co-workers (Smith et al. 1969). Factors identified at the individual level are
matching of personal interests and job, years of service and age, position in
hierarchy, and overall life satisfaction. Organizational job satisfaction factors are
organizational elements that shape the work environment and that facilitate or
prevent employees getting what is important to them from their jobs. It is
important for the management to know the organizational job satisfaction factors
for at least two reasons. First, if they know the factors that determine employees’

2
job satisfaction in an organizational context, the management of the organization
will be able to raise the job satisfaction level by modifying these factors. Second,
organizational factors are by definition more controlled by management than
individual factors, and so are a more productive means of improving employee
job satisfaction than attempting to impact individual factors.

The objective of this paper is to empirically identify the factors of organizational

job satisfaction. The purpose of the paper is to group the relatively large number
of job aspects that impact employee satisfaction into a smaller number of factors
for management to manipulate, thereby impacting employee job satisfaction.
Since research with a similar purpose has already been carried out, this paper will
test those previous results and further develop them.

2. Literature review

A review of the literature reveals that most authors agree that job satisfaction is
influenced by the job itself, compensation, supervision, promotion, working
conditions, and the work group and relations within it (Luthans 2005; Scarpello
and Campbell 1983).

According to many, the job itself is the most important source of job satisfaction.
Several dimensions of the job are correlated with job satisfaction (Wong, Hiu, and
Law 1998). Autonomy at work and feedback on results are very strongly
intertwined with job satisfaction. Also, the creativity that a job allows an
employee, and which is related to the job being interesting and challenging, is a
very important factor in job satisfaction. Finally, a job that enables opportunities
for growth is also mentioned as a job satisfaction factor.

In most studies, pay is an inevitable job satisfaction factor (Luthans, 2005). Pay is
a multidimensional phenomenon and impacts job satisfaction in several ways
(Carraher and Buckley 1996; Judge 1993). Although the amount of pay is the
most obvious job satisfaction factor, it is certainly not the only aspect of
compensation that influences job satisfaction. Besides the amount of pay, pay
distribution, perceived fairness of compensation, and pay security are also
important for job satisfaction. Likewise, pay is not only important in meeting
employees’ hygienic or existential needs (Herzberg 1964). It can affect employee
satisfaction by enabling them to meet their higher-order needs, since
compensation also has a symbolic character. Compensation shows employees how
much the management appreciates their contribution and effort. Finally, benefits
are also one of the elements of the compensation system that affect job
satisfaction, although their impact is somewhat smaller.

3
Managers and their supervision of employees are an important factor in employee
satisfaction. This factor has two key dimensions. On the one hand, both technical
and social and psychological support and help provided by managers are
important for employee satisfaction. Employees want their managers to be
available to help when needed in completing their tasks, but also to provide
personal support and be open and friendly in their communication. The other
dimension of managers and their supervision is the degree that employees are
included in decision-making. Several researchers have shown a correlation
between employee participation and job satisfaction (Miller and Monge 1986).

Employee promotion has slightly less value in employee satisfaction in

contemporary organizations (Luthans 2005). In modern organizations that are
‘thinning’ the hierarchy and becoming more and more ‘shallow’, there is
increasingly less room for the traditional type of promotion by climbing the
hierarchy ladder. Instead of the traditional type of promotion, a space is being
created for promotion through employees’ growth.

Relations between colleagues in a work group are a job satisfaction factor that has
an asymmetrical impact (Luthans 2005): if the relations in a group are good, it
will raise the level of job satisfaction to a relatively small degree, but if the
relations between colleagues in a work group are bad, it will decrease the job
satisfaction level to a greater extent and more significantly. Research has shown
that a tightly connected work group can be a source of satisfaction for its members
(Van der Vegt, Emans, and Vliert 2001). Employees expect their work group co-
workers to be helpful and supportive and to create a pleasant atmosphere in the
work group. Cross-cultural research has shown that collectivism in a national
culture influences the importance of this job satisfaction factor (Janićijević 1998).

Working conditions are a typical hygiene factor with an asymmetrical impact on

job satisfaction (Herzberg, 1964): if working conditions are good the employees
will not be dissatisfied, but if they are bad the employees will be dissatisfied.
Working conditions are considered to be the different dimensions of physical
conditions at work, such as sanitation, noise, physical safety, etc.

By exploring the job satisfaction factors in the company we selected, we tried to

determine if the factors of job satisfaction described here are really important, and
if they needed modifying or supplementing.

4
 3. Research methodology

3.1. The Sample

The research was conducted using a sample of 1,488 employees from a large
company in Serbia. This research therefore has the characteristics of a case study,
which despite its limitations regarding generalization of conclusions still provides
one very important advantage: the case study research method enables focus and
an in-depth exploration of the observed phenomenon, as well as contextual
analysis. Since the objective of this research is explorative identification of job
satisfaction factors, a case study of satisfaction in one company is more suitable
than comparative research into employee satisfaction in several companies. In
addition, a sample taken from just one company alleviates the problem of the
impact of certain company characteristics on job satisfaction.

The chosen company offers several advantages for this study. It is a very large
company that enables good sampling, covering a relatively large and diversified
sample of employees. Second, the chosen company is very heterogeneous
according to several criteria, which enables including in the sample employees
that differ according to the type of work they perform, their sex, education, and
age, and the organizational units they belong to. Finally, this company is very
successful and significant in Serbia, and for the past several years has been highly
positioned in the list of companies nominated for ‘The Best Place to Work At’
prize.

A stratified random sample was used for the research. The sample was stratified
according to sex, age, education, type of job, and organizational unit by taking a
certain percentage of employees from each stratum.

The distribution and collection of questionnaires was designed to provide

maximum anonymity and confidentiality to the subjects. They received envelopes
addressed to one of the University of Belgrade’s faculties so they would be sure
that the filled-in questionnaires would go directly to the University’s researchers,
whereby the anonymity of the respondents was guaranteed.

The response rate was 75%. A response rate this high could be the consequence of
several factors: employee confidence in the anonymity of the responses; the
interest of the employees in the topic of research; or the involvement of the
company’s Department of Human Resources in the distribution of the
questionnaires, so that the employees may have perceived filling in the
questionnaires as a work requirement.

5
The distribution of the questionnaire matched the employee structure in all
selected criteria. Thus the sample consisted of 73% male and 27% female
respondents. The most numerous age group consisted of employees age 36–45
(38% of the total number of employees), followed by employees in the age group
45–55 (30% of the total number of employees). Most subjects in the sample had
secondary education (65%), and 32% of the sample subjects had higher education.

3.2. The Research Instrument

A specially designed questionnaire on job satisfaction was used for the purpose of
this research. The use of a tailor-made instead of a standard questionnaire is
justified by the exploratory nature of the research. The questionnaire was
exhaustive, but also simple in structure. It contained 50 items that covered 50 job
aspects, and the employees rated the importance of these aspects and their
satisfaction with them. Starting from Locke’s (1969, 1976) understanding of job
satisfaction, we required the subjects to rate every single aspect according to two
criteria: importance and degree of satisfaction. They were rated on a scale of 1
(not at all important/not at all satisfied) to 5 (very important/very satisfied). The
questionnaire also contained questions on the respondent himself/herself. The
purpose of filling in the questionnaire, the way in which it should be filled in, and
the way the results would be disseminated were explained at the beginning of the
questionnaire, together with a call for honesty and a guarantee of anonymity.

The key objective when designing the questionnaire was to identify the job
aspects to be included. Several important rules were applied for the realization of
this objective. First, the job aspects included in the questionnaire had to be
organizational in character, that is, they had to be controlled by the organization
and its management and not by the individual himself/herself. Second, the
questionnaire was designed to be as representative as possible of all the
organizational aspects of job satisfaction, encompassing all aspects of life and
work within the company. Third, we included as many job aspects as possible in
the research, since we intended to use factor analysis to identify job satisfaction
factors.

The process of identifying the job aspects to be included in the questionnaire was
long and consisted of three phases. In the first phase the initial list of job aspects
was based on a literature review and the authors’ previous research. This list was
then modified by adding or deleting items based on previous research (Janićijević,
1998; Kovačević, Petrović, 2006; Petrović, Kovacević, Kutlešić, 2007) . Thus, an
initial list of 34 job aspects to be included in the research was created.

6
The second phase in designing the job aspects list was a total of 38 semi-
structured interviews with employees (including managers) at the company
premises. The objective was to verify the relevance of job aspects from the initial
list and to modify the list by adding or deleting items in order to include all the
job aspects important for employee satisfaction. The sample of employees and
managers to be interviewed was created according to type of work, level in the
hierarchy, sex, years of service, organizational unit, and territorial unit. At least
one employee was interviewed from each of the defined strata. The interviews
lasted for one hour. The semi-structured interview contained ten semi-open-ended
questions about the company and the work within it. The questions covered the
job itself, working conditions, organization, managers, interpersonal relations with
colleagues, compensation, fringe benefits, training and development, and
promotion. The questions were both direct (What is important for you to be
satisfied with your job?) and indirect (What is a good organization in your view?
How would you describe a good manager? What in the company makes your
colleagues satisfied, and what makes them dissatisfied?).

The interviews resulted in modification of the initial job dimensions list in three
different ways. First, some job aspects from the initial list were modified, because
the interviews revealed that they did not have the same meaning for the
employees as they did for the researchers who had previously used them. These
aspects were modified to have the employees’ meaning. Second, through the
interviews a significant number of job aspects were added to the list that had not
appeared in any previous research, at least not in this form and with this meaning,
as interviewed employees showed that these aspects were significant for their job
satisfaction. Finally, some job aspects were simply deleted from the list, since the
interviews revealed that they carried no significance for employee satisfaction. As
a result of this phase, a list of 42 job aspects was created.

The third phase in designing the list of job aspects consisted of an electronic
survey of the employees in which they rated the importance of the 42 job aspects
identified in the previous two phases. The questionnaire also contained an open-
ended question on satisfaction with work in the company. The aim of this
questionnaire was another check of the job aspects to be included in the research.
The survey was conducted by uploading the questionnaire onto the company’s
website and inviting all the employees to fill it in. Open access was provided and
no passwords were required to fill in the questionnaire. Information was provided
on the purpose of the questionnaire, the instructions for filling it in, and the way
the results would be disseminated. The anonymity of the answers and the
importance of truthful answering were especially emphasized.

7
The questionnaire was accessible for 30 days, and during that time 444 employees
filled it in. Special attention was paid to the job aspects that the employees did not
rate at all, as well as to those that were rated as extremely important or that had
insufficient variability. In addition, the answers to the open-ended question were
processed and used to add some other job aspects that the employees pointed to in
their answers. The result of the third and final phase was a list of 50 job aspects.

The instrument was highly reliable, both for the importance and satisfaction
assessments. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.961 for the importance
assessments, and 0.968 for the satisfaction assessments.

3.3. Research Method

The main objective of this research was explorative in character and consisted of
identifying organizational factors of job satisfaction. The suitable research method
for achieving this objective was factor analysis. However, this research was
distinctive because it performed three factor analyses instead of one and the
conclusions were based on a synthesis of the three analyses. The reason for this
lies in Porter (1962) and Locke’s (1969, 1976) understanding of job satisfaction,
which was the foundation for this research. In their view, employee satisfaction is
equally determined by satisfaction with particular aspects of work and the
expectations that the organization members have of these aspects. Thus job
satisfaction was operationalized as the gap between the importance that job
aspects had for employees and their satisfaction with them. By surveying
employees, three evaluations were received for each job aspect: ratings of
importance, ratings of satisfaction, and ratings of the size of the gap between
importance and satisfaction. In the first factor analysis, 50 job aspects were
grouped into a smaller number of groups by means of importance rating, the
second factor analysis grouped these 50 aspects based on the ratings of employee
satisfaction with these job aspects, while the third factor analysis grouped job
aspects based on the ratings of the gap between importance and satisfaction.
Through analysis and synthesis of the obtained factors in all of the three factor
analyses we were able to comprehensively determine the factors of job
satisfaction.

All of the three factor analyses were conducted using SPSS software.
Factorization of matrix of intercorrelations was done using principal components
extraction method with Varimax rotation. The number of extracted factors was
defined according to the Kaiser criterion (Lambda > 1). The factors that,
individually, explain at least 5% variance were interpreted. Factor loadings of
0.400 and greater were considered relevant for interpretation.

8
 4. Results of the research

The first research results were ratings of the importance of job aspects and
employee satisfaction with job aspects in the company in which the research was
conducted. The gap between importance and satisfaction was calculated for each
aspect. This revealed that out of 50 job aspects, those associated with security and
social relations between employees were the most important for the employees:
regular and secure wages, secure employment, respect for employee rights, good
relations and communication with colleagues, and a friendly work atmosphere.
Neither the amount of salary nor the job itself was in the top 10 most important
job aspects. The employees in the observed company were most satisfied with the
job aspects that were related to security and social relations: regular pay, good
relations between colleagues, but also respect for employee rights. The employees
revealed that they were least satisfied with the job aspects emerging from human
resources management: promotion, training and development, keeping employees
informed, and fairness of the compensation system. The greatest gap between
importance and satisfaction lies in the same job aspects: promotion, training and
development, keeping employees informed, and fairness of the compensation
system.

Since the objective of this research was to identify organizational factors of job
satisfaction by means of factor analyses, the most important result of the research
consisted of the results of the three conducted factor analyses of the job aspect
ratings. The organizational factors of job satisfaction obtained individually by
each of the three factor analyses will be presented first, and then these results will
be compared and synthesized.
4.1. The First Factor Analysis

The first factor analysis was of the employees’ ratings of the importance of the 50
job aspects. Nine factors explained a total of 59.64% of the variance. Only six
interpretable factors explaining 47.32% of the variance were included in analysis,
and the final three factors were left out based on the percentage of the explained
variance, the number of loaded items, and interpretability (Table 1).

Table 1: Organizational factors of job satisfaction measured based on ratings of

importance
FACTOR 1: CONDITIONS OF WORK (11.055% variance)
Job aspect Loading
Availability of information necessary to perform work well .642
Absence of tension and pressure on employees .616
Clear work organization with precise division of work tasks .615
Safe working conditions .595
Physical working conditions .572

9
Objective evaluation of individual performance .538
Absence of tension and pressure at work .521
Promotion based on clear and known criteria .503
Respect for employee rights .501
Clearly defined work tasks and responsibilities .466
Opportunity to take initiative at work .445
Fair criteria in defining salaries .407

FACTOR 2: RELATIONS BETWEEN COLLEAGUES AT WORK (9.505% variance)

Job aspect Loading
Friendly atmosphere at work .734
Good communication between colleagues .705
Good relations between colleagues .687
Support provided by colleagues .675
Absence of conflict between employees .581
Competent and reliable colleagues .509
Absence of tension and pressure on employees .485
Help and support from managers in performing work tasks .411

FACTOR 3: THE JOB ITSELF (7.431% variance)

Job aspect Loading
Challenging and interesting job .753
Dynamic job .730
Stimulating job with few routine tasks .662
Opportunities for travelling abroad on business .554
Job content, activities within the work .442
Opportunity to take initiative at work .437
Opportunities for professional development and training .420

FACTOR 4: COMPANY’S SIGNIFICANCE (6.971% variance)

Job aspect Loading
Company in a field of business important to society .779
Company’s public image and reputation .729
High degree of discipline .530
Informing employees on general state of affairs in the company .471
Informing employees on the news in different parts of the company .426
Opportunities to get different benefits .420

FACTOR 5: MANAGERS (6.572% variance)

Job aspect Loading
Highly competent managers .716
Managers who respect employees and are open to their suggestions .614
Good organizational skills of the manager .581
Availability of the manager to his/her subordinates .532
Help and support from the managers in performing work tasks .426

FACTOR 6: COMPENSATION SYSTEM (6.378% variance)

10
 Job aspect Loading
Compensation system in which the employees’ salaries depend on their level of .616
expertise
Compensation system that does not discriminate according to the part of the .606
organization in which the employee works
Compensation system in which salaries depend solely on achieved results .582
Salary equal to invested effort .584
Fair criteria in defining salaries .489

Job aspects grouped in Importance Factor 1, which accounted for most of the
variance in job aspects’ importance percentage, have one characteristic in
common: they all relate to conditions necessary for the employee to perform
his/her work tasks effectively and successfully. Availability of information
necessary for performing work, clear work organization, good working
conditions, objective performance appraisal, clearly defined work tasks and
responsibilities, respecting employee rights defined in the collective labour
contract, and even promotion based on clear criteria and opportunity to take
initiative at work are all necessary conditions for an employee to use his/her
potential in the work place and successfully accomplish his/her work tasks. This
factor shows just how important the need for security is to the employees.

Job aspects related to colleagues at work are grouped in Importance Factor 2.

Good relations between colleagues, absence of conflict between colleagues, good
communication and a friendly atmosphere at work, as well as support by
competent and reliable colleagues in performing tasks are all important job
satisfaction aspects. This factor is related to employees’ need for relatedness and
belonging (Alderfer 1969).

Importance Factor 3 of employee satisfaction relates to the job itself. It includes

job aspects such as the challenging and dynamic character of the job, absence of
routine in work, content of the job, and opportunity to take initiative at work and
for further professional training. This factor of job satisfaction is related to
employees’ need for growth (Alderfer 1969).

The job aspects in the fourth group have two common characteristics, the
significance and reputation of the company and keeping employees informed. It is
important to the employees that the company they work in has a broader social
significance, and that they are kept informed about everything related to the
company.

The job aspects in Importance Factor 5 relate to managers. It is important to the

employees that their managers are competent and have good organizational skills.
It is also important that the managers are open to employees’ suggestions and that

11
they respect employees. Managers are also expected to provide help and support
to the employees in performing tasks.

The last identified factor, Importance Factor 6, relates to the compensation

system, and comprises job aspects that correspond not to the amount of pay but to
the fairness of the reward system: fair criteria for determining salary, salary that
corresponds to invested effort, results, and expertise, and a non-discriminatory
compensation system.

4.2. The Second Factor Analysis

The second factor analysis was of employee ratings of satisfaction with job
aspects. This factor analysis identified eight factors, which explained 62.6% of
variance. The first six factors explaining 57.59% of variance were included in the
analysis, as we decided to disregard the last two factors based on the percentage
of the explained variance, the number of loaded items, and interpretability (Table
2).

Table 2: Organizational factors of job satisfaction, measured based on ratings of

satisfaction with job aspects
FACTOR 1: REWARDING RESULTS AND CREATING CONDITIONS FOR
ACHIEVING THEM (13.763% variance)
Job aspect Loading
Compensation system in which salaries depend solely on achieved results .737
Fair criteria for determining salaries .711
Compensation system in which salaries depend on level of expertise .708
Salary equal to invested effort .680
Compensation system that does not discriminate according to the part of the .680
organization in which the employee works
Amount of salary .639
Promotion based on clear and known criteria .613
Opportunities for professional growth and training .544
Objective evaluation of individual performance .534
Quality introductory training .529
Appreciation and acknowledgement by the managers of a job well done .424
Clear work organization with precise division of work tasks .417
Good cooperation between different organizational units .411

FACTOR 2: MANAGERS (10.824% variance)

Job aspect Loading
Help and support by the managers in performing work tasks .748
Availability of the manager to his/her subordinates .746
Good organizational skills of the manager .724
Manager who respects the employees and is open to their suggestions .720
Highly competent managers .704

12
 Appreciation and acknowledgement by the managers of a job well done .523
Opportunities for taking initiatives at work .424
Absence of tension and pressure at work .412
Absence of tension and pressure on the employees .410

FACTOR 3: RELATIONS BETWEEN COLLEAGUES (10.469% variance)

Job aspect Loading
Good communication between colleagues .855
Friendly atmosphere at work .842
Good relations between colleagues .809
Absence of conflict between employees .778
Support provided by colleagues .696
Competent and reliable colleagues .647
High degree of employee discipline .410

FACTOR 4: COMPANY AS A SUPPORT (10.466% variance)

Job aspect Loading
A company that employees can rely on if they get into trouble .726
Opportunities to get different benefits .648
Company cares about its employees .608
Employees kept informed about the general state of affairs in the company .605
Company in a field of business important to society .600
Company’s public image and reputation .592
Respecting employees’ rights defined in the Collective Labour Contract .521
Informing employees on the news in different parts of the company .486
Job that does not require overtime work .455

FACTOR 5: JOB ITSELF (6.904% variance)

Job aspect Loading
Dynamic job .792
Challenging and interesting job .781
Stimulating job with few routine tasks .655
Job content, activities within the work .547

FACTOR 6: BASIC WORK CONDITIONS (5.164% variance)

Job aspect Loading
Safe working conditions .727
Physical working conditions .711
Availability of the necessary work assets and equipment .620
Availability of information necessary for performing quality work .469

The first identified Satisfaction Factor relates to creating the conditions for
employees to achieve results at work, as well as to rewarding the employees for
results (Table 2). From the organizational perspective standpoint, three types of
aspects may be observed within this factor: 1) aspects related to the system of
compensation, or rewarding of employees (including the amount of pay); 2)
aspects related to training and development of employees, as well as to their

13
promotion; and 3) aspects related to clear and effective work organization in the
company. Thus employees establish a connection between satisfaction with
rewards and creating the conditions for completion of tasks and achieving the
results that are rewarded. These conditions consist of effective organization and
human resources management. In this respect, this factor has a common
characteristic with the first factor of importance, because it too includes job
dimensions related to the conditions for effective completion of tasks - with one
difference, which is that these conditions relate to information and working
conditions.

Satisfaction Factor 2 includes job aspects that refer to managers (Table 2).
According to this factor, employees’ satisfaction with their job depends on the
managers’ competence, their availability and the support they provide to
employees, their openness to employees’ suggestions, and their providing expert
help to employees in performing work. It is interesting that the opportunity to take
initiative at work is a job aspect that is included in this factor. This could mean
that employees relate the opportunity to take initiative at work to satisfaction with
managers and their management style. It is also interesting that absence of tension
and pressures on the employees is related to good managers.

Satisfaction Factor 3 of job satisfaction relates to colleagues at work (Table 2).

This factor corresponds to Importance Factor 2 of the job aspect importance
ratings. It shows that good relations between colleagues, which create a friendly
atmosphere at work, stand out in employee satisfaction.

Satisfaction Factor 4 could be called ‘Company as a support’ or ‘Company

support’ (Table 2). Satisfaction with company as a support covers respecting
employee rights and ‘caring’ for the employees through providing them with
different benefits and necessary information on the work of the company, and it
also covers the company as a support in case of personal hardship, the company’s
significance, and the company’s public reputation.

Satisfaction Factor 5 relates to the job itself (Table 2) and corresponds to

Importance Factor 3 (Table 1). This factor includes aspects such as the
challenging and dynamic nature of the work, absence of routine tasks, and job
content.

Finally, Satisfaction Factor 6 (Table 2) partly corresponds to Importance Factor 1

(Table 1). This is the reason we gave it the same name: ‘Basic working
conditions’. It should be pointed out that some job aspects, such as promotion,
performance appraisal, and absence of tension and pressure, are present in
Importance Factor 1, but are absent in the corresponding Satisfaction Factor 6.

14
 4.3. The Third Factor Analysis

The third factor analysis was performed using the gap between importance ratings
of job aspects and ratings of employee satisfaction with job aspects (Table 3). As
a result, eight factors were identified explaining a total of 60.796% of variance in
the gap between importance of job aspects and satisfaction with job aspects.
Based on the percentage of the explained variance, the number of loaded items,
and their interpretability, the first five factors, which explain 47.097% of variance,
were included in the analysis.

Table 3: Organizational factors of job satisfaction, measured based on the gap

between importance of job aspects and satisfaction with job aspects
FACTOR 1: REWARDING RESULTS AND CREATING CONDITIONS FOR
ACHIEVING THEM (12.047% variance)
Job aspect Loading
Salary equal to invested effort .719
Fair criteria in determining salaries .710
Compensation system in which salaries depend solely on achieved results .709
Promotion based on clear and known criteria .663
Compensation system in which salaries depend on level of expertise .659
Objective evaluation of individual performance .606
Amount of salary .602
Compensation system that does not discriminate according to the part of the .582
organization in which the employee works
Company cares about its employees .428
Appreciation and acknowledgement by the managers of a job well done .427
Clear work organization with precise division of work tasks .406

FACTOR 2: PSYCHOLOGICAL, SOCIAL, AND PHYSICAL SAFETY AT WORK

(10.004 % variance)
Job aspect Loading
Physical working conditions .619
Job that does not require overtime work .563
Safe working conditions .559
Absence of tension and pressure at work .556
Opportunity to get different benefits .547
A company that employees can rely on if they get into trouble .545
Absence of tension and pressure on employees .545
Respect for employee rights .497
Informing employees of the general state of affairs in the company .484
Availability of information necessary for performing quality work .470
Informing employees of the news in different parts of the company .466
Company cares about its employees .454

FACTOR 3: RELATIONS BETWEEN COLLEAGUES (9.754% variance)

15
 Job aspect Loading
Good communication between colleagues .818
Friendly atmosphere at work .812
Good relations between colleagues .789
Absence of conflict between employees .745
Support provided by colleagues .639
Competent and reliable colleagues .588

FACTOR 4: MANAGERS (8.037% variance)

Job aspect Loading
Highly competent managers .691
Availability of the manager to his/her subordinates .669
Help and support by the managers in performing work tasks .664
Manager who respects employees and is open to their suggestions .660
Good organizational skills of the manager .647
Appreciation and acknowledgement by the managers for a job well done .433

FACTOR 5: THE JOB ITSLEF (6.895% variance)

Job aspect Loading
Dynamic job .762
Challenging and interesting job .759
Stimulating job with few routine tasks .729
Job content, activities within the work .489

The first and the most important Gap Factor in factor analysis of the gap between
importance and satisfaction (Table 3) corresponds in many ways to Satisfaction
Factor 1, rewarding results and creating conditions for achieving them (Table 2).
This was why we gave it the same name. This factor includes 11 job aspects
related to the following: 1) fairness of the compensation system (fair criteria, non-
discriminatory compensation, salary that corresponds to invested effort, results,
and expertise); and 2) conditions of work (objective performance appraisal, clear
organization, care of employees, promotion based on clear criteria). It is
interesting that managers’ appreciation and acknowledgement of work well done
are included in this factor, as it means that employees view this appreciation as a
kind of reward.

The second factor in the gap analysis includes several job aspects that relate to the
psychological, social, and physical safety of employees at work. In an
organizational sense, three types of job satisfaction component were distinguished
here. The first type relates to physical conditions and safety at work. The second
type relates to social aspects of employee safety: employee rights, employee
benefits, the company as a support for employees in case of hardship, and that the
company care about its employees. The third type of job aspect relates to keeping
employees informed. These can all be regarded as components of employee
safety. It is interesting that this factor shares some job aspects with Importance

16
Factor 1, ‘Working conditions’ (Table 1), as well as with Satisfaction Factors
‘Basic working conditions’ and ‘Company as support’ (Table 2).

Gap Factor 3 includes job aspects related to relations between colleagues and
work atmosphere (Table 3). This factor is present in all of the three factor
analyses.

Gap Factor 4 in the gap factor analysis (Table 3) is also in the previous analyses
(Tables 1 and 2) and relates to managers, their expertise, and their attitude
towards employees.

The final factor, Gap Factor 5, includes job dimensions related to the content and
characteristics of the job itself (Table 3). This factor is also found in each factor
analysis (Tables 1 and 2): hence it confirms that job content and characteristics
are an important employee satisfaction factor.

5. Discussion of the results

The objective of this paper is to identify organizational factors of employee job

satisfaction through explorative research. For this purpose 50 job aspects
important for employee satisfaction were identified in one company, based on the
literature, interviews, and an internet survey. The, employees were then asked to
rate the importance of and their satisfaction with the identified job aspects on a 5-
point scale. Since each job aspect was rated based on its importance and the
satisfaction it provides, it was possible to calculate the gap between these two
ratings for each aspect. The gap was taken as an indicator of real job satisfaction
level. Factor analysis was used to obtain a smaller number of aspect groups based
on certain organizational factors of job satisfaction. As each job aspect had three
ratings (importance rating, satisfaction rating, and gap between importance and
satisfaction rating) it was possible to perform three factor analyses and compare
their results.

The factor analysis based on the gap between importance and satisfaction resulted
in eight organizational factors of job satisfaction, five of which were retained,
while the factor analyses based on the satisfaction ratings of job aspects and on
the importance ratings of job aspects grouped all job aspects into eight and nine
factors respectively, six of which were retained in each analysis. By comparing
the retained factors in all of the three factor analyses and by synthesizing them,
we obtained results that provide a wider picture of the organizational factors of
job satisfaction.

17
At first glance, by reviewing Tables 1, 2, and 3, it is apparent that there is a great
degree of agreement between the results of all three factor analyses with respect to
the criteria defined by Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum (1957). The number of
retained factors is almost the same, i.e., five factors in the third, and six factors in
both the first and the second analyses. There is the same type of factor in all of the
three analyses – three factors appear in all of them – while two factors appear in
two out of three analyses, and the same aspects of job satisfaction are loaded on
these factors. The structure of factor loadings on corresponding factors is similar.

The three factors that appear in almost identical form in all three analyses are
‘Managers’, ‘Relations between colleagues’, and ‘The job itself’. We can
therefore conclude that these are indisputable organizational factors of job
satisfaction. These three factors have appeared in earlier job satisfaction research
(Luthans 2005), which means that in this respect our research confirms previous
results. However, in neither of the analyses are these three factors Factor 1, i.e.,
the factor explaining most of the variability of the observed phenomenon.

The factor ‘Managers’ corresponds in large part to the factor that has been
identified as an important source of employee satisfaction in most earlier research.
When the content of the factor ‘Managers’ is analysed, it is notable that in all of
the three factor analyses it includes only one job aspect that can be found included
in the literature (Luthans 2005). ‘Managers’ includes only job aspects that are
related to managers’ competencies, their availability, and readiness to help with
advice and suggestions and provide help and support to employees. Another
dimension of this factor identified in earlier research (e.g., Miller and Monge
1986) relating to the involvement of employees in decision-making did not appear
in this research. No job aspects relating to employee participation were included
in the questionnaire because the employees did not mention it at any point during
the designing of the questionnaire. It was therefore concluded that this job aspect
was not important to the employees. This can be explained, at least in part, by
Serbian history and culture (Hofstede 2001), in which strong leadership which
provides protection, help, and care is preferred to being included in decision-
making.

The factor ‘Relations between colleagues’ includes the same job aspects in all
three factor analyses. They indicate that it is important for employee satisfaction
that colleagues are competent and reliable and have good communication, without
conflict, resulting in a friendly work atmosphere. This factor has also appeared
with very similar content in earlier job satisfaction studies (Luthans 2005).
However, in the organization in which this research was conducted the emphasis
on the social component of relations between colleagues is greater than in
previous research. ‘Relations between colleagues’ is the second or third factor

18
according to the percentage of the explained variance, which is somewhere
between 9% and 10% in all three analyses. This factor includes six or seven job
aspects, which also include the aspects that, when observed individually, belong
to the group of aspects with the highest ratings of importance: good relations
between colleagues (third out of 50 aspects in importance), good communication
with colleagues (sixth out of 50 aspects in importance), and friendly work
atmosphere (seventh out of 50 aspects in importance). In accordance with some
earlier research, we may assume that in collectivist cultures such as Serbia
(Hofstede 2001) the importance of social relations within the collective, and
therefore within this factor, is higher than in individualist cultures. Factors
‘Managers’ and ‘Relations between colleagues’ may at the theoretical level be
related to Alderfer’s Relatedness Needs (Alderfer, 1969).

In all of the three factor analyses the factor ‘The job itself’ grouped the same job
aspects, and referred to the challenging and dynamic characteristics of a job and to
the absence of routine tasks. This factor has appeared in earlier studies and has
been measured by The Job Descriptive Index (JDI), a well-known standardized
job satisfaction instrument. However, while in previous research this factor is
almost always the most important (Luthans, 2005), in this research it does not
have such great significance. Individually observed, job aspects grouped in this
factor are, according to the employees’ importance ratings, in the lower part of the
list. It seems that the creativity of the job is not as important to the employees in
this company as some other factors. This is understandable, considering the nature
of the work, which for most employees means following defined rules and
procedures.

The analysis of organizational factors of job satisfaction becomes even more

interesting when factors appearing in just one or two factor analyses or factors
appearing in different forms are analysed. The first group of such factors relates to
rewarding employee results and to creating conditions for employees to achieve
these results. The first factor in the factor analyses based on satisfaction ratings of
job aspects and on the gap between importance and satisfaction ratings of job
aspects has the same name, ‘Rewarding results and creating conditions for
achieving them’, but the content is somewhat different. Nevertheless, the key job
aspects included in these two factors that explain most of the variance in the two
factor analyses are the same. There are two groups of aspects in this factor: the
first contains job aspects related to the compensation system in the narrow sense
of the phrase. Fairness is the most prominent feature of the compensation system
as a Satisfaction Factor. According to Adams’ Equity Theory (Adams 1965;
Adams & Freedman 1976; Haesevoets et al. 2013), perceived fairness is the key
to employee motivation and satisfaction. The results of this research confirm that
in order for the compensation system to generate employee satisfaction the

19
rewards must depend on the employees’ work, achieved performance, and
competence, and must not be differentiated according to the organizational unit in
which the employee works. Promotion based on clear and known criteria is also
included in this factor, which could mean that employees perceive job promotion
as a reward for accomplished performance. The second sub-group of job aspects
included in the factor ‘Rewarding results and creating conditions for achieving
them’ is related to conditions that, in the view of the employees, should exist in
order for them to be able to achieve results for which they are rewarded. These
conditions, based on the second factor analysis of satisfaction ratings, are
somewhat broader and include objective performance appraisal, opportunities for
training and development, and good work organization within the company.
According to the third factor analysis of the gap between satisfaction and
importance ratings, conditions for successfully achieving performance are
somewhat narrower and are only related to objective performance appraisal and
good work organization, while training and education are not present as a
condition. Promotion based on clear and fair criteria, which also appeared in the
factor analysis based on gaps, could also be treated as part of the conditions
necessary for achieving performance. In the first factor analysis, based on the
importance ratings of job aspects, compensation system appears as Factor 6. This
factor groups three dimensions related to the wages system in the narrower sense.
Theoretically, these two factors relate to Alderfer’s Existence Needs (Alderfer
1969) and correspond to supervision and co-workers’ facets in the standardized
job satisfaction instrument, the JDI.

Another group of factors that are related to the same field and appear in all three
factor analyses, although in somewhat different form, are the factors related to
working conditions. This group includes three factors. In factor analysis of
importance ratings of job aspects, Factor 1, which explains the highest percentage
of the variance, is related to work conditions, and groups as many as ten job
aspects. It is called ‘Conditions of work’. In the third factor analysis of the gap
between job aspects’ importance and job aspects’ satisfaction, the second factor,
which includes 11 dimensions and explains as much as 10% of the variance, also
belongs to the same field and is called ‘Psychological, social, and physical safety
at work’. In the second factor analysis of job aspects satisfaction ratings, the last
retained factor, Factor 6, which explains the smallest part of variance in this
analysis and which groups only four job aspects, is named ‘Basic working
conditions. There are numerous similarities between and overlapping of these
three factors, but there are also differences between them that meant they had to
be named differently. The first two factors in this group, ‘Conditions of work’ and
‘Psychological, social, and physical safety at work’, share 6 out of 10 and 11 job
aspects respectively. The job aspects that overlap in these two factors are related
to safety and physical working conditions, absence of tension and pressure on

20
employees, respecting employee rights, and availability of information necessary
for performing work. But there are significant differences in both the remaining
job aspects and the relative importance of the shared job aspects, which is why
these two factors are not considered to be the same. In the ‘Conditions of work’
factor, the job aspects that dominate indicate that employee satisfaction includes
the necessary organizational conditions for performing work tasks. Thus the three
aspects with the highest factor loading on this factor are availability of
information necessary for performing work, absence of tension and pressure, and
clear work organization with precise task division. Aspects related to safety and
physical working conditions come afterwards. This factor includes aspects that
indicate organizational systems that should also contribute to favourable
conditions for performing work tasks, such as objective performance appraisal
and promotion based on clear criteria. In addition to respecting employee rights,
this factor includes clearly defined work tasks, which intensifies the impression
that this factor is actually describing the conditions necessary for the employee to
perform his/her work in peace and without tension.

Unlike the ‘Conditions of work’ factor, the factor that we named ‘Psychological,
social, and physical safety at work’ includes job aspects that strongly emphasize
the safety of employees in their workplace. In this factor, unlike the previous one,
the three job aspects with the highest factor loadings are physical working
conditions, safe working conditions, and absence of overtime work. When
absence of tension and pressure on the employees, respect for employees’ rights,
and company that employees can rely on are added to this, then the true nature of
this factor can be revealed as comprising physical as well as social and
psychological safety. Therefore it is important that employees feel safe in their
workplace, so in order for them to be satisfied the organization must provide a
work environment in which the employees feel safe. In this factor there are no job
aspects from the previous factor, ‘Conditions of work’, which indicated conditions
for performing work tasks such as objective performance appraisal and clearly
defined work organization. Whereas information availability, which had the
highest factor loadings in the ‘Conditions of work’ factor, has a factor loading
between 0.4 and 0.5 in the ‘Psychological, social, and physical safety at work’
factor. Still, similarities in some job aspects with the previous factor, ‘Conditions
of work’, indicates that this safety is a prerequisite for effectively performing
work tasks. The third factor included in the group of factors that have similarities
or overlap is named ‘Basic work conditions’. This factor was also differentiated in
the second factor analysis performed on the basis of satisfaction ratings. In
satisfaction analysis, this factor explains the smallest percentage of the variance
and includes four dimensions: physical working conditions, safety at work,
availability of information necessary for performing tasks, and availability of
work assets. Thus we are again talking about the factor which relates to conditions

21
of work, but this time these conditions are narrowed down to four job aspects:
hence the name. In addition, there are no aspects here that relate to work
organization, appraisal, or promotion.

The third and final group of factors that have similarities or overlap but are
differentiated in different factor analyses includes the factors ‘Company as a
support’ and ‘Company’s significance’. ‘Company as a support’ came fourth in
the factor analysis of job aspect satisfaction ratings, explaining over 10% of the
variance and including nine items. ‘Company’s significance’ was differentiated in
factor analysis based on the job aspect importance ratings with nearly 7% of the
explained variance and included five items. There are similarities between these
two factors that enable their synthesis, but there are also differences between them
that should be kept in mind. The main similarity lies in the obvious fact that for
employee satisfaction the kind of a company the employee works in is important;
that is, that the company or organization per se is a source of employee
satisfaction. The main difference between these two factors lies in the reasons
why the company in itself is important for employee satisfaction.

Two types of job aspect are noticeable in the factor ‘Company as a support’. More
numerous job aspects, which also show higher loadings, indicate that it is
important to employees that their company protects them, cares for them, and
helps them if necessary: ‘A company that employees can rely on if they get in
trouble’, ‘Opportunities for gaining different benefits’, ‘Company cares about its
employees’, ‘Informing employees’, ‘Respecting employees’ rights’, and ‘No
overtime work’. The other job aspects group included in this factor has lower
factor loadings and consists of two aspects: ‘Company in a field of business
important to society’ and ‘Company’s public image and reputation’. Both these
groups of job aspects included in the factor ‘Company as a support’ may be
observed as typical of collectivist national cultures. Collectivism as a value
assumes that the members of a social group, such as a nation or organization, have
the right to expect the social group to protect them and care for them, and will in
return give their complete loyalty to the group (Hofstede, 2001). For this reason it
is very important to the members of a collectivist culture such as Serbia that an
organization demonstrates practically that it cares for, protects, and helps its
members. Since members of a collectivist culture have a strong need to identify
with the collective or organization they belong to, it is completely understandable
that a company’s reputation and its significance to society are very important to
them. The more significant and the more distinguished the company is, the easier
it is to identify with it. In addition, the more significant and the more
distinguished the company is, the easier it is for it to protect its employees, which
is especially important at times of economic crisis.

22
The factor ‘Company’s significance’ is specific to the organization in which this
research was conducted and was differentiated in the factor analysis of job aspect
importance ratings. It also contains two groups of aspects. The first group has
already been mentioned: ‘Company in a field of business important to society’
and ‘Company’s public image and reputation’. The aspect ‘High degree of
employee discipline’ is added to them. It is obvious that a high degree of
employee discipline is a necessary element of a respectable and significant
company. The other job aspects group included in this factor refers to two forms
of keeping the employees informed. All that is said about the collectivist nature of
the previous factor also applies to this factor.

A synthesis of the results of the three factor analyses indicates that six main
organizational factors of job satisfaction can be identified. Three out of six factors
appear in all three factor analyses and they are indisputable: ‘Managers’,
‘Relations between colleagues’, and ‘The job itself’. These factors have also
appeared in similar form and with similar content in other research (Luthans
2005), so in that respect this research has confirmed, but has also to a certain
extent modified, the results of previous research. However, the analysis of the
overlapping of the results of the three factor analyses has indicated that with a
certain amount of imprecision and generalization, another three important
organizational job satisfaction factors can be identified: 1) ‘Rewarding results and
creating conditions for achieving them’; 2) ‘Working conditions and safety at
work’; and 3) ‘Significant company as a support’. These three factors overlap to a
certain degree with two job satisfaction factors that have appeared in earlier
research, while one of them is new. ‘Rewarding results and creating conditions for
achieving them’ and ‘Working conditions and safety at work’ contain elements of
two factors that are standard in the literature: ‘Pay’ and ‘Working conditions’.
However, our two factors are also somewhat specific, so we conclude that they
are standard but modified organizational job satisfaction factors.

Our research has confirmed the findings of previous research that payment of
employees is, without a doubt, an important organizational job satisfaction factor.
But what is new in this research is that payment as an organizational factor of job
satisfaction is always related to organizational conditions for earning it.
Employees expect not only to be fairly and substantially rewarded but also to be
provided by the organization with conditions for achieving results that will be
rewarded. In this respect, the factor ‘Rewarding results and creating conditions for
achieving them’ is different than the standard job satisfaction factor identified in
the literature and most often called ‘Pay’. This factor usually includes only the
amount of pay and other benefits, as well as fairness in their proportioning, such
as the two-item pay satisfaction subscale in the Job Diagnostic Survey, (Hackman
and Oldham 1975) and the pay subscale in the Job Descriptive Index (Lake et al.

23
2010; Smith et al. 1987). However, it does not include organizational conditions
for achieving performance, which is its inherent part in our research. The structure
of pay satisfaction found in this research differs even from Heneman and
Schwab’s multidimensional construct of pay satisfaction comprised of five facets,
i.e., pay level, pay rises, benefits, pay structure, and pay administration (Heneman
and Schwab 1985), and its later confirmed four-dimensional structure in which
pay structure and administration items loaded the same factor (Heneman and
Judge 2000; Judge and Welbourne 1993). The novelty and contribution of our
research is that these employees relate performance rewards to the conditions for
achieving them.

The factor ‘Working conditions and safety at work’ confirms the factor that is
usually identified in research as ‘working conditions’ (Luthans 2005). But, unlike
the ‘standard’ factor, the factor that we have identified contains some additional
elements that refer to employee safety. Employees expect not only favourable
physical working conditions but conditions that provide their safety. Moreover,
under the term ‘safety’ employees consider not only physical safety but social and
psychological safety as well. These additional elements of the ‘Working
conditions’ factor are caused by both the high level of uncertainty avoidance in
Serbian national culture and by the traumatic experience of employees in the
process of transition.

The factor that we named ‘Significant company as a support’ has not appeared in
research so far in this particular form. Its emergence can be explained by
collectivism in Serbian national culture (Hofstede, 2001) and by the legacy of the
Yugoslav socialist regime. The main feature of collectivism is precisely that the
members of a social group, such as a company’s collective, expect the social
group to take care of them, especially in times of difficulty, while they in return
are loyal to the group. It is very important for employees to feel protected by their
company and to feel that they can identify with it. In addition, one of the
characteristics of socialism as the established social system in Yugoslavia was
precisely the obligation of companies to care for their employees.

It is interesting that only one of the ‘standard’ job satisfaction factors identified in
earlier research did not find a place in this research: ‘Promotion’. Only two
aspects that refer to promotion and employee development were included in the
50 job aspects in the questionnaire. This fact, as well as the fact that these two
aspects are at the very bottom of the importance ratings scale (46 th and 48th out of
50, respectively) indicates that promotion and development are not so important to
employees. Therefore it is not surprising that these two job aspects were grouped
under the factor ‘Rewarding results and creating conditions for achieving them’,
and not separately. Even earlier research in Serbia (Janićijević 1998) indicates that

24
the job aspects that correspond to the needs of development and learning receive
lower importance ratings than the dimensions that correspond to existential and
social needs. The cause for this could again be the national culture, with its very
prominent collectivist and egalitarian values.

6. Conclusions, implications, and limitations of the research

The objective of this research, conducted by surveying employees in a large and

complex organization, was to identify organizational job satisfaction factors. By
filling in a specially designed questionnaire, the employees rated the importance
of 50 job aspects and satisfaction with these aspects. Three factor analyses,
performed on the basis of ratings of importance, satisfaction, and the gap between
the two, resulted in three factors that were repeated in all three analyses, and so
therefore are undoubted organizational job satisfaction factors: ‘Managers’,
‘Relations between colleagues’, and ‘The job itself’. Other factors were also
identified that overlap and repeat in factor analyses in such a way that, by
synthesizing them, three more organizational job satisfaction factors can be
identified: 1) ‘Rewarding results and creating conditions for achieving them’; 2)
‘Working conditions and safety at work’; and 3) ‘Significant company as a
support’. This provides a list of six organizational factors of employee job
satisfaction.

The results of this research repeat and confirm previous research in the field of job
satisfaction, but also introduce new findings. The first three factors that appear in
all of the three factor analyses are standard factors that have also appeared in
previous research (Luthans 2005). But some elements specific to this research
appear in all three identified factors. The factors ‘Rewarding results and creating
conditions for achieving them’ and ‘Working conditions and safety at work’
appear only partially in previous research. They contain certain elements of the
previously identified factors ‘Pay’ and ‘Working conditions’, but they also
contain new elements that differentiate them from these previously identified
factors. The last factor, ‘Significant company as a support’, is entirely new and
has not appeared in earlier research. The factor ‘Promotion’, which is a standard
factor in other research, was not identified in this research. We assume that the
Serbian national culture is the main reason for the specific characteristics of the
factors identified in this research, as well as the transition process that all Serbian
companies have undergone.

This paper has specific theoretical and practical implications. The key theoretical
implication of the paper is the finding that, owing to a specific institutional or
cultural context, some standard organizational job satisfaction factors can be

25
found in modified form and completely new and specific job satisfaction
organizational factors can be identified. The theoretical implication of this paper
is the confirmation of the relevancy of the three important organizational job
satisfaction factors.

The practical implications of this paper consist of recommendations to

management with respect to the factors that can provide employee job
satisfaction. The identified job satisfaction factors in the Serbian company
represent the basis for a programme of activities for improving employee
satisfaction. Managers can focus their efforts precisely in increasing employee
satisfaction, since they now know which job factors, or job dimensions, have the
greatest potential for improving employee satisfaction., Managers of other Serbian
companies can find useful guidelines in the results of this research for increasing
their employees’ level of job satisfaction, although with limitations that emerge
from the specific characteristics of the particular company in which the research
was conducted and the sector in which the company operates. Wider implications
for managers in other national contexts are limited by the impact of the
institutional and cultural environment of Serbian companies. The identified
factors of employee satisfaction are certainly impacted by the level of
development and the state of the Serbian economy, as well as the transition
process that is still underway in Serbia. The uncertainty of the economic context
and the process of transition in Serbia is why job dimensions related to employee
safety are rated highly. Serbian national culture also conditions job satisfaction
factors, which limits the possibility of using the results of this study in other
national cultures. Serbian national culture is characterised by a high degree of
power distance, collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, and the presence of
‘feminine’ values (Hofstede 2001). Such a mix of national cultural values must
have a particular impact on employees’ needs and motives, and thus on the
possibility of satisfying them (Hofstede 1980). For example, the relative
importance of job dimensions related to social relations and employees’ need to
belong in a Serbian company could be explained by collectivism and ‘feminine’
values in Serbian culture. Also, a high level of uncertainty avoidance, together
with the already mentioned process of transition, intensifies the importance of job
dimensions related to employee safety. This impact must be considered a limiting
factor in any attempt to use the results of this research in companies in other
national contexts.

The results of the research presented in the paper indicate the need for further
research of organizational factors of employee satisfaction. After this exploratory
case study research, it would be very useful to conduct comparative research on a
larger sample of companies in order to test this research’s results and generalize

26
its conclusions. Such research would make it possible to identify the impact of
different characteristics of companies, industrial sectors, and national contexts of
organizational job satisfaction factors. Additional exploratory research is also a
possible option in order to identify potential new factors that were not taken into
account in this research due to its limitations. Finally, it would be useful to
examine the relationship between organizational and personal job satisfaction
factors.

The research presented in this paper had a certain methodological limitation,

which stems from the objective of the paper and its exploratory case study nature.
It is precisely the nature of the methodology applied in this research that reduces
the possibility of comparing the results of this study and generalizing the
conclusions reached. If research were conducted in another company in another
industrial sector in another national context or with a different research
instrument, the results would surely be different. The characteristics of the
organization in which the research was conducted, the industrial sector that the
organization belongs to, and the institutional and cultural national context all limit
the generalization of the research results. However, the presented case study
clearly illustrates the superiority of exploring job satisfaction in a specific
company by applying the described method. The ad hoc job satisfaction scale
developed for the company in question gave a much richer overview of employee
job satisfaction than we could have expected based on any of the standardized job
satisfaction instruments.

References

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in Social Exchange. Advances in Experimental

Social Psychology, 2, pp.267-299. DOI:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60108-2

Adams, J. S. & Freedman, S. (1976). Equity Theory Revisited: Comments and

Annotated Bibliography. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 9, pp.43-
90. DOI:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60058-1

Alderfer, C. P. (1969). An Empirical Test of a New Theory of Human Needs.

Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 4, (2) pp.142-175.
DOI:10.1016/0030-5073(69)90004-X

Carraher S.M. & Buckley M.R. (1996). Cognitive Complexity and the Perceived
Dimensionality of Pay Satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 (1),
pp.102-109.

27
Hackman, J. R. & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic
Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60 (2), pp.159-170.

Haesevoets, T., Reinders Folmer, C., De Cremer, D. & Van Hiel, A. (2013).
Money Isn’t All That Matters: The Use of Financial Compensation and Apologies
to Preserve Relationships in the Aftermath of Distributive Harm. Journal of
Economic Psychology, 35, pp.95-107. DOI:10.1016/j.joep.2013.02.003.

Heneman, H. G., III & Judge, T. A. (2000). Compensation attitudes: A review and
recommendations for future research. In S. L. Rynes and B. Gerhart (Eds.),
Compensation in Organizations: Progress and Prospects, (pp.61-103). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Heneman, H. G., III & Schwab, D. P. (1985). Pay Satisfaction: Its

Multidimensional Nature and Measurement. International Journal of Psychology,
20(2), 129-141. DOI: 10.1080/00207598508247727

Herzberg, F. (1964). The Motivation-Hygiene Concept and Problems of

Manpower. Personnel Administrator, 27, pp.3–7

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, Leadership, and Organization: Do American

Theories Apply Abroad? Organizational Dynamics, 9, 42-63.

Janićijević N. (1998). Cultural Determinants of Employees' Needs and Job

Satisfaction. First International Conference: Performance Measurement - Theory
and Practice. Cambridge, UK: Churchill College, Cambridge University.

Judge, T.A. (1993). Validity of the Dimensions of the Pay Satisfaction

Questionnaire: Evidence of Differential Predictions. Personnel Psychology, 46
(2), pp.331-355. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb00877.x

Judge, T.A., Thoresen, C.J., Bono, J.E. & Patton, G.K. (2001). The Job
Satisfaction – Job Performance Relationship: A Qualitative and Quantitative
Review. Psychological Bulletin, 127 (3), pp.376-407. DOI:10.1037/0033-
2909.127.3.376

Judge, T. A. & Welbourne, T. M. (1993). Dimensionality of the Pay Satisfaction

Questionnaire: A Confirmatory Factor Analytic Investigation (CAHRS Working
Paper #93-09). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, School of Industrial and Labor

28
Relations, Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrswp/264

Kinicki A. J., Schriesheim C. A., McKee-Ryan F. M., & Carson K. P. (2002).

Assessing Construct Validity of the Job Descriptive Index: Review And Meta
Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (1), pp.14-32. DOI:10.1037/0021-
9010.87.1.14

Kovačević, P. & Petrović, I. (2006). Managers' job satisfaction: Construct

validation. In B. Cerović, (Ed.), Privatisation in Serbia: Evidence and Analyses,
(pp. 287-304). Beograd: Centar za izdavačku delatnost Ekonomskog fakulteta,

Lake, C. J., Gopalkrishnan, P., Sliter, M. T., & Withrow, S. (2010). The Job
Descriptive Index: Newly updated and available for download. The Industrial-
Organizational Psychologist, 48(1), pp.47-49.

Locke, E.A. (1969). What is Job Satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and

Human Performance, 4 (4), pp.309-336. DOI:10.1016/0030-5073(69)90013-0

Locke E.A. (1976). The Nature and Cause of Job Satisfaction. In M.D. Dunette
(Ed). Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago: Rand
McNally.

Luthans F. (2005). Organizational Behavior, 10th ed. New York, NY: McGraw
Hill Irwin.

Miller K.I. & Monge P.R. (1986). Participation, Satisfaction and Productivity: A
Meta Analysis Review. Academy of Management Journal, 29(4), pp.727-753.
DOI:10.2307/255942.

Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The Measurement of

Meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Petrovic, I., Kovacevic, P., Kutlesic, V. (2007). Correlates of General Managers'

Job Satisfaction Within a Transition Economy, APA (American Psychological
Association) 115th Annual Convention, San Francisco, California.

Porter, L.W. (1962). Job Attitudes In Management: Perceived Deficiencies in

Need Fulfillment as a Function of Job Level. Journal of Applied Psychology, 46,
375-384. DOI:10.1037/h0047808

29
Scarpello V. & Campbell J.P. (1983). Job Satisfaction: Are All Parts There?
Personnel Psychology, 36(3), pp.577-600. DOI:10.1111/j.1744-
6570.1983.tb02236.x

Smith, P. C., Balzer, W., Brannick, M., Chia, W., Eggleton, S., Gibson, W. &
Whalen, M. (1987). The Revised JDI: A Facelift For an Old Friend. The
Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 24(4), pp.31-33.

Smith P.C., Kendall L.M. & Hulin C.L. (1969). The Measurement of Satisfaction
in Work and Retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Schneider B, Erhart M.G. & Macey W.H. (2001) Organizational Climate

Research: Achievements and the Road Ahead. In N.M. Ashkanasy, C.PM.
Wilderom and M.F. Peterson (Eds.), The Handbook of Organizational Culture
and Climate (pp.29-49). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Staw B. (1986). Organizational Psychology and the Pursuit of the

Happy/Productive Worker. California Management Review, 28(4), pp.40-53.

Van der Vegt, G., Emans, B. & Vliert V.E. (2001). Patterns of Interdependence in
Work Teams: A Two-Level Investigation of the Relations with Job and Team
Satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 54(1), pp.51-69. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-
6570.2001.tb00085.x

Wong, C.S, Hiu, C. & Law K., (1998) A Longitudinal Study of the Job
Perceptions and Job Satisfaction Relationship: A Test of Three Alternative
Specifications, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 71(2),
pp.127-146. DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1998.tb00667.x

30