Digital Commons at Andrews University Digital Commons at Andrews University

View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.
uk brought to you by CORE

provided by Andrews University
Andrews University
Digital Commons @ Andrews University
Dissertations Graduate Research
2018
A Quantitative Study of Employees' Perceptions of the

Relationship Between the Organizational Culture of a Toronto-
Based Technology Company, and Their Job Satisfaction and
Engagement
Donn Whitehall
Andrews University, whitehal@andrews.edu
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations
Part of the Business Administration, Management, and Operations Commons, and the Organizational
Behavior and Theory Commons
Recommended Citation
Whitehall, Donn, "A Quantitative Study of Employees' Perceptions of the Relationship Between the
Organizational Culture of a Toronto-Based Technology Company, and Their Job Satisfaction and
Engagement" (2018). Dissertations. 1668.
https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations/1668
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Research at Digital Commons @
Andrews University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital
Commons @ Andrews University. For more information, please contact repository@andrews.edu.
ABSTRACT
A QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF EMPLOYEES’ PERCEPTIONS OF THE

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE
OF A TORONTO-BASED TECHNOLOGY COMPANY,
AND THEIR JOB SATISFACTION
AND ENGAGEMENT
by
Donn Whitehall
Chair: Elvin Gabriel

ABSTRACT OF GRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCH
Dissertation
Andrews University
School of Education
TITLE: A QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF EMPLOYEES’ PERCEPTIONS OF THE

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE OF A
TORONTO-BASED TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, AND THEIR JOB
SATISFACTION AND ENGAGEMENT
Name of researcher: Donn Whitehall
Name and degree of faculty chair: Elvin Gabriel, Ed.D.
Date completed: November 2018
Problem
There are gaps in the literature related to organizational culture, job satisfaction,
and employee engagement. Researchers have noted that these variables, and the
relationships amongst them, have not been studied enough and there exists a need for
further research. The purpose of this study was to examine employees’ perceptions of the
relationship between the organizational culture of a Toronto-based technology company,
and their job satisfaction and engagement.

Method
This study utilized a quantitative, non-experimental, correlational method, while
employing a cross-sectional approach with secondary data. This study used data
collected by a Toronto-based technology company in June of 2016. The goal of this
survey was to measure employee engagement and overall employee happiness, for the
purpose of determining what areas of the organization’s culture, if any, needed to be
improved. The participants for this study were all full-time employees of the
organization. Seventy-three percent of the employee workforce - 76 out of a total of 104
employees - completed the survey. The hypotheses were tested using bivariate
correlation analysis to examine the relationship between the variables.
Results
The results showed that (1) employees’ perceived organizational culture was
positively correlated with their job satisfaction; (2) employees’ perceived organizational
culture was positively correlated with their engagement; (3) there is no statistically
significant correlation between employees’ length of time with the organization, and their
job satisfaction; and (4) employees’ gender was not correlated with their job satisfaction.
Two of the hypotheses were supported, while two were not.
Research Hypothesis H1: There is a statistically significant relationship between
employees’ perception of the organizational culture of a Toronto-based technology
company, and their job satisfaction. This hypothesis was supported
employees’ perceptions of the organizational culture of a Toronto-based technology
company, and their job engagement. This hypothesis was supported.

employees’ length of time at a Toronto-based technology company, and their job
satisfaction. This hypothesis was rejected
employees’ gender and their job satisfaction. This hypothesis was rejected.
Conclusions
The results of this study confirmed that there is a strong positive, significant,
relationship between organizational culture and the job satisfaction and engagement of
employees. Organizations should therefore strategically plan to develop an
organizational culture that will lead to high levels of job satisfaction and engagement
among their employees, as this may result in positive business outcomes including
employee retention and higher levels of commitment to the organization, and to the
achievement of its goals.

Andrews University
School of Education

AND ENGAGEMENT
A Dissertation
Presented in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
by
Donn Whitehall
November 2018
© Copyright by Donn J. P. Whitehall 2018
All Rights Reserved
AND ENGAGEMENT
A dissertation
presented in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Doctor of Philosophy
by
Donn Whitehall
APPROVAL BY THE COMMITTEE:
________________________________ _____________________________
Chair: Elvin Gabriel Dean, School of Education
Robson Marinho
________________________________
Member: Tevni Grajales
________________________________
Member: Jay Brand
________________________________ ______________________________
External: Melissa Ponce-Rodas Date approved
“For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not
to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”
- Jeremiah 29:11, NIV
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................... viii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................................................................... ix
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
Background of the Study ......................................................................... 1

Rationale for the Study ............................................................................ 3
Personal .............................................................................................. 3
Theoretical ......................................................................................... 5
Professional ........................................................................................ 5
A History of Northern Protection’s Development ................................... 6
Statement of the Problem ......................................................................... 8
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................ 9
Research Questions .................................................................................. 10
Conceptual Framework ............................................................................ 10
Significance of the Study ......................................................................... 17
Definition of Terms.................................................................................. 18
Limitations of the Study........................................................................... 19
Delimitations ............................................................................................ 19
Organization of the Study ........................................................................ 20
2. LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................. 21
Introduction .............................................................................................. 21
The History and Development of Organizational Culture ....................... 22
Popular Theoretical Models of Organizational Culture ........................... 24
A Historical Overview of Job Satisfaction .............................................. 30
Theoretical Models of Job Satisfaction.................................................... 32
The Impact of Gender and Length of Employment on Job
Satisfaction ...................................................................................... 35
The Relationship Between Organizational Culture and Job
Satisfaction ...................................................................................... 36
A Historical Overview of Employee Engagement................................... 38
The Relationship Among Organizational Culture, Job Satisfaction,
and Employee Engagement............................................................. 40
iv
Outcomes of the Relationship Among Organizational Culture, Job
Satisfaction and Employee Engagement ......................................... 41
Employee Retention ........................................................................... 41
Work-Life Balance............................................................................. 44
Summary and Analysis of the Review ..................................................... 46
3. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................ 51
Introduction .............................................................................................. 51
Research Design....................................................................................... 51
Sample and Population ............................................................................ 52
Research and Null Hypotheses ................................................................ 53
Definition of the Variables....................................................................... 54
Instrumentation ........................................................................................ 56
Data Collection Procedures...................................................................... 57
Data Analysis ........................................................................................... 58
4. DATA ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 60
Introduction .............................................................................................. 60
Participants ............................................................................................... 61
Variables Description............................................................................... 62
Hypotheses Testing .................................................................................. 64
Does a Relationship Exist Between Organizational Culture and
Job Satisfaction at a Toronto-based Technology Company? ....... 65
Does Organizational Culture Affect Employee Engagement? .......... 65
Does Length of Time at the Organization Affect the Job
Satisfaction of Employees? .......................................................... 66
Does the Employee’s Gender Play a Role in Their Experience at
the Company? .............................................................................. 66
Summary .................................................................................................. 67
5. DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSION ................ 69
Introduction .............................................................................................. 69
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................ 69
Summary of the Literature ....................................................................... 69
Summary of the Methodology ................................................................. 74
Summary of the Major Findings .............................................................. 76
Discussion ................................................................................................ 77
Discussion and Implications of Major Findings ...................................... 84
Research Question 1 .......................................................................... 84
Discussion of Major Findings ..................................................... 84
Implications of Major Findings .................................................. 85
Disussion of Major Findings ....................................................... 86
v
Implications of Major Findings .................................................. 87
Discussion of Major Findings ...................................................... 89
Implications of Major Findings ................................................... 90
Discussion of Major Findings ...................................................... 91
Implications of Major Findings ................................................... 91
Recommendations for Practice ................................................................ 93
Recommendations for Future Research ................................................... 94
Conclusion ............................................................................................... 95
Appendix
A. COPY OF AUTHORIZATION LETTER ..................................................... 97
B. ORIGINAL SURVEY QUESTIONS ............................................................ 98
C. SURVEY QUESTIONS USED IN STUDY ................................................. 99
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 100
CURRICULUM VITA .............................................................................................. 111
vi
LIST OF TABLES
1. Conceptual and Operational Definition of Variables.............................................. 55
2. Demographic Characteristics of Participants .......................................................... 62
3. Survey Items’ Mean, Standard Deviation and Range ............................................. 63
4. Variable Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................ 64
5. Correlation for All Variables .................................................................................. 65
vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ERG Existence, Relatedness, and Growth
IT Information Technology
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences
viii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
My pursuit of a Ph.D degree in Higher Education Administration has been a very
long journey, and the dissertation process has been extremely arduous. I began my Ph.D.
journey at the age of 23, with the goal of graduating before my 30th birthday. Various
life events – including serious health issues, loss of life, unemployment, marriage and
relocation – derailed this plan as family responsibilities took precedence over completing
the dissertation. I am forever grateful to the numerous people – including classmates,
church family, and friends – who kept checking up on me, praying for me, and
encouraging me to finish what I started.
I am grateful to the persons whom God led to offer me financial assistance when I
needed it. I am even more grateful that despite my objections, they insisted that I accept
their generosity! I am especially appreciative to Grace and Herman Bromfield for the
enormous sacrifice they made on my behalf.
I am indebted to both Charmaine and my wife, Alicia, for taking the time to edit
this final version of my dissertation, which would not have existed without the expert
direction of my dissertation committee. Dr. Brand, thank you for joining my committee
late in the process. Your experience in the topic area was invaluable. Dr. Grajales, thank
you for your patience in helping me to reformulate my research methodology to view this
study from a completely different perspective. Dr. Gabriel, I am so grateful to you for
agreeing to be my Chair, and for not giving up on me. As tedious as this process has
ix
been for me, I am sure it has also been challenging for you. Your continued support,
guidance, and encouragement will never be forgotten. Thank you so much for sticking
with me, and for not retiring before I completed this journey. I wish Dr. Warren was still
here, but his sage advice continued to help me through this process, even after his
passing.
It is only because of my family that I kept going when I wanted to give up on
completing this dissertation. I have invested a large amount of time and money into the
pursuit of this degree, but so have my parents, Peter and Pamela. While I could accept
giving up on my investment, I couldn’t give up on theirs. To my parents and my sister,
Dionne, thank you for your continued support, encouragement, and nagging over the
years. Our family’s amazing legacy of academic excellence, and your continued belief in
my ability to complete this dissertation, helped me to keep believing in myself. Thank
you for setting the bar high and for pushing me to always be the best I can be.
To my wife, Alicia, whom I met about halfway through this journey, I really don’t
know how to express how thankful I am for all the sacrifices you’ve made to help me
reach this point. You’ve been with me through the toughest part of this journey, and we
both know I wouldn’t have been able to make it without you. I love you. To my son, DJ,
who entered this world just over a year ago, I know you don’t understand why Daddy
wasn’t always able to spend time with you, but I hope my completion of this degree will
serve as an example to you to never give up, to always pursue the dreams God puts on
your heart, and to never let anyone tell you you’re not good enough.
x
Finally, I give glory and honor to God for bringing me to, and through, this
journey. I know He has a plan for me, and I am looking forward to seeing it unfold as
this new chapter of my life begins.
xi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
According to Wright (2006), more than 10,000 studies had been conducted on job
satisfaction before 1997. Wright suggested that the reason for so many studies is the
belief that a satisfied worker is more productive. Some of these studies date back to the
start of the 20th century.
In the early 1900’s, Taylor (1911) became one of the first researchers to study the
relationship between production and employee satisfaction, with the goal of improving
the organization, maximizing its profits, and providing prosperity for its employees
(Adams, 2000). Employee prosperity was to be accomplished through higher wages and
helping employees reach their full potential. This would ultimately result in employees
having a greater sense of self-respect (Adams, 2000).
In the 1920’s and 1930’s, the Hawthorne Studies were conducted to examine how
environmental variables such as lighting, humidity, and temperature would affect
productivity (Adams, 2000). Roethlisberger and Dickson (1939) analyzed the data from
the study and found that productivity increased regardless of whether the quality of
physical conditions increased or decreased. The focus of the Hawthorne Studies then
shifted to look at employee attitudes, since the expected results were not illustrated from
investigating environmental variables alone (Wright, 2006). This research would
1
eventually help to increase the understanding of worker satisfaction and productivity
(Demas, 2011).
According to Demas (2011), between the 1920’s and 1960’s a large amount of
research was conducted to measure work attitudes, as opposed to environmental factors.
As labor unions gained popularity in the 1950’s and 1960’s, workers’ satisfaction became
more important to management. Demas (2011) also pointed out that the Hawthorne
study, as well as studies conducted by Kornhauser (1933) and Houser (1927), helped to
increase a general understanding of the link between worker satisfaction and productivity.
Wright (2006) stated that he believes job satisfaction and job performance are
related, despite the fact that after thousands of studies have been conducted, a definitive
link has not yet been established. Therefore, there are still opportunities for new research
to be conducted on the topic of job satisfaction, to fully explore the potential relationships
between job satisfaction and variables such as job performance, employee attitudes, and
organizational culture.
A number of researchers have noted that organizational culture affects job
satisfaction (Odom, Boxx, & Dunn, 1990; Sheridan, 1992; Stebbins, 2008; Wallach,
1983), while others have noted a link between organizational culture and employee
retention (Alexander, 2012; Meyer & Topolnytsky, 2000; Porter, Steers, Mowday &
Boulian, 1974; Ritchie, 2000). A relationship has also been noted between job
satisfaction and employee engagement (Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011; Fairbanks,
2007; Smith, 2016), and employee engagement and job performance (Christian et al.,
2011; Fairbanks, 2007; Smith, 2016). Likewise, relationships have been noted between
work-life balance and job satisfaction (Gainey & Clenney, 2006), employee retention
2
(Ackerman & Bezuidenhout, 2007), and employee engagement (Gryzwacz & Carlson,
2007). While direct or definitive links have not always been found, an examination of
the literature shows that organizational culture, job satisfaction, employee engagement,
employee retention, work-life balance and overall job performance are all related. It is
therefore important for organizations to carefully examine each of these variables, and
the effect they can have on the organization.
Rationale for the Study
Personal
After being employed within various jobs in different countries, there were certain
norms that I had accepted as an employee in the workplace. I understood that there was a
hierarchy, and whatever my manager said, is what had to be done, as the manager was the
one who held the power to determine whether I remained employed or not. I also
understood that I had to be at work for a set number of hours, whether I had set tasks to
do or not, and whether I was being productive or not. Even in jobs where flex-hours
were allowed, an 8 hour work day was still the expected norm. None of these were
characteristics of the work environment I hoped to one day nurture as an administrator. I
strongly believed that there was a better way to motivate employees for the betterment of
the organization.
My exposure to alternate workplace norms began after I received an interview for
a position at an Information Technology (IT) company based in Toronto, Canada. I was
advised by the Human Resources manager that the company, “Northern Protection” (a
pseudonym assigned for this study), had a very unique culture. A few days later I
accepted the position, after being told by the Hiring Manager that Northern Protection is
3
very careful about who they let into their “family” – because they really are a family. I
was not prepared for the culture that I would encounter at Northern Protection.
Schein (2010) describes three levels of culture. The first level, Artifacts, include
the visible, physical, elements that can be noticed by outsiders, such as dress code, work
processes, technology, documents, and stories. The second level, Espoused Values, are
the beliefs and values promoted by the organization’s leadership, such as goals,
strategies, philosophies, and management styles. The third and deepest level, Basic
Underlying Assumptions, are the unconscious values that are difficult to discern. These
values are so engrained in the culture that they are considered self-evident, and are often
taken for granted.
After just a few days at Northern Protection, I was enamored by the culture as it
was something I had never experienced before. I was instantly in love with it as it made
me look forward to going to work. The Artifacts level was the first that I noticed,
primarily in the form of a very relaxed dressed code, and open seating. As I learned more
about the organization, the Espoused Values level of the culture also stood out to me as a
unique feature. Leadership considered employee happiness as a success factor, and
providing a work environment where employees enjoyed coming to work was an active
goal of the organization. The Basic Underlying Assumptions level of culture was harder
to grasp and took some time to assimilate. For example, it was entirely acceptable to take
a break from working to play video games, or to work in the lunch room in order to
watch whatever major sporting event was taking place at that time. When I was invited
to do the same, even by my Manager, I was hesitant, because I did not yet understand the
Assumptions level at Northern Protection.
4
I was extremely impressed with the culture I was experiencing and wanted to
learn more about it. I wanted to know how the leaders of Northern Protection developed
such a unique culture, how they maintained it, and why I had never experienced such a
culture anywhere else I had worked. This culture reflected what I hoped to develop as an
administrator, and I wanted to know how I could develop Northern Protection’s culture at
another organization.
Theoretical
There are gaps in the literature related to organizational culture, job satisfaction,
and employee engagement. Researchers have noted that these variables, and their
relationships, have not been studied enough, and there exists a need for further research
(Harper, 2015; Schein, 2010).
Professional
This study will contribute to my growth as a researcher as it is the most
comprehensive study in which I have been involved. Researching this topic provided me
the opportunity to immerse myself in a long-term research study, where I served as the
sole contributor. It was necessary for me to develop and utilize a variety of transferable
research skills in order to be successful, including critical thinking, analysis of data, and
report writing.
Additionally, the topic being covered is one that will be beneficial as I advance in
my career. The knowledge gathered in this study will be practical to my current and
future administrative roles, as I will have insight into areas critical to the success of the
organization.
5
A History of Northern Protection’s Development
Established in 2004, Northern Protection has been growing rapidly in recent
years. In January 2014, there were just over 30 employees. At the August 2014
company-wide meeting – held bi-annually and attended by all employees – it was stated
that the company now employed a total of 57 employees. By March 2015, Northern
Protection was already on their way to surpassing the 80 employee mark, and at the
August 2016 company-wide meeting, the organization celebrated reaching the 100th
employee milestone – though at the time, the actual total number of employees had
already well surpassed 100. Although most employees worked out of the Toronto office,
the company had employees based in various cities across three different countries.
At Northern Protection, it is not uncommon to hear music filling the office, to
hear the laughter of employees as they make use of the foosball table or video game
console in the lunch room, or to even see a group of employees enjoying a shot of alcohol
to celebrate a new product launch or simply the end of the work week. The environment
sometimes resembles a fraternity house more than the office of a company that provides
technology services to Fortune 500 companies in various industries, including finance,
travel, and family entertainment. Yet Northern Protection continues to flourish and grow
as more well-known organizations seek out its services.
During an informal conversation with me shortly after I joined the organization,
the Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Northern Protection stated that he
understands that Northern Protection may not pay the highest salaries in the industry, but
what sets the company apart is their environment. He went on to clarify that he wants to
foster an environment where people are excited about going to work. It would seem that
6
he has been successful in creating such an environment, but he continues to seek ways to
cultivate an environment that he hopes will make it difficult for employees to choose to
leave. He, and the rest of the executive team, continue to seek ways to preserve Northern
Protection’s culture, as the organization continues to grow and expand rapidly.
After experiencing the environment nurtured by Northern Protection, I began to
wonder why every other organization did not implement the same type of culture.
Developing this type of culture, however, is not an easy task. This is especially difficult
because the culture at Northern Protection is comprised of so many different elements.
In addition to the elements that have already been mentioned, the culture also
promotes an environment where employees are encouraged to share ideas, concerns, and
grievances with senior executives. The organization initially had a completely flat
structure, but found a need for some hierarchy as it grew – mainly to facilitate decision
making and ownership of tasks. Despite this change, the organization’s leaders continue
to promote transparency, consistently sharing financial and strategic information with
employees on a regular basis.
The organization also strongly encourages its employees to publicly recognize
each other via an online recognition board. The recognition recorded here is used in
determining the winners of prizes once a year, during the company-wide meeting.
Likewise, managers are encouraged to give regular feedback to each employee, through
weekly one-on-one meetings. This time is also used to build and maintain close
relationships, by discussing not only professional matters, but also personal matters.
Career development is also an integral part of the culture, with every employee
given $3,000 CAD per year to use towards professional growth. Employees are
7
encouraged to apply for internal job postings and at times are even allowed to create their
own new positions, based on the needs of the organization. To facilitate a sense of family
amongst the employees, personal milestones such as birthdays, marriages, and the birth
of children are publicly recognized.
The organization also highly values work-life balance. All employees, regardless
of their length of employment, have unlimited vacation days. Employees are able to
work flexible hours and most employees work from home at least two days per week.
Although employees’ time off is tracked, their daily working hours are not. Employees
understand that the flexibility in work hours and time off is provided with the expectation
that they will put in the hours necessary to get the job done – even if that means working
more than 40 hours per week, on occasion. Additionally, many recreational events,
sponsored by the organization, are hosted throughout the year, and at various times
employees’ family members are also invited to attend these events.
Maintaining the culture at Northern Protection involves strategically investing
time and resources to ensure that what was developed during the early years of the
organization, such as a sense of family and commitment to employee work-life balance,
remains as employee headcount continues to grow.
Statement of the Problem
The retention of skilled employees is a problem faced by many organizations
(Diala, 2010). As the process of recruitment, selection, training, and development require
significant time and money, organizations need to value employees and ensure that they
are motivated to perform the job (Otoum, 2010). The attrition of IT workers costs
8
organizations money, time, human capital and productivity (Diala, 2010; Reichheld,
1996).
In order to retain employees, organizations need to cultivate an environment and
culture that promotes a sense of job satisfaction for employees while keeping them
engaged. The IT industry is vast, encompassing various types of organizations, and many
opportunities, both locally and globally, exist for IT professionals to find work. The fact
is, we live in an age where the Internet’s emergence as a tool for low-cost global
connectivity (Friedman, 2007) has made the world a much smaller space, and global
work opportunities are available to workers from various professional backgrounds. It is
therefore imperative for organizations, regardless of industry, to seek ways of creating a
working environment in which employees attain a sense of happiness. The happier, more
engaged and more satisfied employees are with their jobs, the longer they will stay in
those jobs. Engaged employees report higher levels of job satisfaction and lower turn-
over intentions (Christian et al., 2011). Studies have noted that an employee’s intention
to leave the workplace is linked to their level of job satisfaction (Kemery, Mossholder, &
Bedeian, 1987), and more specifically, that employees who leave the organization are
characterized by lower levels of satisfaction (Porter et al., 1974). Studies have also found
that employees who feel that their current organizational culture ignores their needs are
motivated to leave the organization and seek employment elsewhere (Atkins & Turner,
2006). Conversely, a satisfactory work-place culture that provides an enjoyable work
environment leads to lower turnover (Sadri & Lees, 2001).
While organizational culture, job satisfaction, and employee engagement are not
new concepts, there remains a need for additional research on the relationships among
9
these variables, as they have not been studied carefully enough (Harper, 2015; Schein,
2010).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine employees’ perceptions of the
Research Questions
1. Is there a statistically significant relationship between employees’ perceptions of
the organizational culture of a Toronto-based technology company, and their job
satisfaction?
engagement?
3. Is there a statistically significant relationship between employees’ length of time
at a Toronto-based technology company, and their job satisfaction?
4. Is there a statistically significant relationship between employees’ gender and
their job satisfaction?
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework is a set of concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs,
and theories that both support and inform a research study (Maxwell, 2013). It is a
tentative theory, used to inform the design of the study, including designing research
questions, creating goals, and selecting appropriate methods (Maxwell, 2013). This study
10
utilized a conceptual framework that consisted of two components. The first component
of the conceptual framework was Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction, or
Motivation-Hygiene Theory, while the second component was Hofstede's six dimensions
of culture. This conceptual framework was selected because it provided the theoretical
foundation needed to design this study, based on the purpose of the study.
Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction, or Motivation-Hygiene
Theory, was one component of the conceptual framework for this study. Brown (2005)
found that Herzberg’s theory appeared to be more acceptable and more widely used than
other theories. According to Brown (2005), Anuna (1997) suggested that Herzberg’s
theory had become the preferred theory due to the fact that it had developed into a
management tool, and had birthed many studies related to job satisfaction.
Developed in 1959, this theory was the result of Herzberg’s quest to discover the
work environment factors that determine employee satisfaction or dissatisfaction. After a
study where 200 engineers and accountants were interviewed about work incidents that
led to increased or decreased job satisfaction (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959),
Herzberg found that the factors that determined satisfaction were separate and distinct
from those that determined dissatisfaction. Herzberg (1968) noted that these two feelings
are not opposites, because separate factors need to be considered depending on which
feeling is being examined. The opposite of job satisfaction is not job dissatisfaction, but
is in fact no job satisfaction. Likewise, the opposite of job dissatisfaction is not job
satisfaction, but rather no job dissatisfaction. The Motivation-Hygiene theory was
developed to explain the results of these studies (Brown, 2005). Herzberg theorized that
intrinsic factors were related to job satisfaction, while extrinsic factors were thought to be
11
those associated with dissatisfaction. He referred to these as motivation and hygiene
factors, respectively, due to their occupying independent conceptual continua.
Herzberg found that motivation factors, or satisfiers, were achievement,
recognition for achievement, the work itself, responsibility, and advancement.
Conversely, Herzberg found that the major hygiene factors, or dissatisfiers, included
company policy and administration, supervision, relationships with supervisors and peers,
work conditions, salary, status, and security. While hygiene factors do not motivate
employees, the lack of or inadequacy of these factors leads to dissatisfaction. Herzberg
believed that the motivators were the primary cause of satisfaction, while hygiene factors
were the primary cause of unhappiness on the job (Herzberg, 1968).
Although the correction of poor working conditions may prevent employees from
resigning, there is no guarantee that good working conditions will motivate these
employees to be more productive. Likewise, a significant increase in pay did not seem to
produce long term productivity results, as employees typically developed a sense that
they were finally being paid what they deserved. Herzberg (1968) did not see money as a
motivator as it did not encourage employees to become better workers. A lack of money,
however, did serve as a dissatisfier, strong enough to cause employees to resign (Brown,
2005; Schroder, 2003). In support of these observations, Merit (1995) pointed out that
“people devote many hours of concerted effort” (p. 74) to things that they find
interesting. While hobbies vary widely and may include activities such as basket
weaving, constructing model ships, or photography (Merit, 1995), people will dedicate
time to the things they enjoy doing, even when there is no financial motivation for their
time commitment.
12
In essence, in order to keep employees happy, a balance must be struck between
the elements that cause satisfaction, and the aspects of the work place that cause
dissatisfaction. While this balance is not always easy to implement, it is something that
organizations should pay careful attention to and strive to accomplish.
Herzberg (1968) noted that “the very nature of motivators, as opposed to hygiene
factors, is that they have a much longer-term effect on employee’s attitudes” (p. 96). He
also expressed the importance of providing increasingly interesting, challenging work
and responsibility to employees that demonstrate the ability to handle more.
Interestingly, Herzberg concluded that if an organization cannot fully utilize an
employee, it should get rid of the employee, and should either automate the job or hire
someone with lesser ability. If the organization is unable to get rid of the employee,
Herzberg suggested that the organization will be faced with a motivation problem.
Past research has shown that a relationship exists between job satisfaction and
organizational culture (Ahamed & Mahmood, 2015; Berry, 2016). Hebb (1949) and
Morse (1953) both suggested that changes in the organizational culture will affect not
only the job satisfaction of the organization’s employees, but will also cause changes in
the behavior and attitude of the employees. Wallach (1983) and Zammuto and Krakower
(1991) also found that job satisfaction, and job performance, are related to organizational
culture. In noting the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational culture,
Kline and Boyd (1994) pointed out that employees at different levels are influenced by
different aspects of the work environment. Sempane, Rieger, and Roodt (2002) also
noted a close relationship between job satisfaction and organizational culture, and go on
to state that job satisfaction is the result of organizational culture. Stebbins (2008) also
13
found a positive relationship between supportive cultures and job satisfaction. While
research has shown that organizational culture affects job satisfaction, people will
evaluate their job satisfaction level according to the aspects of the work environment
which they perceive as being important and meaningful to them (Ahamed & Mahmood,
2015).
The second component of the conceptual framework for this study was Hofstede's
six dimensions of culture. Hofstede, a psychologist, developed this framework based on
data gathered from roughly 116,000 surveys completed by IBM employees working
across 40 different countries in the late 1960s and early 1970s (Kirkman et al., 2010).
Hofstede initially developed four cultural dimensions, but would eventually expand the
framework to include a total of six dimensions.
Power distance, the first dimension, is the amount of influence one individual has
over another (Hofstede et al., 2010). It is the extent to which a person in authority can
exercise power over a subordinate, without disagreement or contradiction from that
subordinate. This dimension refers to the degree, and acceptance, of unequal distribution
of power. In an organization, this dimension would relate to whether or not an employee
is allowed or expected to question the decisions of a manager.
Individualism versus collectivism, the second dimension, refers to the level of
community found in a group. Groups where the interest of the group take precedence
over the interest of the individual, are referred to as collectivism; while individualism
refers to groups where the interest of the individual comes first (Hofstede et al., 2010).
Most people live in collectivist types of societies (Hofstede et al., 2010). In individualist
groups, people take care of themselves and their immediate families. Collectivist groups
14
are typically tight knit groups, where the group looks out for each member.
Organizations that promote a strong sense of community would be considered
collectivist, whilst those that promote independence, where employees only look out for
themselves as they try to get ahead, would be considered individualist.
Masculinity versus femininity, the third dimension, refers to the effect of male and
female values. Masculinity refers to values that are ‘masculine,’ such as assertiveness
and the acquisition of money; while femininity is defined as the opposite of masculinity,
and refers to values such as a friendlier atmosphere, position security, physical conditions
and cooperation (Kirkman et al., 2010). This dimension refers to the extent to which the
masculine values are more prevalent than feminine values. A super competitive
organizational culture would be defined as masculine.
Uncertainty avoidance, the fourth dimension, is the extent to which a group feels
threatened by uncertainty or ambiguity, and attempts to avoid such situations by
establishing more rules and greater stability (Hofstede, 1980). In groups with high
uncertainty avoidance, members seek guidelines, structures, and procedures to reduce
their anxiety (Gale, 2015). Some organizations try to account for every possible situation
by implementing various rules and procedures – just in case the relevant situation ever
arises. Organizations of this type have a high level of uncertainty avoidance.
Long term versus short term orientation, the fifth dimension, refers to how the
group plans, anticipates and obtains objectives. In long term orientated organizations, the
group is more oriented toward future rewards than immediate gratification (Gale, 2015).
In short term orientations, the organization is focused on stability, tradition, and
immediate gratification (Hofstede et al., 2010).
15
Indulgence versus Restraint, the final dimension, refers to the amount of
gratification that is allowed. Indulgence is related to enjoying life. It is the tendency to
allow for gratification of basic and natural human desires (Gale, 2015). Restraint, on the
other hand, is the tendency to restrain from the gratification of desires (Gale, 2015).
From an organizational perspective, this could relate to the ease with which money is
spent, especially on things or activities deemed non-essential.
The conceptual framework of this study was not used to determine what type, or
types, of culture are best. According to Handy (1985), there are no good or bad cultures.
All cultures have a purpose and are acceptable, depending on the environment (Handy,
1985). Schein (2010) supports this theory, and suggested that whether a culture is
“good,” “bad,” or “functionally effective” depends on the environment in which it exists.
Schein (2010) pointed out that the culture of a group is akin to the personality or
character of an individual. We can see the behavior that results from the underlying
personality and character, which guides an individual’s actions, but we cannot necessarily
observe personality or character. The same holds true for culture; we cannot observe it,
as culture as a concept is abstract (Schein, 2010), but we can observe the shared norms
that guide and constrain the group. As stated previously, in order to keep employees
happy, a balance must be struck between motivation factors and hygiene factors. Each of
these factors relates to organizational culture in that they are aspects of the organization
that group members share in common; but they cannot be thought of as the actual culture
(Schein, 2010). They are simply components of the culture.
16
This study’s conceptual framework was used to assist in identifying the shared
norms, or components, of the culture found at Northern Protection and how the
components of this culture affect the overall happiness of the employees.
Significance of the Study
Recruiting, hiring, and training employees take up a significant amount of time,
financial resources, and human capital. It is therefore important to retain good employees
in order to reduce the cost to an organization that results from employee attrition.
Retaining good employees is extremely hard to do if the employees are not satisfied with
their jobs. Knowing what motivates employees and what makes them happy is vital in
order to retain said employees.
The field of organizational culture provides an opportunity for the development of
new ideas and concepts because it has not yet been studied enough and is still an evolving
field (Schein, 2010). Different types of cultures should be visited, experienced, and
observed, as culture is constantly being reshaped by our interactions with others as we
create new conditions for culture formation (Schein, 2010). In other words,
organizational culture is dynamic and should be continuously examined in various
settings. The significance of this study is to add to the current knowledge base by
providing insight into the culture present in a specific organizational setting that has
never before been studied.
This study contributes not only to the current literature on organizational culture
but also to the topics of job satisfaction and employee engagement, by examining the job
satisfaction and engagement of employees of a rapidly growing technology company and
the culture that management has cultivated. The results of this study will help other
17
managers to implement strategies that will increase the job satisfaction and engagement
of their employees, thereby increasing retention and the overall success of their
organizations.
Definition of Terms
Employee engagement: “Individual’s involvement and satisfaction with as well as
enthusiasm for work” (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002, p. 269).
Employee retention: “Keeping those members of staff that one wants to keep and
not losing them from the organisation for whatever reason, especially to the competitors”
(Browell, 2003, p. 5).
Job satisfaction: “A pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of
one’s job as achieving or facilitating the achievement of one’s job values” (Locke, 1969,
p. 316).
Organizational commitment: “The strength of an individual's identification with
and involvement in a particular organization.” This commitment is usually characterized
by “(a) a strong belief in and acceptance of the organization's goals and values; (b) a
willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization; (c) a definite desire
to maintain organizational membership” (Porter et al., 1974, p. 604).
Organizational culture: “A complex set of values, beliefs, assumptions, and
symbols that define the way in which a firm conducts its business” (Barney, 1986, p.
657).
Work-life balance: “The extent to which an individual is equally engaged in—and
equally satisfied with—his or her work role and family role” (Greenhaus, Collins &
Shaw, 2003, p. 513).
18
Limitations of the Study
Limitations can be expected because the demographic characteristics of the
participants – such as age, gender, culture, race, education, position, and history – may
affect their responses and viewpoints (LeHew, 2006). This study only examined the
relationship between culture and job satisfaction at Northern Protection at one point in
time with employees who were employed at that point in time. Additionally, the study
was limited to those employees that voluntarily chose to participate by completing the
survey. The possibility exists that some employees may have chosen not to participate
due to low levels of job satisfaction, which would not be captured in the study because
they did not participate. Repeating the study in subsequent years and comparing the
findings would help to counteract these limitations.
This study did not take into account the previous work experience of the
participants. Employees with greater work experience may compare the culture found at
Northern Protection with cultures they have experienced at other organizations and this
may affect their responses. Less experienced employees may not have other work-place
cultures to compare their experience with and this may affect how they perceive the
culture at Northern Protection.
Delimitations
This study was limited to employees of Northern Protection, a Toronto-based
technology company, during June of 2016, when the survey instrument was administered.
This study did not seek to compare the culture found at Northern Protection with other
organizations, but rather was concerned with examining the effects of the culture of
Northern Protection on its employees’ job satisfaction and engagement.
19
Organization of the Study
This study is divided into five chapters. Chapter 1 provided an introduction to the
study, including background and rationale for the study, statement of the problem,
purpose of the study, research questions, conceptual framework, significance of the
study, definition of terms, limitations, and delimitations. In Chapter 2, I discuss current
literature related to organizational culture, job satisfaction, work-life balance, and
employee retention. Chapter 3 outlines the methodology used in this study and describes
the study and population, instrumentation, data collection, data analysis, and overall
design of the study. In Chapter 4, I present and discuss the results of the study. Chapter
5 includes a summary of the findings, conclusion, and recommendations.
20
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
This literature review begins by looking at the history and development of
organizational culture, and types of organizational culture, before describing the
emergence of job satisfaction and its relationship to organizational culture. The review
then gives a brief historical overview of employee engagement, followed by a description
of the relationship between employee engagement, job satisfaction, and organizational
culture. The review then examines the outcomes of this relationship – namely, employee
retention and work-life balance – before ending with a summary and analysis of the
topics covered.
For the last few decades there has been a focus on organizational culture research
due to the effect it has on the performance and continued success of an organization
(Ekwutosi & Moses, 2013). Organizational culture plays a large part in the happiness
and commitment of employees and the success of the organization itself. This review
focuses on literature pertaining to the topics of organizational culture, job satisfaction,
work-life balance, and employee retention. A variety of documents, including journals,
dissertations, research papers, and books, were reviewed for this literature review.
21
The History and Development of Organizational Culture
Organizational “climate” has a much longer research history than organizational
“culture” does, as it lent itself to easier direct observation and measurement (Schein,
1990). In the 1950’s and 1960’s, the field of organizational psychology grew and
differentiated itself from industrial psychology as the number of business and
management schools also grew (Schein, 1990). As researchers began to focus on work
groups and organizations, a need arose for a means of describing the patterns of norms
and attitudes that seemed prevalent in the entire group being studied (Schein, 1990).
Concepts from sociology and anthropology began to influence the field of organizational
psychology (Schein, 1990).
According to Platonova (2005), the term “Organizational Culture” was first used
in academic literature in 1979 when it appeared in Administrative Science Quarterly in an
article by Pettigrew (1979). Denison, Nieminen, and Kotrba (2012) however, noted that
Jacques (1952) refers to the culture at a factory in his book, The Changing Culture of a
Factory, more than 20 years prior to Pettigrew’s (1979) article. In the early 1980’s,
books published by a number of authors, including Ouchi, Deal and Kennedy, and Peters
and Waterman brought attention to organizational culture, and helped to popularize it as
an important business concept (Trice & Beyer, 1993). The concept of organizational
culture gained popularity with the emphasis on trying to understand why companies in
the United States did not perform as well as companies in other countries – mainly Japan
(Schein, 1990). Ouchi’s (1981) Theory Z: How American Business Can Meet the
Japanese Challenge and Pascale and Athos’ (1982) The Art of Japanese Management:
Applications for American Executives directly addressed this issue, and contributed to the
22
growth of organizational culture, as did Deal and Kennedy’s (1982) Corporate Cultures:
The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life and Peters and Waterman’s (1982) In Search of
Excellence: Lessons from America’s Best Run Companies. Each of these four books
were best-sellers, with Peter and Waterman’s (1982) out-selling all other non-fiction
books in the year (Baker, 2002).
Organizational culture refers to the shared perceptions of organizational work
practices within organizational units that may differ from other organizational units (Van
den Berg & Wilderom, 2004). Barney (1986) simplified the definition of organizational
culture as “a complex set of values, beliefs, assumptions, and symbols that define the way
in which a firm conducts its business” (p. 657).
Thomas (2013) stated that Barney’s definition is useful because it encompasses
all of the attributes present in almost all of the other definitions of organizational culture,
including values, beliefs, assumptions, and symbols. Thomas (2013) continued that
Barney’s definition recognizes that culture is ultimately the way in which organizations
conduct themselves and which is manifested in the behavior of an organization’s
members. The organization’s values and beliefs dictate how members of the organization
should act, both in the present and in the future.
Schein (2010) referred to culture as “phenomena that are below the surface, that
are powerful in their impact but invisible and to a considerable degree unconscious” (p.
14). He goes on to state that “we can see the behavior that results, but we often cannot
see the forces underneath that cause certain kinds of behavior” (p. 14). He concluded that
culture guides, and constrains, the behavior of members of the group, due to the shared
norms in the group.
23
Drawing upon both academic knowledge and personal experience to develop an
approach that is both observational and clinical, Schein (2010) defined the three levels of
organizational culture as Artifacts, Espoused Beliefs and Values, and Basic Underlying
Assumptions. Denison (1997), however, described the levels of culture as the values and
beliefs that underlie actions; the patterns of behavior that reflect and reinforce those
values; and the set of conditions, created by these patterns of behavior, within which
organizational members must function. Schein viewed culture as an abstract
phenomenon, while Denison viewed it as a concrete construct that could be measured.
According to Ritchie (2000), when employees internalize an organization’s
culture, positive outcomes such as job satisfaction, job commitment, and good job
performance are the outcome. Regardless of one’s definition, interpretation, or
classification, the one constant when it comes to culture is that “proper management of an
organization’s culture can lead to employees that are committed, engaged, and satisfied
with their job” (Alexander, 2012, p. 13).
Just as there are numerous definitions of organizational culture, there are a
number of theoretical models of organizational culture. The next section of this review
looks at some of the more popular theoretical models.
Popular Theoretical Models of Organizational Culture
Schein’s (2010) three levels of organizational culture – defined as Artifacts,
Espoused Beliefs and Values, and Basic Underlying Assumptions – is just one of a
number of popular theoretical models related to organizational culture. Hofstede, a
psychologist, developed a framework based on data gathered from roughly 116,000
surveys completed by IBM employees working across 40 different countries in the late
24
1960s and early 1970s (Kirkman et al., 2010). Hofstede initially developed four cultural
dimensions, but would eventually expand the framework to include a total of six
dimensions. Hofstede’s (Hofstede et al., 2010) six dimensions of culture include: Power
distance - the amount of influence one individual has over another; Individualism versus
collectivism - the level of community found in a group; Masculinity versus femininity -
the effect of male and female values; Uncertainty avoidance - the extent to which a group
feels threatened by uncertainty or ambiguity and attempts to avoid such situations; Long
term versus short term orientation - how the group plans, anticipates and obtains
objectives; and Indulgence versus Restraint - the amount of gratification that is allowed.
Handy (1985), however, described four types of organizational culture: power,
role, task, and person. Each unique type can be effective, and can function alongside
other types. There are no good or bad cultures – all cultures are acceptable, in the right
environment, as each culture has a purpose. Few organizations consist of only one type
of culture, but most consist of a mixture of different types. According to Handy, the
unique mixture is what makes each organization different, but having the right mixture at
the right time is what makes an organizational culture successful.
A power culture is governed by one source of power, such as a President or Chief
Executive Officer. This culture can be viewed as a spider’s web. The center, where the
leader resides, is where the power radiates from. The closer to the center an individual is,
the more power that individual possesses. In this type of culture minimum bureaucracy
exists, and trust and mutual understanding of roles and responsibilities are very
important. Employees in this type of culture, usually found in entrepreneurial
25
organizations, function under very few rules and policies. In this culture type, the
organization is led, rather than managed (White, Martin, Stimson, & Hodge, 1991).
The strength of the role culture, or bureaucracy, is “its pillars, its functions or
specialties” (Handy, 1985, p. 178). Each business unit is a pillar, which supports the
overall purpose and goals of the organization. As each business unit supports its own
weight by meeting their departmental goals independently, the organization as a whole
thrives. This type of culture depends on clearly defined policies and procedures.
Employees are expected to meet the responsibilities outlined in their job descriptions. In
this culture type, the organization is managed, rather than led (White et al., 1991).
Task culture focuses on a particular task or function. In this type of culture,
employees are assembled based on their particular skill-set or the resources they possess,
for the purpose of performing a particular job. Examples of this type of culture include
special action committees. These types of cultures tend to be friendly, and there is little
hierarchy, with team leaders rather than managers. Groups of this type can be changed,
disbanded, or increased, as the task changes. These types of organizations are expensive
to run and may not offer job security, though they tend to offer excitement and challenge
to employees (White et al., 1991).
The person culture, which is not found in many organizations, exists to meet the
needs of its members, and to further their individual goals. Management hierarchies are
impossible in this type of structure, unless agreed upon by all parties. Individuals may
leave the organization, but the organization usually does not have the power to evict its
members. In this type of culture, individuals are relied upon for their individual areas of
expertise.
26
In their “Competing Values Framework,” developed from research focused on
identifying traits of effective organizations, Cameron and Quinn (1999) also described
four types of organizational culture, which they refer to as hierarchy culture, market
culture, clan culture, and adhocracy culture. Although Handy’s (1985) and Cameron
and Quinn’s (1999) culture types contain some similarities in their descriptions, there are
also some distinct differences.
Similar to Handy’s (1985) role culture, the hierarchy, bureaucracy, culture
focuses on procedures. This culture promotes structure and formality, in search of
stability, predictability, and efficiency (Cameron & Quinn, 1999). This type of culture
functions on a strict chain of command, with executives keeping a careful watch over
employee’s progress on projects and tasks.
Market cultures are results driven, with a strong focus on accomplishing goals.
Employees in these cultures tend to be competitive, while leaders maintain high
expectations. This culture is external focused, so the market value of the organization is
very important, as is reputation and overall success, especially compared to competitors.
The clan culture tends to be a social, family-like, environment where employees
view each other as friends. Teamwork is encouraged, and organizational commitment
tends to be high, as employees are driven by loyalty and shared goals. This culture type
tends to focus less on procedures, and more on flexibility. Rules exist, but are usually
unwritten, and are passed on to new employees as they become indoctrinated into the
culture. Clan cultures tend to have a flat organization culture, where executives are
viewed as mentors and encourage the growth of employees.
27
In the adhocracy culture, there is no central point of power, but it is shifted as
necessary. This culture type tends to be an energetic and creative one, with a focus on
creating new products, services, and resources. It is a rapidly changing environment,
which offers even more flexibility than the clan culture does. Employees are offered
much freedom and independence, and ingenuity and creativity are encouraged. Leaders
in this culture tend to be innovators and visionaries who are willing to take calculated
risks.
Instead of organizational culture types, Denison and Mishra (1995) utilized 15
years of research on 1,000 companies to develop a model of critical traits of
organizational culture (Goldston, 2007). Each of the four traits - consistency,
involvement, mission, and adaptability – contains three management practices associated
with that particular trait. Goldston (2007) noted that Denison later expanded the model
with Neale (Denison & Neal, 1996), and later with Young (Denison & Young, 1999).
Though focused on characteristic traits rather than describing cultural norms, Denison
and Mishra’s traits of organizational culture bear some resemblances to Cameron and
Quinn’s organizational culture types.
The mission trait focuses on defining the organization’s goals. As in market
cultures, goals are clearly outlined and guide the activities of employees. Leaders in
organizations with this trait carefully monitor if goals are being achieved, and make
decisions based on goal achievement. As the organization’s mission changes, so does its
culture (Denison & Mishra, 1995).
The adaptability trait is found in cultures like the adhocracy culture, who are able
to successfully make changes based on external factors, such as the needs of their
28
customers, or market trends. Adaptability may at times require adjustments in the
internal procedures and practises of the organization.
The consistency trait emphasizes a standard set of procedures, similar to the
hierarchy culture. Organizations with this trait tend to have highly committed
employees, and a very strong culture, based on a shared system of beliefs (Goldston,
2007). This trait shines in situations where organizations are faced with inconsistency
and unpredictability. Because of this trait, organization members will respond and
perform in a predictable manner (Goldston, 2007).
The involvement trait, similar to the clan culture, encourages organization
employees to become involved in the organization. The belief is that the more involved
employees are, the more responsibility and commitment they will feel towards the
organization. Employees are empowered to become more involved in all aspects of the
organization, including decision making in areas that affect the overall organization.
Organizations with this trait tend to be less bureaucratic, due to the input of employees.
Denison and Mishra (1995) found that different trait combinations were
associated with particular organizational outcomes. For example, while adaptability and
involvement were found to be the best predictors of organizational innovation, mission
and consistency were found to be the best predictors of profitability, but adaptability and
mission were the best predictors of sales growth (Goldston, 2007).
Before examining the relationship between organizational culture and job
satisfaction, this literature review will first provide a historical overview of job
satisfaction, and review some of the theoretical models of job satisfaction. The next two
29
sections will serve as an introduction to the concept of job satisfaction, as an overview of
this concept will assist in understanding how it relates to organizational culture.
A Historical Overview of Job Satisfaction
While more than 10,000 studies, some dating back to the start of the 20th century,
had been conducted on job satisfaction before 1997, the term “job satisfaction” was not
widely used, and was only infrequently found in literature prior to the late-1940’s
(Wright, 2006). Taylor (1911) was one of the first researchers to study the relationship
between production and employee satisfaction (Adams, 2000). Taylor’s goal was to help
organizations maximize their profits, while also providing prosperity for the employees
through higher wages and helping each worker achieve their highest potential, which he
believed would result in higher self-respect (Adams, 2000).
In the 1920’s and 1930’s research was conducted at the Hawthorne Plant of the
Western Electric Company to examine how factors such as lighting, humidity, and
temperature would affect productivity (Adams, 2000). Roethlisberger and Dickson
(1939) analyzed the data from the study and found that the productivity increased
whether the quality of the physical conditions increased or decreased. They discovered
that the increase in productivity was due to the workers’ awareness that they were being
observed – a phenomenon which would come to be known as the “Hawthorne effect”
(Adams, 2000). The Hawthorne Studies began to investigate employee boredom,
monotony, and fatigue (Demas, 2011) before the focus shifted to look at employee
attitudes, since the desired results were not being achieved from investigating
environmental variables alone (Wright, 2006).
30
Though researched by industrial and organizational psychologists for almost a
century – including prominent consulting psychologist, Houser (1927), who conducted
research involving employees in the manufacturing and public utilities industries; and
Kornhauser (1933), who studied employee attitudes and how to measure them – Robert
Hoppock (1935) was the first to publish an intensive study on job satisfaction which
included the various factors historically found to influence job satisfaction (Gamber,
2005). Hoppock included variables not studied before, including working conditions,
fatigue, monotony, and supervision (Gamber, 2005). In what was considered a landmark
study (Wright, 2006), Hoppock (1937) reported job satisfaction levels for a sample of
American Psychological Association Psychologists. Hoppock found that, when
compared to persons in other vocations, Psychologists were no more satisfied with their
jobs (Wright, 2006).
Super’s (1939) later study on the relationship between job satisfaction and
occupational level contained a number of observations, such as differences in satisfaction
level among workers at different job levels, that would prompt numerous future job
satisfaction studies (Wright, 2006). Super found that differences existed in the average
job satisfaction of professional, managerial, and commercial workers, with the
professional workers reporting the highest levels of satisfaction (Wright, 2006).
Wright (2006) pointed out that following these two articles, the first published in
the Journal of Applied Psychology with the words “job/work satisfaction” in the title, it
would be almost 10 years before another article focused on job satisfaction would be
published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, though by the early 1950’s interest in job
satisfaction research would increase. Between the 1920’s and 1960’s, a large amount of
31
research was conducted to measure work attitudes. As labor unions gained popularity in
the 1950’s and 1960’s, workers’ satisfaction became more important to management
(Demas, 2011), which contributed to the increase in research on job satisfaction. Demas
(2011) noted that the Hawthorne study, as well as studies conducted by Kornhauser and
Houser, helped to increase the understanding of worker satisfaction and productivity, and
pave the way for research being done even today. According to Wright (2006), research
on job satisfaction continues to build on the work of early pioneers by examining aspects
such as employee boredom, employee fatigue, employee well-being, and customer
satisfaction. There is still a need for research on the link between job satisfaction and
employee performance, and modern researchers will benefit from examining early
research on these topics (Wright, 2006).
Theoretical Models of Job Satisfaction
While Hoppock (1935) defined job satisfaction as a combination of
psychological, physiological, and environmental circumstances which leads a person to
express satisfaction with their job, Locke (1969) defined job satisfaction as “a pleasurable
emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job as achieving or facilitating the
achievement of one’s job values” (p. 316). Of course, this achievement, as well as the
pleasurable emotional state, are subjective.
The results of Hanson, Martin, and Tuch’s (1987) study, however, found that
intrinsic rewards such as professional interest, job responsibility, psychological
recognition, career advancement, skill utilization and development, enjoyment of work,
and autonomy in decision-making were important determinants of both job satisfaction
and dissatisfaction (Schroder, 2003).
32
The satisfaction or happiness that people feel with their jobs is a part of their
overall level of satisfaction with their workplace (Robertson & Cooper, 2011). Being
happy with one’s work and workplace is extremely important, as a person’s job
satisfaction has an important influence on their overall psychological well-being
(Robertson & Cooper, 2011). Kemery et al.’s (1987) study found that job satisfaction
and physical health were linked to employees’ intention to leave the workplace.
Maslow’s (1954) “hierarchy of needs” describes the five basic human needs. In
order of importance, these are physiological, safety, social, esteem, and self-actualization.
The lower level needs (physiological, safety, social) must be acquired before the higher
level needs (esteem and self-actualization) can be pursued. If the lower level needs are
not satisfied, a person is unable and unmotivated to seek out the higher level needs. If an
employee does not feel that an organization is meeting their basic needs, they will be less
likely to feel a sense of job satisfaction, and less likely to perform at their full potential.
Building on Maslow’s theory, Alderfer (1972) developed the Existence,
Relatedness, and Growth (ERG) theory of motivation, which focused on three separate
categories, as opposed to five, as found in Maslow’s theory. Alderfer’s categories of
need were Existence needs – material and physical needs, which are satisfied by things
such as water, air, money and working conditions; Relatedness needs – needs which
involve other people and are satisfied by meaningful social interaction and personal
relationships; and Growth needs – needs which are satisfied through creative and
productive contributions (Brown, 2005). Alderfer’s theory closely resembles Maslow’s
theory, in that Alderfer’s existence needs are similar to Maslow’s psychological and
safety needs; his relatedness needs resemble Maslow’s social needs, and to some extent
33
esteem needs; and his growth needs bear similarity to Maslow’s esteem and self-
actualization needs. One major difference between the two theories, however, is that
Alderfer believed that individuals could be motivated by needs from different levels at
the same time. Another major difference is Alderfer’s suggestion that if a higher level
need is not met, individuals will regress to lower level needs (or vice versa), which seem
easier to meet. Alderfer referred to this as the frustration-regression principle (Lazaroiu,
2015).
An employee is less likely to feel happy with their work and workplace if they
question their job security, or do not have a sense of belonging. For such individuals,
higher level needs (such as advancement), may not be a strong enough motivator to
promote higher levels of job satisfaction. While there are similarities and differences
between Maslow and Alderfer’s theories on motivation, the major point for managers to
note is that an individual’s behavior is “motivated by a desire to satisfy the need that is
most important at a specific point or period in time” (Schroder, 2003, p. 20). This means
that what may motivate an employee at one point in their career, may not necessarily
work later. As needs change, so will the effective motivators.
As discussed in Chapter 1, Herzberg’s theory is based on the notion that there are
two types of factors which affect job satisfaction: motivation factors, or satisfiers, which
include achievement, recognition for achievement, the work itself, responsibility, and
advancement; and hygiene factors, or dissatisfiers, such as company policy and
administration, supervision, relationships with supervisors and peers, work conditions,
salary, status, and security.
34
A review of these theories shows that Herzberg’s hygiene factors resemble
Maslow’s lower level needs, while the motivation factors seem to mirror Maslow’s
higher level needs. Using these theories in conjunction can be beneficial to an
organization, based on their existing relationship. Maslow’s and Alderfer’s theories can
be used to identify an employee’s level of need, after which Herzberg’s theory can be
applied to increase the employee’s level of job satisfaction, by raising or diminishing the
appropriate satisfier or dissatisfier.
The Impact of Gender and Length of

Employment on Job Satisfaction
Studies on the impact of gender and length of time at an organization on the job
satisfaction of employees have produced mixed results. Some researchers found that
gender was a predictor of job satisfaction (Bonte & Krabel, 2014; Khan, Ramzan, & Butt,
2013; Lindorff, 2011; Oshagbemi, 2003; Sentuna, 2015), and that an employee’s gender
could influence the way that the values of an organization affect the employee, and by
extension, their level of job satisfaction (Bellou, 2010; McMurray et al., 2000;
Olorunsola, 2010). Others found that there is no significant correlation between job
satisfaction and gender (Berry, 2016; Saiti & Papadopoulos, 2015; Stebbins, 2008).
According to Berry (2016) literature on the relationship between job satisfaction
and gender suggests that differences in job satisfaction levels will be caused by what a
person values in the workplace, their goals, and expectations. Berry (2016) goes on to
state that some research shows that women are more satisfied when factors other than pay
are considered, while men appear more satisfied when pay is considered. This, however,
does not align with the findings of other studies which found that gender had very little
35
influence on job satisfaction. The difference in findings suggests that there is room for
more research on the impact of gender on the job satisfaction of employees (Berry, 2016).
The research on the impact of length of time on job satisfaction also reflects
differing conclusions. While some researchers found that length of time of service had a
negative correlation with job satisfaction (Ma & MacMillan, 1999; Oshagbemi, 2003) –
perhaps due to frustrations related to unmet expectations and inability to reach personal
goals, such as career advancement (Stebbins, 2008) – other research suggests that the
relationship between employees and their coworkers and supervisors strengthens over
time, which will increase the level of job satisfaction experienced by employees (Dike,
2011). Conversely, there is research that shows that a greater length of time at an
organization does not lead to greater job satisfaction (Sharma, 2009). There is also
research that found that length of service had an impact on job satisfaction, but only for
part-time employees, not for full-time employees (Kirk, 2003). These differing findings
suggest a need for more research on the impact of length of employment on job
satisfaction.
The Relationship Between Organizational

Culture and Job Satisfaction
Stebbins (2008) noted that studies by both Odom et al. (1990) and Sheridan
(1992) have revealed “a positive relationship between people-oriented, supportive,
cultures and job satisfaction” (p. 5). While Stebbins (2008), like a number of other
researchers (Ahamed & Mahmood, 2015; Alexander, 2012; Hebb, 1949; Kline & Boyd,
1994; Morse, 1953; Sempane et al., 2002; Zammuto & Krakower, 1991), confirmed a
relationship between organizational culture and job satisfaction, Wallach (1983)
36
emphasized that favorable individual job outcomes, such as job satisfaction, depended on
the match between an individual’s characteristics and the organization’s culture.
High levels of job satisfaction result in low levels of turnover, accidents, and
absences (Freed, 2003), which can be costly to the organization, and quite disruptive,
resulting in decreased levels of productivity (Koh & Boo, 2001). According to Ellickson
(2002), satisfied employees tend to exhibit more favorable behaviors, such as exceeding
the formal requirements of their jobs, while dissatisfied employees display behaviors
such as withdrawal, burnout and aggression.
While there are various facets or components of job satisfaction, such as
satisfaction with pay, satisfaction with opportunities for advancement, satisfaction with
the work itself that constitutes the employee’s role, satisfaction with the quality of
supervision, and satisfaction with the relationship with coworkers (Werner, 1994), each
of these facets is influenced by the culture that exists in an organization. This is why
matching an individual’s character traits to the appropriate organizational culture (Chen,
Sparrow, & Cooper, 2016; Silverthorne, 2004; Wallach, 1983) is important, as what gives
one employee a high sense of job satisfaction may not have the same result with another
employee. For example, if the organizational culture promotes a flat structure, then it is
likely that employees will feel comfortable speaking with their supervisors about ideas or
issues they face, since the culture encourages employees to view supervisors as peers. In
a top-down structure, it is more likely that employees will feel like subordinates to their
supervisors, since the organization promotes a culture with clearly defined lines of
authority. One employee may feel a higher sense of job satisfaction in a flat structure,
while another employee may prefer the top-down structure.
37
This literature review will now provide a historical overview of employee
engagement before discussing the relationship among organizational culture, job
satisfaction, and employee engagement.
A Historical Overview of Employee Engagement
Some researchers have suggested that employee engagement is not a new concept,
but is simply a rebranding of a number of old constructs, including organizational
commitment, job commitment and job satisfaction, while other studies have found
employee engagement to be an entirely distinct empirical construct (Harper, 2015).
Scholars generally do agree, however, that the concept of employee engagement was first
introduced by William Kahn in 1990 (Li, 2016), in an article published in the Academy of
Management Journal (Dagher, Chapa, & Junaid, 2015). Kahn (1990) conducted a study
to determine how job variables, including management, role clarity, and resource ability,
affected employee’s involvement in work tasks. Referring to what he called personal
engagement, Kahn (1990) noted that “in engagement, people employ and express
themselves physically, cognitively, emotionally and mentally during role performances”
(p. 694). Kahn (1990) pointed out that the conditions necessary for engagement were
meaningfulness – a sense that investing oneself in the performance of the role was worth
it; safety – the ability to be oneself, without fear of negative impacts to one’s self-image,
status or career; and availability – possessing the physical, emotional and psychological
resources necessary to perform in the role.
Dagher et al. (2015) suggested that even prior to Kahn, characteristics of
employee engagement have been found in literature, though the term “employee
engagement” was not used. Dagher et al. (2015) pointed out that Taylor (1911) sought to
38
increase productivity through elements of employee engagement, namely cooperation,
harmony and combined intellectual work. Taylor stressed rewarding employees for their
willingness to perform and improve their skills, because by rewarding those
improvements employees would be motivated and willing to continuously improve. He
also suggested that adequate feedback is required so that employees know what is
expected of them, and what improvements they need to make. This bears similarities to
the employee engagement principle that providing employees clear expectations and
feedback promotes employee engagement (Dagher et al., 2015). While Taylor promoted
training employees with the skills necessary to fulfil their work duties, he also suggested
that supervisors should ensure that the work is meaningful and has purpose – in essence,
they should make sure that the work is engaging (Dagher et al., 2015).
Kahn himself drew influence from a number of sources (Dagher et al., 2015),
including Goffman’s (1961) internationalist theory, as evidenced by his comments
regarding role performance and how much of their true selves individuals attach to or
detach from the roles they take on. (Jacobs, 2013; Shuck & Wollard, 2009). Kahn was
also influenced by Maslow’s (1954) hierarchy of needs, and Alderfer’s (1972) ERG
theory, and noted that meaningfulness, safety, and availability of physical, emotional, and
cognitive resources (Jacobs, 2013) are important to fully understanding why a person
becomes engaged (Shuck & Wollard, 2009).
Kahn’s study would remain the only empirical research on employee
engagement until Maslach, Schaufeli and Leiter’s (2001) study focused on why
employees develop job burnout (Shuck & Wollard, 2009). The following year, Harter,
Schmidt and Hayes (2002) published one of the most definitive pieces of literature on
39
employee engagement, becoming the first to look at employee engagement at the
business unit level (Shuck & Wollard, 2009). Their study would prove to be a catalyst
for the rapid expansion of interest in employee engagement (Shuck & Wollard, 2009).
The Relationship Among Organizational Culture,

Job Satisfaction, and Employee Engagement
According to Li (2016), job satisfaction has been viewed as one of the important
elements of employee engagement. Smith (2016) also noted that engaged employees are
empowered, and there exists a positive correlation between staff empowerment, job
satisfaction and job performance.
Li (2016) pointed out that Harter et al. (2002) and the Gallup Study (2006) both
categorize employees into three groups. Engaged employees are those that work with
high levels of energy and enthusiasm, and feel a “profound connection” (p. 27) to their
organization. Not Engaged employees are identified as passive, “checked out” (p. 27),
and not putting much energy or passion into their work. The last category, the Actively
Disengaged, actively spread their disengaged attitude throughout the organization, and
purposefully undermine the accomplishments of their engaged colleagues.
Employee engagement, defined by Harter et al. (2002) as an “individual’s
involvement and satisfaction with as well as enthusiasm for work” (p. 269), plays a major
role in the overall success of the organization. According to Fairbanks (2007), improved
performance, teamwork, satisfaction, as well as more cohesiveness, are all reported by
employees when they are a part of an engaged team. Employees who are engaged in the
workplace are typically healthier, happier (Kanter, 1993), and more productive (Christian
et al., 2011), which in turn results in an organization that attains higher levels of customer
40
satisfaction (Hunter, Bedell, & Mumford, 2007). Additionally, engaged employees
report higher levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment as well as lower
levels of turn-over intentions (Christian et al., 2011), which results in higher employee
retention rates. Organizations such as Ultimate Software, SalesForce and Google, which
are all hailed for their employee-focused culture, have successfully created cultures that
result in high job satisfaction and engagement of employees (Forbes Technology Council,
2018; Fortune, 2017; Great Place to Work, 2018; Patel, 2015; Rushdi & Kamal, 2014).
Despite all of the literature showing the importance of employee engagement on
organizational success, Crabtree (2013), reporting on the results of a Gallup Poll of
225,087 employees, noted that a mere 13% of the employees reported being engaged at
work, while 63% identified as not engaged, and 24% of the respondents admitted to being
actively disengaged. While some researchers have proposed that employee engagement
can be improved by enhancing organizational culture (Attridge, 2009) and others have
stated that organizational culture significantly predicts engagement (Sarangi &
Srivastava, 2012), Harper (2015) noted that, unfortunately, much research has been done
on organizational culture and employee engagement separately, but little attention has
been given to the relationship between organizational culture and employee engagement.
Outcomes of the Relationship Among Organizational

Culture, Job Satisfaction and Employee Engagement
Employee Retention
As previously noted, a healthy organizational culture can lead to positive
employee outcomes, including job satisfaction and organizational commitment
(Alexander, 2012; Ritchie, 2000). Organizational commitment is “the strength of an
41
individual's identification with and involvement in a particular organization” (Porter et
al., 1974, p. 604). Research has shown that the degree to which an employee identifies
with an organization, as well as their commitment to ensure the organization achieves its
goals, is indicated by their level of engagement (Little & Little, 2006). Employee
engagement actually received much attention and popularity, especially in management
literature, because of its demonstrated statistical relationship with desired corporate
outcomes, including productivity, profit, customer satisfaction, and employee retention
(Little & Little, 2006).
Organizational commitment is characterized by three main factors: a strong belief
in and acceptance of the organization's goals and values, a willingness to exert
considerable effort on behalf of the organization, and a definite desire to maintain
organizational membership. Employees who are invested in the goals and values of the
organization – that is, engaged employees – are more likely to stay with the organization
and to aid in goal achievement (Porter et al., 1974). An Employee’s level of happiness or
satisfaction with their jobs and the work they do is a part of their overall satisfaction with
the workplace (Robertson & Cooper, 2011). Employees who are happy will be more
likely to stay with the organization as job satisfaction and physical health are linked to
employees’ intention to leave the workplace (Kemery et al., 1987).
In a chapter titled “Organizational Culture and Retention,” Meyer and
Topolnytsky (2000) stated that employee commitment and retention is related to
perceived organizational values. This is an important point to note, as organizational
values are based on organizational culture. Organizational culture plays a major part in
whether or not employees choose to stay with an organization. Meyer and Topolnytsky
42
continued that employee-oriented values are likely to be universally appealing, and to
promote commitment and retention. Conversely, task or rule-oriented values, especially
when they take precedence over employee-oriented values, can have a negative effect. In
essence, while one particular culture is not better than another, cultures that view people
as important, and emphasize certain values, including interpersonal relationships and
development or change, seem to lead to higher levels of retention (Meyer & Topolnytsky,
2000).
Referencing Sheridan’s (1992) findings, Meyer and Topolnytsky (2000) noted
that organizations with cultures that promote strong relationship values may be at risk of
increasing not only the retention of their strong employees but also the weak ones. These
cultures will reduce “both dysfunctional and functional turnover” (Meyer & Topolnytsky,
2000, p. 13). Although not universally attractive, cultures that promote work-task values
will appeal more to strong performers than to weaker ones. Meyer and Topolnytsky
(2000) suggested that this dilemma should be handled like any other business decision,
and a cost-benefit analysis should be considered. They also pointed out that if the
selecting and hiring process is effective, then even the organization’s weaker employees
would be performing effectively, and so this sort of culture, which retains both stronger
and weaker employees, would not prove disadvantageous.
Hiring, and retaining, the right people is important to the overall success of the
organization (Collins, 2001). When in doubt about whether or not to hire an individual, it
is better not to hire, and instead keep looking (Collins, 2001). When it becomes evident
that an employee is the wrong person for the job, action should be taken immediately
(Collins, 2001). The right person for a particular job should not require a lot of
43
management, nor should compensation be their main motivator. “The right people will
do the right things and deliver the best results they're capable of, regardless of the
incentive system” (Collins, 2001, p. 50). Compensation should not be used to “get the
right behaviors from the wrong people” (p. 50), but should instead be used to recruit and
retain the right people - who are engaged in the organization, easily motivated, and
require less management (Collins, 2001). Reward systems, such as compensation, should
not cause the desired behavior, but should instead be reinforcing such behaviors (Kerr,
1995).
Organizational culture does have a direct relationship with employee retention. A
work place culture deemed unsatisfactory by employees because it ignores the needs of
its employees, easily results in dissatisfied employees who are motivated to leave the
organization and seek employment opportunities elsewhere (Atkins & Turner, 2006).
However, organizations with a satisfactory work place culture facilitate an enjoyable,
even fun, work environment, which leads to high morale, and low turnover (Sadri &
Lees, 2001).
Work-Life Balance
It is hard for employees to experience job satisfaction when their jobs come into
conflict with their personal lives. Gainey and Clenney (2006) found that employees often
experience such conflicts due to increased work place demands and personal life
responsibilities. Work-life balance is an important component of job satisfaction which
is why organizations have taken steps to incorporate alternate work arrangements to help
employees balance their lives (Gainey & Clenney, 2006). Organizations have realized
that work-life balance can play a role in employee retention, as factors such as work-
44
family conflict and unhealthy work relationships can affect employees’ decision to stay
with, or leave, an organization (Ackerman & Bezuidenhout, 2007), and this is why
establishing an organizational culture that promotes work-life balance is important.
Work-life balance is not a new concept. Scholars have been researching and
growing the knowledge base of work-life balance for more than a decade (Cowan &
Hoffman, 2007). While there is no single, agreed upon definition for the term work-life
balance (Thomas, 2013), Frone (2003) noted that the most widely used definition of
work-life balance is a lack of conflict or interference between work and family roles.
Occupational stress is the perception that workplace demands exceed employee
capacity to meet those demands (Topper, 2007). Excessive occupational stress results in
a decrease in an employee’s functioning in the workplace, and a decreased quality of life
for the employee (Elfering et al., 2008). Dickinson and Wright (2008) found burnout to
be a consequence of persistent occupational stress.
Work-life balance is important as employees need to be freed from stressors and
distractions in order to be effectively engaged in their jobs (Gryzwacz & Carlson, 2007).
However, the attainment of work-life balance varies from person to person, as balance is
unique to each individual (Murphy, 2005).
A person’s work-life balance needs may change over their lifetime. The variation
in each persons’ needs overtime makes developing work-life balance programs
challenging for some organizations (Fulmano, 2005). Organizations should still strive to
promote a healthy work-life balance as employees’ ability to achieve work-life balance
directly affects the organization’s employee retention (Baldiga, 2005).
45
Summary and Analysis of the Review
Research seems to suggest that a relationship exists between organizational
culture and job satisfaction; between organizational culture and employee engagement;
and between job satisfaction and employee engagement. Yet, there remains a need for
additional research on the relationships among these variables, as they have not been
studied carefully enough (Harper, 2015; Schein, 2010).
First used in academic literature in 1979, the term “Organizational Culture” refers
to the shared perceptions of organizational work practices within organizational units that
may differ from other organizational units (Van den Berg & Wilderom, 2004), or more
simply, as “a complex set of values, beliefs, assumptions, and symbols that define the
way in which a firm conducts its business” (Barney, 1986, p. 657). An organization’s
culture guides and constrains the behavior of members of the group due to the shared
norms in the group (Schein, 2010).
Schein (2010), who viewed culture as an abstract phenomenon, defined three
levels of organizational culture – Artifacts, Espoused Beliefs and Values, and Basic
Underlying Assumptions. Denison (1997), viewed culture as a concrete and measurable
construct. He described the levels of culture as the values and beliefs that underlie
actions; the patterns of behavior that reflect and reinforce those values; and the set of
conditions, created by these patterns of behavior, within which organizational members
must function.
In identifying different types of cultures, researchers differed in their approaches.
Handy (1985) described four types of organizational culture: power, role, task, and
person. Most organizations consist of a mixture of different types of culture, with the
46
unique mixture being what makes each organization different, though the right mixture at
the right time is what makes an organizational culture successful (Handy, 1985).
Cameron and Quinn (1999) also describe four types of organizational culture, in their
“Competing Values Framework,” which they referred to as hierarchy culture, market
culture, clan culture, and adhocracy culture. Instead of organizational culture types,
Denison and Mishra (1995) developed a model of four traits of organizational culture:
consistency, involvement, mission, and adaptability. Each of the four traits contained
three management practices associated with that particular trait. Denison and Mishra
(1995) found that different trait combinations were associated with a particular
organizational outcome. Though focused on characteristic traits rather than culture types,
Denison and Mishra’s traits of organizational culture bear some resemblances to
Cameron and Quinn’s organizational culture types.
Job satisfaction is described as a combination of psychological, physiological, and
environmental circumstances which leads a person to express satisfaction with their job
(Hoppock, 1935), or a pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s
job as achieving or facilitating the achievement of one’s job values (Locke, 1969). Job
satisfaction has an important influence on employees’ overall psychological well-being
(Robertson & Cooper, 2011). Maslow (1954) described a hierarchy of human needs,
made up of five levels. Alderfer (1972), building on Maslow’s theory, developed the
ERG theory of motivation, which focused on three categories, instead of five. Alderfer’s
existence needs are similar to Maslow’s psychological and safety needs; his relatedness
needs resemble Maslow’s social needs, and to some extent esteem needs; and his growth
needs bear similarity to Maslow’s esteem and self-actualization needs. While Maslow’s
47
theory suggests that needs are met in ascending order, Alderfer believed that individuals
could be motivated by needs from different levels at the same time, and if needs at one
level are not met, the individual will regress to needs at another level, which are easier to
meet (Lazaroiu, 2015).
Herzberg (1968) believed that motivators were the primary cause of satisfaction,
while hygiene factors were the primary cause of unhappiness on the job. Herzberg found
that motivation factors, or satisfiers, were achievement, recognition for achievement, the
work itself, responsibility, and advancement. Conversely, Herzberg found that the major
hygiene factors, or dissatisfiers, included company policy and administration,
supervision, relationships with supervisors and peers, work conditions, salary, status, and
security. While hygiene factors do not motivate employees, the lack of or inadequacy of
these factors leads to dissatisfaction.
Job satisfaction has been viewed as one of the important elements of employee
engagement (Li, 2016), which is defined as an “individual’s involvement and satisfaction
with as well as enthusiasm for work” (Harter et al., 2002, p. 269). Employees who are
engaged in the workplace are typically healthier, happier (Kanter, 1993), and more
productive (Christian et al., 2011), which in turn results in an organization that attains
higher levels of customer satisfaction (Hunter et al., 2007). Though little research has
been done on the relationship between organizational culture and employee engagement,
researchers have proposed that employee engagement can be enhanced by organizational
culture (Attridge, 2009) which significantly predicts engagement (Sarangi & Srivastava,
2012).
48
Employee engagement received much attention and popularity, especially in
management literature, because of its relationship with employee retention (Little &
Little, 2006). Engaged employees report higher levels of job satisfaction and
organizational commitment, as well as lower levels of turn-over intentions (Christian et
al., 2011), which results in higher employee retention rates. Likewise job satisfaction and
physical health are linked to employees’ intention to leave the workplace (Kemery et al.,
1987). Organizational culture also plays a part in employee retention, as employee
commitment and retention is related to perceived organizational values (Meyer &
Topolnytsky, 2000). Cultures that view people as important, and emphasize certain
values, including interpersonal relationships and development or change, seem to lead to
higher levels of retention. (Meyer & Topolnytsky, 2000). Cultures deemed
unsatisfactory by employees because it ignores their needs results in dissatisfaction and
turnover (Atkins & Turner, 2006), while organizations that provide an enjoyable, fun
working environment, and high morale, result in low turnover (Sadri & Lees, 2001).
Factors such as work-family conflict and unhealthy work relationships can affect
employees’ decision to stay with, or leave, an organization (Ackerman & Bezuidenhout,
2007). Work-life balance is an important component of job satisfaction, which is why
organizations have taken steps to incorporate alternate work arrangements to help
employees balance their lives (Gainey & Clenney, 2006). Work-life balance is important
as employees need to be freed from stressors and distractions in order to be effectively
engaged in their jobs (Gryzwacz & Carlson, 2007). The variation in each persons’ needs
over time makes developing work-life balance programs challenging for some
organizations (Fulmano, 2005), but this remains important, as employees’ ability to
49
achieve work-life balance directly affects the organization’s employee retention rates
(Baldiga, 2005).
50
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This chapter provides an overview of the methods used for this study, the design
of the study, the participants, the instruments used, and the data collection and analysis
methods.
Research Design
This study utilized a quantitative, non-experimental, correlational method, while
employing a cross-sectional approach with secondary data. A non-experimental
methodology is used when a researcher is unable to manipulate the independent variable
of a study, or assign participants to conditions. The main types of non-experimental
research are single-variable research, correlational research, quasi-experimental research,
and qualitative research. In correlational research, the research examines multiple
variables and the relationship amongst them, but does not manipulate the variables. In
quasi-experimental research, the researcher manipulates an independent variable, but
does not randomly assign participants to conditions of the study. In qualitative research,
data gathered is not numeric, and statistical analyses are not conducted. As this study
51
examined more than one variable, did not manipulate any of the variables, and conducted
statistical analysis, the correlational research method was found to be most appropriate,
as this method describes, and examines in a systematic way, the relationship between
multiple variables (Porter & Carter, 2000). Additionally, this study employed a cross-
sectional approach due to the fact that the data used was a snapshot of the population at a
particular moment in time, and the data may be different if the same population is
examined at another point in time.
A quantitative correlational method was used for this study since it would have
provided a description, and an analysis, of the relationships among the variables.
Sample and Population
The participants for this study were all full-time employees of Northern
Protection in June 2016. These employees were located in three different countries and
varied in length of time employed by the organization. The survey was sent to all
Northern Protection employees, with the expectation that all employees would
voluntarily take the survey, except for the organization’s executive team. For this reason,
members of the executive team were not included in this study. While all employees
were invited to participate in the survey, 76 out of a total of 104 employees (including
executives) completed the survey. This equates to 73% of the total Northern Protection
employee workforce answering the survey, and 27% who did not complete the survey.
There is no sampling in this case, as the organization asked 100% of the employees to
participate - making this a census, not a sample.
52
To maintain anonymity, employees were not asked for their names or titles. The
only identifying information that was requested in the survey was gender, length of time
with the organization, and department name.
Research and Null Hypotheses
The following hypotheses were tested to answer the research questions:
H1: There is a statistically significant relationship between employees’ perception of the
organizational culture of a Toronto-based technology company, and their job satisfaction.
H01: There is no statistically significant relationship between employees’ perception of
satisfaction.
H2: There is a statistically significant relationship between employees’ perceptions of the
organizational culture of a Toronto-based technology company, and their job
engagement.
H02: There is no statistically significant relationship between employees’ perceptions of
engagement.
H3: There is a statistically significant relationship between employees’ length of time at a
Toronto-based technology company, and their job satisfaction.
H03: There is no statistically significant relationship between employees’ length of time at
a Toronto-based technology company, and their job satisfaction.
H4: There is a statistically significant relationship between employees’ gender and their
job satisfaction.
53
H04: There is no statistically significant relationship between employees’ gender and their
job satisfaction.
Definition of the Variables
This study consists of five variables: employee perceived organizational culture,
job satisfaction, employee engagement, length of time at the company, and gender.
Employee perceived organizational culture is “a complex set of values, beliefs,
assumptions, and symbols that define the way in which a firm conducts its business”
(Barney, 1986, p. 657). In order to observe and measure this variable, 15 items were
used with a Likert scale of four categories from strongly agree = 1 to strongly disagree =
4. Examples of the items are “the leadership team is open and honest” and “my direct
team lead is caring and approachable.” For the purpose of this study, the variable values
are based on the mean score of the items that make up that variable. The conceptual and
operational definition of the variables included in this study, are defined in Table 1.
Job Satisfaction is defined as “a pleasurable emotional state resulting from the
appraisal of one’s job as achieving or facilitating the achievement of one’s job values”
(Locke, 1969, p. 316). Seven items, such as “I have potential to advance my career here”
and “I am recognized for my good work,” were used to measure this variable. Five of
these items were also used to measure the engagement variable. Table 1 lists the specific
questions used for each variable.
Employee engagement is defined as an “individual’s involvement and satisfaction
with as well as enthusiasm for work” (Harter et al., 2002, p.269). In addition to the five
items also used for job satisfaction, this variable was comprised of the items “I do my job
to the best of my ability” and “My work drives company success.” The scale used to
54
Table 1
Conceptual and Operational Definition of Variables
Variable Conceptual Definition Instrumental Operational Definition

Definition
“A complex set of values, Survey
Employee beliefs, assumptions, and Questions 8, 9,
perceived symbols that define the way 10, 11, 12, 13, (Sum of Operational
organizational in which a firm conducts its 14, 15, 16, 17, Survey Questions) / 15
culture business” (Barney, 1986, p. 18, 19, 21, 23,
657) 24
“A pleasurable emotional
state resulting from the
appraisal of one’s job as Survey
Job (Sum of Operational
achieving or facilitating the Questions 1, 2,
satisfaction Survey Questions) / 7
achievement of one’s job 4, 6, 7, 20, 24
values” (Locke, 1969, p.
316)
“Individual’s involvement
Survey
Employee and satisfaction with as well (Sum of Operational
Questions 1, 2,
engagement as enthusiasm for work” Survey Questions) / 7
3, 4, 5, 6, 7
(Harter et al., 2002, p. 269)
“Less than 12 months”
=1
“12 – 18 months” = 2
Length of Number of years employed Length of
“18 – 24 months” = 3
time at the organization Service
“24 – 36 months” = 4
“More than 3 years” =
5
Self-identification as male “Female” = 0
Gender Gender (M/F)
or female “Male” = 1
55
measure this variable was one to four points exact interval. A higher score in this
variable means lower engagement.
Length of time was defined as number of years employed at the organization and
was measured by one item with five categories organized by months, from Less than 12
months = 1 to More than three years = 5. This is an ordinal scale variable.
The gender variable was defined as the participants’ self-identification as male or
female, and was measured by one item with two categories: Female = 0 and Male = 1.
This is a dummy variable.
Instrumentation
This study used data collected by Northern Protection in June 2016. The
organization conducted an online survey through the survey company, TemboStatus. The
goal of this survey was to measure employee engagement and overall employee
happiness, for the purpose of determining what areas of the organization’s culture, if any,
needed to be improved. The results of this survey are therefore considered the official
findings and the standard by which Northern Protection would measure the success of its
internal programs and culture.
The survey was considered to be standardized, in that the survey was a standard
TemboStatus survey, which has been used for various other organizations, including
Boeing, Coca-Cola and The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
The only change made to the survey was to ensure that any titles used in the survey
corresponded with those used internally at Northern Protection.
56
The version of the survey used was developed in 2014 by Susan Kamin, who
holds a PhD in Industrial Psychology. The survey consisted of 27 questions and was
completed online by all participants.
Data Collection Procedures
Rather than develop another instrument, and request permission to send a second
survey to all of the employees, I requested access to the data already gathered for use in
this study. The organization approved my request and expressed interest in the results of
my analysis of the data and conclusions around the culture found at Northern Protection.
The study’s research questions were not specifically answered by the data
collected, in that the survey did not necessarily ask questions specifically regarding the
research questions. Though the research questions were not addressed directly in the
survey, the data collected did address the research questions (Booker, 2011).
Data was collected by Northern Protection, and I received permission to use the
data. Permission was verbally requested from the Chief Executive Officer and the
organization’s Chief Operating Officer. I was directed to contact the Director of Human
Resources via email, who subsequently provided both the data and permission to use the
data, in the form of an authorization letter stating that I had been granted authorization to
use the data gathered during the 2016 Employee Engagement survey for the purpose of
this study. To repeat this study, researchers should contact the Director of Human
Resources at Northern Protection to receive authorization to access and use the data.
Northern Protection sent an email to all employees informing them of the
Employee Engagement survey, its purpose, and inviting them to participate. The email
included a link to the survey which was hosted on a TemboStatus server along with
57
instructions on how to access the survey. A week before the expiration of the survey,
another email was sent to all employees, reminding them to complete the survey.
The survey administered by TemboStatus was compromised of 27 questions.
Questions 1 through 24 used a rating scale format where participants were asked to
answer each question with one of the following options: “Strongly Agree,” “Agree,”
“Disagree,” or “Strongly Disagree.” Question 25 was a multiple choice question, with
answer options “Male” and “Female.” Question 26 was also a multiple choice question.
The answer options for this question were “Less than 12 months,” “12 – 18 months,” “18
– 24 months,” “24 – 36 months,” and “More than 3 years.”
Northern Protection decided not to release the data gathered via question 27 for
use in this study. It was believed that the responses to the last question,
“Business/Support Unit?” made it too easy to identify individual participants, as some
Business/Support Units at Northern Protection are very small. For this reason, the data
gathered under this question is not included in this study. Question 22, “I have the
necessary tools and resources to get work done” was electively not used in this study as it
was not relevant to the topic, and did not fit into any of the variables used in this study.
Data Analysis
In describing the analysis of data collected via surveys, Smith (2016) noted that
nonparametric and descriptive statistics methods are typically used (Burns & Grove,
2009) due to the ordinal nature of such data. Stangor (2010) defined descriptive statistics
as “numbers that summarize the distribution of scores on a measured variable” (p. 42).
He pointed out that distribution can be described by its central tendency or its spread.
58
Smith (2016) noted that the most effective way to determine the central tendency – that
is, the point around which the data is centered – is to calculate the average.
The data were analyzed to assess the current state of job satisfaction based on
specific aspects of the organizational culture of Northern Protection. Demographic data
was analyzed to look for differences between genders. Length of time with the
organization was also examined, to evaluate if any differences exist based on length of
time in the culture.
The hypotheses were tested using correlation analysis, to examine the relationship
between the variables. The data were entered into Microsoft Excel, then imported into
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) Statistics which was used to analyze the
data, including calculating the average response for each question. Once the data were
coded, surrogate variables from the survey were identified and matched to the research
questions.
59
CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS
Introduction
A quantitative correlational method was used for this study since it would have
provided a description, and an analysis, of the relationships among the variables.
This chapter presents the data collected as well as the analyses (conducted with
the aid of IBM SPSS Statistics) used to answer the research questions, which include:
satisfaction?
engagement?
60
This study utilized data collected by Northern Protection in June 2016. The
organization conducted an online survey through the survey company, TemboStatus, with
the goal of measuring employee engagement and overall employee happiness, for the
improved. The standardized survey has been used for various other organizations,
including Boeing, Coca-Cola and NASA. The only change made to the survey was to
ensure that any titles used in the survey corresponded with those used internally at
Northern Protection. The survey consisted of 27 questions and was completed online by
all participants.
Participants
Participants in this study were all employees of Northern Protection. A total of 76
employees chose to complete the survey sent out by TemboStatus on behalf of Northern
Protection. The survey included only two demographic questions, which were gender
and length of service – that is, length of time working at Northern Protection. Table 2
provides an overview of the demographic characteristics of the participants. Fifty-nine
(77.6%) of the participants were male, while 17 (22.4%) were female. Most of the
participants had been employed at Northern Protection for less than a year and a half,
with the largest percentage having less than 12 months (26.3%) of employment, followed
by 12 – 18 months (23.7%) of employment. The smallest percentages were 18 – 24
months (13.2%) and 24 – 36 months (14.5%).
61
Table 2
Demographic Characteristics of Participants
Variable Frequency Percentage
Gender
Male 59 77.6
Female 17 22.4
Length of time
Less than 12 months 20 26.3
12 – 18 months 18 23.7
18 – 24 months 10 13.2
24 – 36 months 11 14.5
More than 3 years 17 22.4
Variables Description
Twenty-five items were used to measure the variables in this study. Twenty-three
of these items used a Likert type scale from 1= strongly agree to 4 = strongly disagree.
Table 3 reports the minimum, maximum, mean, and standard deviation for each of these
items. Seven of these items report some employees responding with strongly disagree.
For the remaining 15 items, there is no indication of a strongly disagree response from
participants. The lowest mean score is 1.36 for the item “I do my job to the best of my
ability,” and the highest is 2.08 for the item “I get training that is helping me grow in my
career.”
62
Table 3
Survey Items’ Mean, Standard Deviation and Range.
Question Min Max Mean SD
1. I love my job 1 3 1.49 0.554

2. I am proud to work at my company 1 3 1.53 0.528
3. I do my job to the best of my ability 1 3 1.36 0.534
4. I am proud of the work I do 1 3 1.51 0.529
5. My work drives company success 1 3 1.55 0.575
6. I find my work energizing 1 3 1.93 0.618
7. I enjoy working with my co-workers 1 3 1.50 0.554
8. The leadership team is open and honest 1 3 1.59 0.546
9. Our leadership team is a strong group of
competent professionals 1 3 1.54 0.552
10. The leadership team is approachable 1 3 1.38 0.541
11. My direct team lead is a competent leader 1 4 1.38 0.565
12. My direct team lead is caring and approachable 1 4 1.37 0.629
13. My direct team lead is open and honest 1 4 1.38 0.565
14. My direct team lead is encouraging 1 3 1.43 0.550
15. I regularly get useful feedback from my direct
team lead 1 4 1.74 0.640
16. I have good team dynamics with my co-workers 1 3 1.57 0.550
17. My co-workers are fun and caring toward me 1 3 1.50 0.554
18. I can get my ideas heard by the right person 1 4 1.74 0.661
19. I am well informed by the organization 1 3 1.70 0.566
20. I have the potential to advance my career here 1 3 1.91 0.615
21. I get training that is helping me grow in my career 1 4 2.08 0.726
23. I recognize my colleagues for their good work 1 3 1.75 0.635
24. I am recognized for my good work 1 4 1.88 0.673
The 23 items reported in Table 3 were used to measure the employee perceived
organizational culture, job satisfaction, and employee engagement variables of this study.
Employee perceived organizational culture was measured by fifteen questions. The
survey questions had a range from 1 to 2.73, with mean of 1.60 and standard deviation of
0.40.
The job satisfaction variable was measured by seven questions. The minimum
was 1, the maximum was 2.57, the mean was 1.67, and the standard deviation was 0.39
for the questions associated with this variable.
63
The employee engagement variable was measured by seven questions. The
minimum was 1, the maximum was 2.43, the mean was 1.55, and the standard deviation
was 0.38 for the questions associated with this variable.
Table 4 lists the minimum, maximum, mean, and standard deviation for each of
the variables used in this study. By averaging the results of each relevant question, for
each participant, scores were obtained for employee perceived organizational culture, job
satisfaction and employee engagement. These scores were used in determining the
descriptive statistics for those variables.
Table 4
Variable Descriptive Statistics
Variable Min Max Mean SD
Employee perceived organizational culture 1 2.73 1.6018 0.40412

Job satisfaction 1 2.57 1.6786 0.39940
Employee engagement 1 2.43 1.5526 0.37929
Gender 0 1 0.7800 0.41900
Length of time 1 5 2.8300 1.52700
Hypotheses Testing
This study examined four research questions, each of which had an accompanying
hypothesis which was tested to answer the research questions. Bivariate correlational
analysis was conducted, using the appropriate variables, to test each null hypothesis.
64
Does a Relationship Exist Between Organizational Culture
and Job Satisfaction at a Toronto-based
Technology Company?
H01: “There is no statistically significant relationship between employees’
perception of the organizational culture of a Toronto-based technology company, and
their job satisfaction” was used to test this research question. Table 5 shows the
correlation between employee perceived organizational culture and job satisfaction. The
correlation between these two variables was noted at .787, and there was a significant
correlation at the 0.01 level, indicating a strong positive relationship between the
variables.
Table 5
Correlation for All Variables
Employee perceived Job Employee Length of

Variable organizational culture Satisfaction Engagement Gender time
Employee perceived
organizational culture 1 .787** .740** -0.05 0.019
Job satisfaction 1 .931** -0.014 0.049
Employee
engagement 1 -0.027 -0.068
Gender 1 0.023
Length of time 1
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Does Organizational Culture Affect Employee Engagement?
H02: “There is no statistically significant relationship between employees’
perceptions of the organizational culture of a Toronto-based technology company, and
their job engagement” was used to test this research question. Table 5 shows the
correlation between employee perceived organizational culture and employee
65
engagement. The correlation between these two variables was noted at .740, and there
was a significant correlation at the 0.01 level, indicating a strong positive relationship
between the variables.
Does Length of Time at the Organization Affect the Job

Satisfaction of Employees?
H03: “There is no statistically significant relationship between employees’ length
of time at a Toronto-based technology company, and their job satisfaction” was used to
test this research question. Table 5 shows the correlation between length of time and job
satisfaction. The correlation between these two variables was noted at .049, with a
significance score of 0.673, which indicates that there is little to no correlation between
these variables, and that there is not a statistically significant correlation.
Does the Employee’s Gender Play a Role in

Their Experience at the Company?
H04: “There is no statistically significant relationship between employees’ gender
and their job satisfaction” was used to test this research question. Table 5 shows the
correlation between gender and job satisfaction. The correlation between these two
variables was noted at -0.014, with a significance score of 0.903. This data presented in
Table 5 suggests that there is no significant correlation between gender and job
satisfaction.
Table 5 summarizes all of the correlations amongst the variables. As previously
noted, significant correlations exist between employee perceived organizational culture
and job satisfaction, and between employee perceived organizational culture and
employee engagement. As indicated in Table 5, there is also a very strong correlation
66
between job satisfaction and employee engagement. In fact, this correlation, of .931, is
the strongest correlation between any of the variables. Neither gender nor length of time
have any significant correlation with any other variables.
Summary
The purpose of this quantitative, non-experimental, correlational study was to
examine employees’ perceptions of the relationship between the organizational culture of
a Toronto-based technology company, and their job satisfaction and engagement. This
chapter presented the analysis conducted to answer the research questions designed to
fulfil the purpose of this study.
Bivariate correlational analyses were utilized in testing the hypothesis associated
with each of the four research questions. The results showed that the employee perceived
organizational culture at Northern Protection has a positive correlation on the job
satisfaction of the organization’s employees. Employee perceived organizational culture
also has a positive correlation on employee engagement. The findings of this study show
that an employee’s length of time with the organization does not have a positive
correlation on their job satisfaction – and in fact, there is no statistically significant
correlation between an employee’s length of time with the organization, and their job
satisfaction. Likewise, no correlation between an employee’s gender and job satisfaction
was found.
While there was no specific research question regarding the relationship between
job satisfaction and employee engagement, the analysis conducted for this study did
reveal a strong correlation between job satisfaction and employee engagement. This
finding did match expectations based on the literature review.
67
The findings did not support two of the research hypotheses - H3: There is a
statistically significant relationship between employees’ length of time at a Toronto-
based technology company, and their job satisfaction, and H4: There is a statistically
significant relationship between employees’ gender and their job satisfaction. It was
expected that the longer an employee was employed at the organization, the greater their
level of job satisfaction would be. Instead, the data shows that length of time with the
organization has no significant impact on level of job satisfaction. Similarly, the study
did not demonstrate that there is a correlation between gender and job satisfaction. There
is not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis of no correlation between gender and
job satisfaction, so the null hypothesis is retained.
Chapter 5 summarises the study, presents the findings from Chapter 4, interprets
and discusses these findings, and provides recommendations.
68
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSION
Introduction
This final chapter presents a summary of the study, and its findings. This chapter
also interprets and discusses those findings as well as their implications, and provides
recommendations for both practice and future research.
Purpose of the Study
Summary of the Literature
The literature review included in this study began by looking at the history and
development of organizational culture, and types of organizational culture, before
describing the emergence of job satisfaction and its relationship to organizational culture.
The review provided a brief historical overview of employee engagement, followed by a
description of the relationship between employee engagement, job satisfaction, and
organizational culture. The review also examined the outcomes of this relationship –
namely, employee retention and work-life balance – and concluded with a summary and
analysis of the topics covered. The review focused on literature pertaining to the topics
69
of organizational culture, job satisfaction, work-life balance, and employee retention. A
variety of documents, including journals, dissertations, research papers, and books, were
reviewed for this literature review.
The research examined suggested that a relationship exists between organizational
culture and job satisfaction; between organizational culture and employee engagement;
and between job satisfaction and employee engagement. The literature also noted that
there remains a need for additional research on the relationships among these variables as
they have not been studied carefully enough (Harper, 2015; Schein, 2010).
The term “Organizational Culture” first appeared in academic literature in 1979.
The term refers to the shared perceptions of organizational work practices within
organizational units that may differ from other organizational units (Van den Berg &
Wilderom, 2004), or more simply, it is “a complex set of values, beliefs, assumptions,
and symbols that define the way in which a firm conducts its business” (Barney, 1986, p.
657). An organization’s culture guides, and constrains, the behavior of members of the
group, due to the shared norms in the group (Schein, 2010).
Schein (2010) viewed culture as an abstract phenomenon. He defined three levels
of organizational culture – Artifacts, Espoused Beliefs and Values, and Basic Underlying
Assumptions – while Denison (1997), who viewed culture as a concrete and measurable
construct, described the levels of culture as the values and beliefs that underlie actions;
the patterns of behavior that reflect and reinforce those values; and the set of conditions,
created by these patterns of behavior, within which organizational members must
function.
70
Handy (1985) described four types of organizational culture: power, role, task,
and person. He believed that organizations consist of a mixture of different types of
culture, with the unique mixture being what makes each organization different, though
the right mixture at the right time is what makes an organizational culture successful
(Handy, 1985). Cameron and Quinn (1999) also describe four types of organizational
culture, in their “Competing Values Framework,” which they referred to as hierarchy
culture, market culture, clan culture, and adhocracy culture. Instead of organizational
culture types, Denison and Mishra (1995) developed a model of four traits of
organizational culture – consistency, involvement, mission, and adaptability – and found
that different trait combinations were associated with a particular organizational outcome.
Each of the four traits contained three management practices associated with that
particular trait. Denison and Mishra’s traits of organizational culture, although focused
on characteristic traits rather than culture types, bear some resemblances to Cameron and
Quinn’s organizational culture types.
Job satisfaction has been described as a combination of psychological,
physiological, and environmental circumstances which leads a person to express
satisfaction with their job (Hoppock, 1935). It has also been described as “a pleasurable
emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job as achieving or facilitating the
achievement of one’s job values” (Locke, 1969, p. 316). Job satisfaction has an
important influence on an employee’s overall psychological well-being (Robertson &
Cooper, 2011). Maslow (1954) described a hierarchy of human needs, made up of five
levels. Alderfer (1972), building on Maslow’s theory, developed the ERG theory of
motivation, which focused on three categories, instead of five. Alderfer’s existence
71
needs are similar to Maslow’s psychological and safety needs; his relatedness needs
resemble Maslow’s social needs, and to some extent esteem needs; and his growth needs
bear similarity to Maslow’s esteem and self-actualization needs. Unlike Maslow’s
theory, which suggested that needs are met in ascending order, Alderfer believed that
individuals could be motivated by needs from different levels at the same time, and if
needs at one level are not met, the individual will regress to needs at another level, which
are easier to meet (Lazaroiu, 2015).
Frederick Herzberg (1968), who developed the Two-Factor Theory of Job
Satisfaction, or Motivation-Hygiene Theory, believed that the motivators, or satisfiers –
achievement, recognition for achievement, the work itself, responsibility, and
advancement – were the primary cause of satisfaction, while hygiene factors, or
dissatisfiers – company policy and administration, supervision, relationships with
supervisors and peers, work conditions, salary, status, and security – were the primary
cause of unhappiness on the job. While hygiene factors do not motivate employees, the
lack of or inadequacy of these factors leads to dissatisfaction.
Job satisfaction has been viewed as one of the important elements of employee
engagement (Li, 2016). Employee engagement is defined as an “individual’s
involvement and satisfaction with as well as enthusiasm for work” (Harter et al., 2002, p.
269). Workplace benefits of engaged employees include typically healthier, happier
(Kanter, 1993), and more productive (Christian et al., 2011) employees, which in turn
results in an organization that attains higher levels of customer satisfaction (Hunter et al.,
2007). Though little research has been done on the relationship between organizational
culture and employee engagement, researchers have proposed that employee engagement
72
can be enhanced by organizational culture (Attridge, 2009), which significantly predicts
engagement (Sarangi & Srivastava, 2012).
Employee engagement’s attention and popularity in management literature is due
to its relationship with employee retention (Little & Little, 2006). Engaged employees
report higher levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and lower levels
of turn-over intentions (Christian et al., 2011), resulting in higher employee retention
rates. Job satisfaction and physical health have also been linked to employees’ intention
to leave the workplace (Kemery et al., 1987). Similarly, organizational culture has been
shown to play a part in employee retention, as employee commitment and retention is
related to perceived organizational values (Meyer & Topolnytsky, 2000). Organizational
cultures that view people as important and emphasize values such as interpersonal
relationships, development and change, seem to lead to higher levels of retention.
(Meyer & Topolnytsky, 2000). Organizational cultures deemed unsatisfactory by
employees because employee needs are ignored, result in dissatisfaction and turnover
(Atkins & Turner, 2006), while organizations that provide an enjoyable, fun working
environment and high morale, result in low turnover (Sadri & Lees, 2001).
Other factors that can affect employees’ decision to stay with, or leave, an
organization include work-family conflict and unhealthy work relationships (Ackerman
& Bezuidenhout, 2007). Work-life balance is an important component of job
satisfaction, which is why organizations have taken steps to incorporate alternate work
arrangements to help employees balance their lives (Gainey & Clenney, 2006). Work-
life balance is important as employees need to be freed from stressors and distractions in
order to be effectively engaged in their jobs (Gryzwacz & Carlson, 2007). Development
73
of a work-life balance program is challenging for some organizations because each
persons’ needs vary overtime (Fulmano, 2005). However, this remains important, as
employees’ ability to achieve work-life balance directly affects the organization’s
employee retention rates (Baldiga, 2005).
Summary of the Methodology
This study’s purpose was actualized through the use of a quantitative, non-
experimental, correlational methodology. The quantitative approach was preferable as it
permitted me to consider the data statistically, while preventing any bias I might have as
an employee at the organization being studied, from affecting the results of this study.
This study was based on four research questions:
satisfaction?
engagement?
This study utilized a conceptual framework that consisted of two components.
The first component of the conceptual framework was Frederick Herzberg's Two-Factor
74
Theory of Job Satisfaction, or Motivation-Hygiene Theory. The second component of
the conceptual framework for this study was Hofstede's six dimensions of culture.
This study used data collected by Northern Protection in June of 2016, via an
online survey conducted through the survey company, TemboStatus. The goal of the
survey was to measure employee engagement and overall employee happiness, for the
improved. Seventy-six employees completed the anonymous survey. This equates to
73% of the total Northern Protection employee workforce who completed the survey, and
27% who did not complete the survey. Access to the data gathered was requested for use
in this study. The organization approved this request.
The following hypotheses were tested to answer the research questions:
H1: There is a statistically significant relationship between employees’ perception of the
organizational culture of a Toronto-based technology company, and their job satisfaction.
H01: There is no statistically significant relationship between employees’ perception of
satisfaction.
H2: There is a statistically significant relationship between employees’ perceptions of the
organizational culture of a Toronto-based technology company, and their job
engagement.
H02: There is no statistically significant relationship between employees’ perceptions of
engagement.
75
H3: There is a statistically significant relationship between employees’ length of time at a
Toronto-based technology company, and their job satisfaction.
H03: There is no statistically significant relationship between employees’ length of time at
a Toronto-based technology company, and their job satisfaction.
H4: There is a statistically significant relationship between employees’ gender and their
job satisfaction.
H04: There is no statistically significant relationship between employees’ gender and their
job satisfaction.
Summary of the Major Findings
An examination of the data found that two of the hypotheses were supported, and
two were not supported. The employee perceived organizational culture at Northern
Protection was positively correlated with the job satisfaction of the organization’s
employees. There was a strong positive relationship between these variables, as noted by
a correlation of .787, with a significant correlation at the 0.01 level. Similarly, it was
confirmed that employee perceived organizational culture has a positive correlation on
employee engagement. This correlation was noted at .740, with a significant correlation
at the 0.01 level, which suggested a strong positive relationship exists between these
variables.
While these relationships were correctly hypothesized, an employee’s length of
time with the organization was found to not have a positive correlation on their job
satisfaction. An analysis of the data showed that there is not a statically significant
correlation between these two variables, as the correlation was discovered to be .049,
with a significance score of 0.673. It was also found that there is no correlation between
76
an employee’s gender and job satisfaction. The correlation between these variables was -
0.014, with a significance score of 0.903. There is therefore not enough evidence to
reject the null hypothesis of no correlation between gender and job satisfaction, so the
null hypothesis is retained.
Although this study focused on only four research questions, the data revealed
another significant correlation that was not actively being tested by the hypotheses. It
was shown that a very strong correlation, of .931 and significant at the 0.01 level, existed
between job satisfaction and employee engagement. This correlation was actually the
strongest amongst all the variables examined in this study. The study also revealed that
gender and length of time at the organization have no impact on any of the other
variables.
Discussion
This conceptual framework for this study consisted of Frederick Herzberg's Two-
Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction, or Motivation-Hygiene Theory, and Dr. Geert
Hofstede’s six dimensions of culture. Herzberg theorized that intrinsic (motivation)
factors were related to job satisfaction, while extrinsic (hygiene) factors were thought to
be those associated with dissatisfaction. Motivation factors, or satisfiers – such as
achievement, recognition for achievement, the work itself, responsibility, and
advancement – were thought to be the primary cause of satisfaction. Conversely, hygiene
factors, or dissatisfiers – including company policy and administration, supervision,
relationships with supervisors and peers, work conditions, salary, status, and security –
were thought to be the primary cause of unhappiness. While hygiene factors do not
motivate employees, the lack of or inadequacy of these factors leads to dissatisfaction.
77
Hofstede’s six dimensions of culture include Power distance, Individualism versus
collectivism, Masculinity versus femininity, Uncertainty avoidance, Long term versus
short term orientation, and Indulgence versus Restraint.
The culture of a group is an abstract concept which cannot be observed, much like
a person’s personality (Schein, 2010). Similar to how we can observe the behavior that
results from an individual’s underlying personality and character, we can also observe the
shared norms that guide and constrain a group. These shared norms are the group’s
culture. The purpose of this conceptual framework was not to determine what type, or
types, of culture are best, as there are no good or bad cultures since all cultures have a
purpose (Handy, 1985). This study’s conceptual framework was designed to assist in
identifying the shared norms, or components, of the culture found at Northern Protection,
and how the components of this culture affect the overall happiness of the employees.
The questions asked in the survey, used to gather the data examined in this study,
provide some insight into the norms and components of the culture found at Northern
Protection:
1. I love my job
2. I am proud to work at my company
3. I do my job to the best of my ability
4. I am proud of the work I do
5. My work drives company success
6. I find my work energizing
7. I enjoy working with my co-workers
8. The leadership team is open and honest
78
9. Our leadership team is a strong group of competent professionals
10. The leadership team is approachable
11. My direct team lead is a competent leader
12. My direct team lead is caring and approachable
13. My direct team lead is open and honest
14. My direct team lead is encouraging
15. I regularly get useful feedback from my direct team lead
16. I have good team dynamics with my co-workers
17. My co-workers are fun and caring toward me
18. I can get my ideas heard by the right person
19. I am well informed by the organization
20. I have the potential to advance my career here
21. I get training that is helping me grow in my career
23. I recognize my colleagues for their good work
24. I am recognized for my good work
Components of Northern Protection’s culture include employees loving what they
do and having a sense that their work is important to company success. Other norms
include openness between leadership and employees; leaders who are competent, caring,
approachable, and encouraging; leaders providing useful feedback to employees; a fun
environment where employees care about each other; everyone’s ideas being heard;
personal growth and career advancement; and recognition for good work.
Northern Protection’s culture is comprised of a mix of both motivation and
hygiene factors. Components such as the work itself, recognition for good work, and
79
career advancement are aspects of the culture that would result in job satisfaction.
Components such as the overall company structure and policies, leadership style,
relationships with leadership and peers would be the primary areas that could cause job
dissatisfaction. Keeping employees happy depends on the organization’s ability to
maintain a balance between the elements that cause satisfaction and those that cause
dissatisfaction. This is not always easy to achieve, but based on the results of this study,
it would seem that in 2016, the organization was able to achieve this balance.
Hofstede’s six dimensions of culture provides insight into how Northern
Protection was able to maintain the balance between satisfiers and dissatisfiers. Northern
protection maintains a low power distance. Employees are welcome to question the
decisions of a manager. Northern Protection is a collectivist culture, as evidenced by the
fact that it promotes a strong sense of community, with employees regularly referencing a
sense of family. This sense of family results from the more feminine values fostered at
Northern Protection, such as the friendlier atmosphere and caring and encouragement
afforded by leadership. The organization also maintained a low level of uncertainty
avoidance, focused on short term orientations, and allowed indulgence. Northern
Protection’s flat structure, easy access to the executive team, and openness of leadership,
facilitates these dimensions of culture, but whether or not this can continue as the
company grows is yet to be seen.
What is clear from the results of this study is that at Northern Protection, there is a
strong, positive relationship between organizational culture and job satisfaction. This
significant correlation is not surprising, as people-oriented, supportive cultures have been
shown to have a positive relationship with job satisfaction (Stebbins, 2008). Likewise,
80
the strong positive relationship between organizational culture and employee engagement
confirmed that organizational culture does affect employee engagement. While the study
also confirmed that an employee’s gender does not affect their experience at the
company, what was surprising was that this study revealed that an employee’s length of
time at the organization does not affect their job satisfaction. This suggests that an
employee’s longevity with an organization should not lead to the assumption that they are
satisfied or engaged with their job.
Another unexpected outcome of this study was the confirmation of the strong
correlation between job satisfaction and employee engagement – a relationship this study
did not intentionally intend to investigate, but one which has been noted in literature
(Christian et al., 2011; Fairbanks, 2007; Li, 2016). What was especially surprising was
that this relationship was the strongest amongst all the variables of this study.
While cultural types are not good or bad, the effectiveness of the organizational
culture depends on the environment in which it exists (Handy, 1985; Schein 2010). The
results of this study show that relationships exist between employee perceived
organizational culture, job satisfaction, and employee engagement. This correlation
exists because the norms and values of an organization will dictate how much an
employee enjoys working there, and the sense of value they get from the work they do
there. This in turn will affect their passion and enthusiasm for their work.
While this study focused on a single organization, these relationships should
transcend cultural types. For this reason, care should be taken to ensure that the
organizational culture, regardless of the specific elements of the culture, be appropriate
for the environment and the employees that make up the organization. This is important
81
because job satisfaction affects employee engagement, which has been shown to have a
statistical relationship with desired outcomes including productivity, profit, customer
satisfaction, and employee retention (Little & Little, 2006), as well as work-life balance
(Gryzwacz & Carlson, 2007). With the job satisfaction and engagement of employees
having such a massive effect on the success of an organization, it is highly important that
organizations focus on developing a culture that encourages employees’ involvement and
satisfaction with, and enthusiasm for, their work (Harter et al., 2002, p. 269), and
facilitates the achievement of employees’ job values, resulting in a pleasurable emotional
state (Locke, 1969).
While the culture at Northern Protection was very unique to me, Northern
Protection is not the first organization to develop this type of culture. Proving that such a
culture can be effective, there are a number of very successful technology companies that
have effectively nurtured similar cultures including Ultimate Software, SalesForce and
Google, which are all hailed for their employee-focused culture. Ultimate Software
employees can expect the company to pay for all of their medical and dental costs, in
addition to unlimited time off (Great Place to Work, 2018). SalesForce employees also
receive unlimited time off, after the first year of employment, as well as seven paid days,
per year, to volunteer in their community (Great Place to Work, 2018). Google was
voted as the best place to work on the Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For list,
2011 through 2017, and a total of eight times in 11 years (Fortune, 2017). It was also
named by Comparably as the tech company with the best culture in 2018 (Forbes
Technology Council, 2018). Google’s culture boasts many unique employee benefits and
perks including haircuts, laundry service, free gourmet food (Fortune, 2017), employee
82
trips, a dog-friendly work environment (Patel, 2015), nap pods, and on-site physicians
(Forbes Technology Council, 2018). One reason Google’s organizational culture has
been so popular is because of the focus on meeting the needs of its employees. For
example, noticing that employees who were mothers were leaving the organization at a
high rate, Google improved its parental leave policies, which resulted in a 50% reduction
in working mothers leaving the organization (Fortune, 2017).
Google has a flat organizational culture, is strategic in hiring individuals that have
the same values, nurtures collaboration, promotes innovation, and encourages employees
to challenge bureaucracy (Rushdi & Kamal, 2014). Google treats their employees well,
providing training, resources, and recognition (Rushdi & Kamal, 2014). While employee
empowerment is the main strategy and essence of Google culture (Rushdi & Kamal,
2014), Google has, however, experienced some difficulties retaining their culture as they
continue to grow and expand and so the organization continues to revisit and reassess its
culture as it grows (Patel, 2015). Developing an organizational culture that ensures job
satisfaction and engagement of employees is not a one-time endeavor. It requires
constant attention to ensure that it remains effective in meeting the needs of both the
organization and its employees.
The next sections of this discussion will specifically discuss the results of this
study’s research questions, and their implications.
83
Discussion and Implications of Major Findings
Research Question 1
The first research question was: Is there a statistically significant relationship
between employees’ perceptions of the organizational culture of a Toronto-based
technology company, and their job satisfaction?
The results of the study showed that there was a strong positive relationship
between employee perceived organizational culture and job satisfaction, as noted by a
correlation of .787, with a significant correlation at the 0.01 level. These results confirm
the findings of a number of other researchers who reported that organizational culture
affects job satisfaction (Odom et al., 1990; Sheridan, 1992; Stebbins, 2008; Wallach,
1983).
Discussion of Major Findings
The results of this study show that organizational culture has a direct impact on
job satisfaction, and this relationship is supported by many other studies (Ahamed &
Mahmood, 2015; Alexander, 2012; Hebb, 1949; Kline & Boyd, 1994; Morse, 1953;
Odom et al., 1990; Sempane et al., 2002; Sheridan, 1992; Silverthorne, 2004; Stebbins,
2008; Wallach, 1983; Zammuto & Krakower, 1991). It is therefore important for
organizations to consider this link when developing or reviewing their strategic plan
(Alexander, 2012), and choose to invest adequate time and remain persistent in order to
develop and maintain a favorable organizational culture. The strength and stability of a
culture depend largely on the length of time the culture has existed (Schein, 2010). As
new employees join the organization, they will bring new expectations and beliefs
(Schein, 1990) and it will take time for them to internalize the organization’s culture,
84
through observation and training (Ritchie, 2000). Organizations therefore need to be
adaptable and must recognize that the development and maintenance of an organizational
culture is never complete, but is an ongoing process.
The organizational culture should be one that truly reflects the values and beliefs
of the organization and that will attract the types of employees the organization wishes to
retain, as job satisfaction depends on the match between an individual’s characteristics
and the organization’s culture (Chen et al., 2016; Silverthorne, 2004; Wallach, 1983). An
appropriate organizational fit positively predicts job satisfaction and training can help
improve this fit (Chen et al., 2016). The better the employee-organization fit, the higher
the level of job satisfaction that will result (Silverthorne, 2004).
Organizations that do not maintain a favorable organizational culture will
experience unsatisfied employees. Organizations should strive to keep their employees
satisfied with their jobs, as employees who are happy in their jobs experience an overall
level of happiness with their workplace (Robertson & Cooper, 2011). This leads to a
general sense of positive psychological well-being (Robertson & Cooper, 2011), which
results in lower levels of turnover, accidents, and absences (Freed, 2003).
Implications of Major Findings
The implication of these findings is that an organization’s culture must be
considered to be both a recruitment and a retention tool and should be carefully
maintained for the health of the organization. Employees should be trained not only on
job tasks, but also on the organizational culture (Ritchie, 2000; Schein, 1990) as such
training has been proven to lead to a number of positive results, including job satisfaction
(Alexander, 2012). Employee’s job satisfaction has an impact on their overall
85
psychological well-being (Robertson & Cooper, 2011), and an employee’s happiness
with their job as well as their physical health, are linked to their intentions to leave the
workplace (Kemery et al., 1987). Low levels of job satisfaction result in withdrawal,
burn out and aggression (Ellickson, 2002), as well as high levels of turnover, accidents,
and absences (Freed, 2003), which is disruptive to the organization and leads to
decreased levels of productivity. This equates to high financial costs for the organization
(Koh & Boo, 2001). These implications are therefore important not only for the
wellbeing of employees, but for the continued success and profitability of organizations.
Research Question 2
The second research question was: Is there a statistically significant relationship
between employees’ perceptions of the organizational culture of a Toronto-based
technology company, and their job engagement?
The results of the study suggested a strong positive relationship between the
variables. A correlation was noted at .740, with a significant correlation at the 0.01 level.
This confirmed that employee perceived organizational culture has a strong positive
correlation on employee engagement.
These findings confirm Attridge’s (2009) proposal that employee engagement can
be enhanced by organizational culture, as well as Sarangi and Srivastava’s (2012)
statement that organizational culture significantly predicts engagement. As noted by
Harper (2015), much research has been conducted on organizational culture and
employee engagement separately, but very little research has been done on the
86
relationship between organizational culture and employee engagement, and most of them
have not been empirical in nature. While there is limited research on the relationship
between these variables, there is research that proves a relationship between job
satisfaction and employee engagement (Christian et al., 2011; Fairbanks, 2007; Li, 2016),
so by extension, it can be inferred that organizational culture and employee engagement
are related since job satisfaction is directly related to organizational culture (Ahamed &
Mahmood, 2015; Alexander, 2012; Hebb, 1949; Kline & Boyd, 1994; Morse, 1953;
Odom et al.,1990; Sempane et al., 2002; Sheridan, 1992; Silverthorne, 2004; Stebbins,
2008; Wallach, 1983; Zammuto & Krakower, 1991).
This study adds to the limited body of research available on this relationship and
supports the finding that a positive correlation does exist between organizational culture
and employee engagement. Employees should be provided training on the organizational
culture (Ritchie, 2000; Schein, 1990) and how they fit into it as this has been found to
lead to job satisfaction, as well as employee engagement (Alexander, 2012). In addition,
the organization should strive to develop and maintain a culture where employees are not
constantly under high stress as employees need to be freed from stressors and distractions
in order to be effectively engaged in their jobs (Gryzwacz & Carlson, 2007).
The implication of these results is that organizational culture does have a positive
impact on employee engagement. By paying attention to the organization’s culture and
ensuring that it is a favorable one, organizations can ensure that their employees remain
engaged, which is important because engaged employees are healthier, happier (Kanter,
87
1993), and more productive (Christian et al., 2011), and attain higher levels of customer
satisfaction (Hunter et al., 2007).
Another reason that these findings are so important is because of the relationship
between employee engagement and employee retention (Little & Little, 2006).
Organizations that do not maintain a favorable organizational culture will result in
disengaged employees who will seek employment elsewhere, as an employee’s
commitment to an organization and its goals is based on their level of engagement (Little
& Little, 2006). Engaged employees have lower levels of turn-over intentions (Christian
et al., 2011) and are more likely to stay and aid the organization in meeting its goals
(Porter et al., 1974). Employees who are not engaged are passive, “checked out,” do not
put much energy or passion into their work, and when actively disengaged may spread
their disengaged attitude throughout the organization and purposefully undermine the
accomplishments of other employees (Gallup Study, 2006; Harter et al., 2002; Li, 2016).
Engaged employees, however, work with high levels of energy and enthusiasm, and feel
a “profound connection” to their organization (Gallup Study, 2006; Harter et al., 2002;
Li, 2016). Having to replace employees who leave the organization due to a lack of
engagement will ultimately lead to additional expense to the organization to recruit and
train new employees.
Research Question 3
The third research question was: Is there a statistically significant relationship
between employees’ length of time at a Toronto-based technology company, and their job
satisfaction?
88
The results of the study showed that there is not a statistically significant
correlation between an employee’s length of time with the organization and their job
satisfaction, as the correlation was discovered to be .049, with a significance score of
0.673. The conclusion is therefore that length of time with the organizational does not
have a positive correlation on job satisfaction.
There is not a consensus in the research related to whether or not length of time at
an organization affects the job satisfaction of employees. Some research concludes that
length of time of service has a negative correlation with job satisfaction (Ma &
MacMillan, 1999; Oshagbemi, 2003). Other research suggests that length of time at an
organization increases the level of job satisfaction experienced by employees (Dike,
2011), due to the fact that the relationship between employees and their coworkers and
supervisors increases over time (Dike, 2011). Conversely, there is also research that
suggests that spending a greater length of time at an organization does not lead to
employees having a greater level of job satisfaction (Sharma, 2009).
The results of this study support the conclusion that length of time at an
organization does not increase job satisfaction. Based on the analysis of the data used in
this study, employees who were employed by Northern Protection for a longer period of
time did not show a higher level of job satisfaction, and those employed for a shorter
period of time did not show a lower level of job satisfaction. While this result may seem
counterintuitive, when considered in conjunction with other research conducted on the
relationship between these variables it seems quite plausible. Employees’ needs and
desires change over time (Fulmano, 2005; Schroder, 2003), and as these change, so will
89
their perception of the organization’s ability to meet those needs, which will result in a
change in their job satisfaction. Likewise, changes in the organizational culture will
affect the job satisfaction of employees (Hebb, 1949; Morse, 1953). Regardless of how
long an employee has been with an organization, changes in the employee’s needs or the
organization’s culture will affect the job satisfaction of the employee. In this context, this
study’s finding that length of time with the organizational does not have a positive
correlation on job satisfaction, is explicable.
The implication of these findings is that organizations cannot relate length of time
with the organization and job satisfaction. Organizations cannot take it for granted that
because an employee has been with the organization for some time that they are
necessarily happy or satisfied with their job. While there are some studies that suggest a
positive relationship between length of time with the organization and job satisfaction –
and even research that suggests that length of time at an organization impacts the job
satisfaction of part-time employees, but not full-time employees (Kirk, 2003) – there are
other studies (Dike 2011; Sharma, 2009), including this one, that have found that there is
no relationship between these variables.
Despite the opposing conclusions of the various studies on this relationship, the
ambiguity solidifies the implication that length of time of employment is not a reliable
indicator of employee job satisfaction. Organizations need to take steps to ensure that all
employees, regardless of length of time at the organization, are satisfied with their jobs,
as when employees are unsatisfied there are higher numbers of accidents and absences
(Freed, 2003), and higher turnover levels, as employees are likely to leave the
90
organization (Freed 2003; Kemery et al., 1987; Porter et al., 1974), which leads to lower
productivity levels (Koh & Boo, 2001).
Research Question 4
The fourth research question was: Is there a statistically significant relationship
between employees’ gender and their job satisfaction?
The results of the study showed that there is no correlation between an
employee’s gender and job satisfaction. The correlation between these variables was -
0.014, with a significance score of 0.903, which confirmed that there is no significant
correlation between gender and job satisfaction.
The results of research on the impact of gender on the job satisfaction of
employees have not been consistent. While some research suggests that gender is a
predictor of job satisfaction (Bonte & Krabel, 2014; Khan et al., 2013; Lindorff, 2011;
Oshagbemi, 2003; Sentuna, 2015), other research reports that there is no significant
correlation between job satisfaction and gender (Berry, 2016; Saiti & Papadopoulos,
2015; Stebbins, 2008).
Some studies note that differences in job satisfaction levels will be caused by
what a person values in the workplace, their goals and expectations (Berry, 2016), and
that an employee’s gender could influence both what they value (Olorunsola, 2010), and
the way that the values of an organization affect the employee (Bellou, 2010). There is
research that suggests that women are more satisfied when factors other than pay are
considered, while men appear more satisfied when pay is considered (Berry, 2016). This
91
contradicts other studies which found that gender had very little influence on job
satisfaction (Berry, 2016), which coincides with this study’s findings that there is no
significant correlation between gender and job satisfaction.
The implication of this finding is that neither males nor females experience a
higher sense of job satisfaction. As gender does not impact job satisfaction,
organizations do not need to produce gender specific programs focused on increasing job
satisfaction. Organizations should focus their efforts on implementing an holistic
program to ensure that all employees, regardless of their gender, are satisfied with their
jobs because this will result in more productive employees (Christian et al., 2011), and
positive business outcomes such as customer satisfaction and employee retention
(Alexander, 2012; Hunter et al., 2007).
Gender does not predict job satisfaction, but it does relate to different experiences
based on individual expectations, which can affect an employee’s perception of their
workplace (Berry, 2016). Recognizing that the physiological, safety, social, esteem, and
self-actualization (Maslow, 1954) needs and expectations of employees will be different
based on their gender and experience, organizations should seek to ensure that issues
such as pay equality, sexual harassment, and gender equality are addressed, as some
researchers report that women are less likely to feel satisfaction with things such as pay
and resources in the workplace (McMurray et al., 2000) due to gender-based inequality.
When work expectations and actual experiences do not align, job satisfaction is
negatively impacted, and it is therefore important that organizations address the
expectations of employees (Berry, 2016).
92
Recommendations for Practice
The results of this study show that relationships exist between employee
perceived organizational culture, job satisfaction, and employee engagement. The
following recommendations for organizations were based on the results of this study and
the included literature review.
1. The retention of skilled employees is a problem faced by many organizations
(Diala, 2010). Organizations should foster a culture that values employees, and
focuses on maintaining their happiness. When employees experience a high level
of job satisfaction and employee engagement, the organization enjoys many
favorable outcomes, including high productivity and customer satisfaction. When
employees are not satisfied with nor engaged in their work, the organization will
experience a number of negative results, including high turnover. Investing in the
happiness of employees will have a direct result on the success of the
organization.
2. Organizations should actively hire people that fit the culture the organization
wants to foster. The components that lead to one employee experiencing a high
sense of job satisfaction may not have the same outcome for another employee.
Matching a person’s character traits to the appropriate organizational culture
(Wallach, 1983) is therefore important. It is important for organizations to ensure
that the employees they hire are a good fit for the culture of the organization - that
is that they share the organization’s values and beliefs - otherwise this will lead to
low job satisfaction and engagement.
93
3. This study showed that length of time at an organization does not affect job
satisfaction. Organizations should not take it for granted that long term
employees are happy. Just because an employee stays at an organization for a
long time does not mean they are satisfied or engaged. Care should be taken to
ensure that the organizational culture actively encourages the job satisfaction and
engagement of long term employees. The organizational culture should make it
attractive for employees to stay with the organization for a long time.
Organizations can do this by publicly recognizing long term employees and
rewarding their commitment to the organization, and by modifying the culture to
reflect and meet the changing needs of employees over time.
Recommendations for Future Research
The results of this study show that relationships exist between employee
perceived organizational culture, job satisfaction, and employee engagement. The
following recommendations based on the results of this study and the included literature
review are for researchers who may be interested in conducting further research, based on
this study.
1. This study was limited to a quantitative method. Use of a mixed method would
gather additional valuable data, which could shed more light on specifically what
aspects of organizational culture are most impactful to employees, and how these
components, or the lack thereof, make them feel about their jobs.
2. This study was conducted at a single Toronto-based technology company.
Repeating this study in other locations, business sectors, and varying sizes of
94
companies, would allow researchers to confirm the generalizability of these
findings to other environments.
3. This study looked at a snapshot of data during a single time period. Repeating
this study in the same environment in subsequent years would allow researchers
to compare the results and determine whether or not the results remain the same
as the organization grows and components of the culture change.
4. This study focused on specific variables – employee perceived organizational
culture, job satisfaction, employee engagement, length of time, and gender. For
added value to organizations, this study should be repeated using additional
variables to show the relationship between organizational culture, job satisfaction,
employee retention and favorable organizational outcomes – for example,
employee retention, customer satisfaction, and revenue.
5. This study did not compare different types of cultures to see if their effects on job
satisfaction and employee engagement was different. A study should be
conducted to measure the levels of job satisfaction and employee engagement in
different types of organizational cultures.
Conclusion
Much research has been done on organizational culture and employee engagement
separately, but little attention has been given to the relationship between organizational
culture and employee engagement (Harper, 2015). While not new concepts, there
remains a need for additional research on the relationships among organizational culture,
job satisfaction, and employee engagement, as they have not been studied carefully
enough (Harper, 2015; Schein, 2010). This study contributes to the research conducted
95
on these variables as separate components, but its main value is in that it adds to the
limited body of work on the relationship between these variables. The results of this
study show that there is a strong positive, significant, relationship between organizational
culture and the job satisfaction and engagement of employees. Organizations should
therefore strategically plan to develop an organizational culture that will lead to high
levels of job satisfaction and engagement among their employees.
96
APPENDIX A
COPY OF AUTHORIZATION LETTER
Toronto, Ontario, M5E 1W7

Canada
March 27, 2017
Institutional Review Board

Andrews University
4150 Administrative Drive, Room 322
Berrien Springs, MI 49104-0355
To the Institutional Review Board:
This letter certifies that Donn Whitehall has been granted authorization to use the data gathered
during the 2016 Employee Engagement Survey, conducted by TemboStatus on behalf of
[Northern Protection].
Donn has been granted full permission to use the data as needed for the purpose of his doctoral
dissertation, tentatively titled “A Quantitative Study of the Relationship Between the
Organizational Culture of a Toronto-based Technology Company, and the Job Satisfaction and
Engagement of its Employees.”
Sincerely,
Michelle Carter
Director of HR
97
APPENDIX B
ORIGINAL SURVEY QUESTIONS
1. I love my job (Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree)

2. I am proud to work at my company (SA, A, D, SD)
3. I do my job to the best of my ability (SA, A, D, SD)
4. I am proud of the work I do (SA, A, D, SD)
5. My work drives company success (SA, A, D, SD)
6. I find my work energizing (SA, A, D, SD)
7. I enjoy working with my co-workers (SA, A, D, SD)
8. The leadership team is open and honest (SA, A, D, SD)
9. Our leadership team is a strong group of competent professionals (SA, A, D, SD)
10. The leadership team is approachable (SA, A, D, SD)
11. My direct team lead is a competent leader (SA, A, D, SD)
12. My direct team lead is caring and approachable (SA, A, D, SD)
13. My direct team lead is open and honest (SA, A, D, SD)
14. My direct team lead is encouraging (SA, A, D, SD)
15. I regularly get useful feedback from my direct team lead (SA, A, D, SD)
16. I have good team dynamics with my co-workers (SA, A, D, SD)
17. My co-workers are fun and caring toward me (SA, A, D, SD)
18. I can get my ideas heard by the right person (SA, A, D, SD)
19. I am well informed by the organization (SA, A, D, SD)
20. I have the potential to advance my career here (SA, A, D, SD)
21. I get training that is helping me grow in my career (SA, A, D, SD)
22. I have the necessary tools and resources to get work done (SA, A, D, SD)
23. I recognize my colleagues for their good work (SA, A, D, SD)
24. I am recognized for my good work (SA, A, D, SD)
25. Gender (M/F)
26. Length of Service (Less than 12 months, 12 – 18 months, 18 – 24 months, 24 – 36
months, More than 3 years)
27. Business/Support Unit (various units listed)
98
APPENDIX C
SURVEY QUESTIONS USED IN STUDY
1. I love my job (Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree)

2. I am proud to work at my company (SA, A, D, SD)
3. I do my job to the best of my ability (SA, A, D, SD)
4. I am proud of the work I do (SA, A, D, SD)
5. My work drives company success (SA, A, D, SD)
6. I find my work energizing (SA, A, D, SD)
7. I enjoy working with my co-workers (SA, A, D, SD)
8. The leadership team is open and honest (SA, A, D, SD)
9. Our leadership team is a strong group of competent professionals (SA, A, D, SD)
10. The leadership team is approachable (SA, A, D, SD)
11. My direct team lead is a competent leader (SA, A, D, SD)
12. My direct team lead is caring and approachable (SA, A, D, SD)
13. My direct team lead is open and honest (SA, A, D, SD)
14. My direct team lead is encouraging (SA, A, D, SD)
15. I regularly get useful feedback from my direct team lead (SA, A, D, SD)
16. I have good team dynamics with my co-workers (SA, A, D, SD)
17. My co-workers are fun and caring toward me (SA, A, D, SD)
18. I can get my ideas heard by the right person (SA, A, D, SD)
19. I am well informed by the organization (SA, A, D, SD)
20. I have the potential to advance my career here (SA, A, D, SD)
21. I get training that is helping me grow in my career (SA, A, D, SD)
22. I have the necessary tools and resources to get work done (SA, A, D, SD)
23. I recognize my colleagues for their good work (SA, A, D, SD)
24. I am recognized for my good work (SA, A, D, SD)
25. Gender (M/F)
26. Length of Service (Less than 12 months, 12 – 18 months, 18 – 24 months, 24 – 36
months, More than 3 years)
27. Business/Support Unit (various units listed)
99
REFERENCES
Ackerman, E. R., & Bezuidenhout, M. C. (2007). Staff dissatisfaction in the theatre

complex of a private hospital. Curationis, 30(3), 68-73.
Adams, K. L. (2000). Job satisfaction of dietitians in Texas. (Master's thesis).

Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (Order No. 1401006).
Ahamed, M., & Mahmood, R. (2015). Impact of organizational culture on job

satisfaction: A study on Banglalion Communication Ltd, Bangladesh. European
Journal of Business and Management, 7(10), 160-174.
Alexander, L. A. (2012). Study of perceived organizational culture and its effect on

employee job satisfaction. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Global (Order No. 3571842).
Alderfer, C. P. (1972). Existence, relatedness and growth. New York, NY: Free Press.
Anuna, M. N. (1997). Determinants of job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction of

academic administrators in Texas public universities. (Doctoral Dissertation).
Atkins, J., & Turner, D. (2006). Upgrade stakeholder service by changing your agency’s
organizational culture. Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal, 76(12), 30–
32, 37.
Attridge, M. (2009). Measuring and managing employee work engagement: A

review of the research and business literature. Journal of Workplace
Behavioral Health, 24(4), 383–398.
Baker, K. A. (2002). Organizational culture. In U.S. Department

of Energy Office of Science and Office of Planning and Analysis (Ed.)
Management benchmark study (Chapter 11). Retrieved from
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/doe/benchmark/ch11.pdf
Baldiga, N. (2005). Opportunity and balance: Is your organization ready to provide both?
Journal of Accountancy, 199(5), 39-44.
Barney, J. B. (1986). Organizational culture: Can it be a source of sustained competitive

advantage? The Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 656-665.
100
Bellou, V. (2010). Organizational culture as a predictor of job satisfaction: The role of
gender and age. The Career Development International, 15(1), 4-19.
Berry, S. J. (2016). The relationship between job satisfaction and organizational culture
in USVI public organizations. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Bonte, W., & Krabel, S. (2014). You can't always get what you want: Gender differences
in job satisfaction of university graduates. Applied Economics, 46(21), 2477.
Booker, J. M. (2011). A descriptive analysis of high school student motivators for

success. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations &
Theses Global (Order No. 3471687).
Browell, S. (2003). Staff retention in a week (2nd ed.). London, United Kingdom: Hodder
& Stoughton Educational.
Brown, D. (2005). Job satisfaction and its relationship to organizational and religious
commitment among workers at northern Caribbean university. (Doctoral
Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (Order
No. 3182007).
Burns, N., & Grove, S. K. (2009). The practice of nursing research: Appraisal synthesis
and generations of evidence (6th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Saunders Elsevier.
Cameron, K., & Quinn, R. (1999). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture
based on the competing values framework. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Chen, P., Sparrow, P., & Cooper, C. (2016). The relationship between person-
organization fit and job satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(5),
946-959.
Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A

quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance.
Personnel Psychology, 64, 89-136.
Collins, J. C. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap ... and others
don't. New York, NY: HarperBusiness.
Cowan, R., & Hoffman, M. (2007). The flexible organization: How contemporary
employees construct the work/life border. Qualitative Research Reports in
Communication, 8(1), 37-44.
101
Crabtree, S. (2013). Worldwide, 13% of employees are engaged at work. Gallup
Poll Briefing, 3. Retrieved from http://www.praneo.org/sites/default/
files/Worldwide,%2013%25%20of%20Employees%20Are%20Engaged%
20at%20Work_0.pdf
Dagher, G. K., Chapa, O., & Junaid, N. (2015). The historical evolution of employee
engagement and self-efficacy constructs. Journal of Management History, 21(2),
232-256.
Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of
corporate life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
Demas, M. D. (2011). Job satisfaction of managers and individual contributors within

local and virtual software teams. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (Order No. 3456122).
Denison, D., Nieminen, L., & Kotrba, L. (2012). Diagnosing organizational cultures: A
conceptual and empirical review of culture effectiveness surveys. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 1-17.
Denison, D. R. (1997). Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness (2nd ed.).

Ann Arbor, MI: Aviat.
Denison, D. R., & Mishra, A. (1995). Toward a theory of organizational culture

and effectiveness. Organization Science, 6, 204-223.
Denison, D. R. & Neale, W. S. (1996). Denison organizational culture survey. Ann

Arbor, MI: Aviat.
Denison, D. R. & Young, J. (1999). Organizational culture and effectiveness: Validating

a measurement model. Working paper. University of Michigan Business School.
Diala, I. S. (2010). Job satisfaction among information technology professionals in the

Washington DC area: An analysis based on the Minnesota satisfaction
questionnaire. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations &
Theses Global (Order No. 3398302).
Dickinson, T., & Wright, K. (2008). Stress and burnout in forensic mental health nursing:
a literature review. British Journal of Nursing, 17(2), 82-87.
Dike, D. (2011). Quantitative correlational study of organizational culture perception,

employment length, and employee turnover in fast-food restaurants. (Doctoral
No. 3480369).
102
Ekwutosi, O. C., & Moses, O. S. (2013). Internalization of organizational culture: A
theoretical perspective. International Journal of Business Tourism and Applied
Sciences, 1(2), 77-96.
Elfering, A., Grebner, S., Gerber, H. & Semmer, N. K. (2008). Workplace observation of
work stressors, catecholamines, and musculoskeletal pain among male employees.
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health 34(5), 337–344.
Ellickson, M. C. (2002). Determinants of job satisfaction of municipal government

employees. Public Personnel Management, 31, 343-358.
Fairbanks, C. B. (2007). Using six sigma and lean methodologies to improve OR

throughput. AORN Journal, 86(1), 70-82.
Forbes Technology Council (2018). 13 reasons google deserves its 'best company
culture' award. Retrieved from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2018/02/08/13-reasons-google-
deserves-its-best-company-culture-award/2/#668e4481ca53
Fortune (2017). Fortune’s 2017 100 best companies to work for. Retrieved from
http://fortune.com/best-companies/2017/
Freed, D. (2003). Material benefits, advancement, or fulfillment: A study into the causes
and predictors of job satisfaction based on how people view their work. Journal of
Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 8(4), 116–136.
Friedman, T. L. (2007). The world is flat 3.0: A brief history of the twenty-first
century. New York, NY: Picador.
Frone, M. (2003). Work-family balance. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.).

Handbook of occupational health psychology (1st ed) (pp. 143–162).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Fulmano, J. (2005). Balance is more than just a buzzword. Nursing Management, 36(5),
23-25.
Gainey, T. W. & Clenney, B. F. (2006). Flexible and telecommuting: Examining

individual perceptions. Southern Business Review, 32(1), 13-22.
Gale, A. (2015). Qualitative multi-case study of nurse leaders' beliefs about multinational
workforce impact on hospital operations. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from
Gallup. (2006, October). Engaged employees inspire company innovation. Retrieved

from http://missionfacilitators.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Engaged-
Employees-Drive-Organizations-Forward.pdf.
103
Gamber, J. S. (2005). The relationship of self efficacy and job culture to job satisfaction
among certified athletic trainers. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from
Goffman, E. (1961). Encounters. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin University Books
Goldston, B. K. (2007). The relationship between traits of organizational culture and job
satisfaction within the healthcare setting. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from
Great Place to Work (2018). Great place to work reviews. Retrieved from
http://reviews.greatplacetowork.com
Greenhaus, J. H., Collins, K. M., & Shaw, J. D. (2003). The relation between work-
family balance and quality of life. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(3), 510-
531.
Gryzwacz, J. G. & Carlson, D. S. (2007). Conceptualizing work-family balance:

Implications for practice and research. Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 9(4), 455-471.
Handy C. B. (1985). Understanding organizations (4th ed.). New York, NY: Facts on
File Publications.
Hanson, S. I., Martin, J. K., & Tuch, S. (1987). Economic sector and job satisfaction.
Work and Occupation, 14, 286-305.
Harper, G. (2015). The relationship between organizational culture and employee

engagement. (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
Global (Order No. 1600401).
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship

between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268-279.
Hebb, D. O. (1949). The organization of behavior. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard
Business Review, 46(1), 53-62.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B.S. (1959). The motivation to work. New
York, NY: Wiley & Sons.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related

values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
104
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations:
Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. New York, NY:
McGraw Hill.
Hoppock, R. (1935). Job satisfaction. New York, NY: Harper.
Hoppock, R. (1937). Job satisfaction of psychologists. Journal of Applied Psychology,

21, 300-303.
Houser, J. D. (1927). What the employee thinks. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Hunter, S. T., Bedell, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Climate for creativity: A
quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 19(1), 69-90.
Jacobs, H. (2013). An examination of psychological meaningfulness, safety, and

availability as the underlying mechanisms linking job features and personal
characteristics to work engagement. (Order No. 3598079). Retrieved from
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1459241026).
Jacques, E. (1952). The changing culture of a factory. New York, NY: Dryden.
Kahn, W. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement

at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724.
Kanter, R. M. (1993). Men and women of the corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Kemery, E. R., Mossholder, K. W., & Bedeian, A. G. (1987). Role stress, physical
symptomatology, and turnover intentions: A causal analysis of three alternative
specifications. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 8(1), 11-23.
Kerr, S. (1995). An academy classic: On the folly of rewarding A while hoping for B.
The Academy of Management Executive, 9(1), 7-14.
Khan, A., Ramzan, M., & Butt, M. S. (2013). Is job satisfaction of Islamic banks
operational staff determined through organizational climate, occupational stress,
age and gender. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 4(3), 13.
Kirk, C. T. (2003). An examination of the relationship between length of service, job

satisfaction, and propensity to leave for faculty at a Texas community college.
(Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
(Order No. 3083366).
Kirkman, B. L., Steel, P., & Taras, V. (2010). Examining the impact of culture’s
consequences: A three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede’s
cultural value dimensions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 405-439.
105
Kline, T. J. B. & Boyd, J. E. (1994). Organizational structure, context and climate: Their
relationship to job satisfaction at three managerial levels. Journal of General
Psychology, 118(4), 305-316.
Koh, H., & Boo, E. (2001). The link between organizational ethics and job satisfaction: A
study of managers in Singapore. Journal of Business Ethics, 29(4), 309-324.
Kornhauser, A. (1933). The technique of measuring employee attitudes. Personnel

Journal, 9, 99-107.
Lazaroiu, G. (2015). Employee motivation and job performance. Linguistic and

Philosophical Investigations, 14, 97-102.
LeHew, M. J., Sr. (2006). Globalization of the enterprise database environment: A

qualitative study of data security experiences. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved
from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (Order No. 3205704).
Li, Y. (2016). The impact of leadership behavior on employee engagement. (Doctoral

No. 10075083).
Lindorff, M. (2011). Job satisfaction and gender in the APS: Who'd want to be a male?
Australian Journal of Public Administration, 70(1), 58-74.
Little, B., & Little, P. (2006). Employment engagement: Conceptual issues. Journal of
Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 10(1), 111-121
Locke, E. A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human

Performance, 4, 309-335.
Ma, X., & MacMillan, R. B. (1999). Influences of workplace conditions on teachers' job
satisfaction. Journal of Educational Research, 93(1)39-48.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. In S. T. Fiske, D. L.
Schacter, & C. Zahn-Waxler (Eds), Annual review of psychology, 52, 397-422.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Los

Angeles, CA: SAGE.
McMurray, J. E., Linzer, M., Konrad, T. R., Douglas, J., Shugerman, R., & Nelson, K.
(2000). The work lives of women physicians. Journal of General Internal
Medicine, 15(6), 372-380.
Merit, D. (1995). What really motivates you? American Printer, 214, 74-75.
106
Meyer, J. P., & Topolnytsky, L. (2000). Best practices: Employee retention. Toronto,
Canada: Carswell.
Morse, N. C. (1953). Satisfaction in the white-collar job. Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Survey Research Center.
Murphy, L. (2005). Delicate balance. Nursing Standard, 20(6), 70-71.
Odom, R. Y., Boxx, W. R., & Dunn, M. G. (1990). Organizational culture, commitment,
satisfaction, and cohesion. Public Productivity & Management Review, 14(2),
157-179.
Olorunsola, E. O. (2010). Job satisfaction and gender factor of administrative staff in

south west Nigeria universities. Contemporary Issues in Education Research,
3(10), 51-55.
Oshagbemi, T. (2003). Personal correlates of job satisfaction: Empirical evidence from

UK universities. International Journal of Social Economics, 30(12), 1210 -1232.
Otoum, M. A. (2010). A study of job satisfaction among information technology

professionals in the emirate of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates: An
exploratory investigation. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Ouchi, W. G. (1981). Theory Z: How American business can meet the Japanese
challenge. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
Pascale, R., & Athos, A. (1982). The art of Japanese management: Applications for
American executives. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Patel, S. (2015). 10 examples of companies with fantastic cultures. Retrieved from

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/249174
Peters, T., & Waterman, R. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s
best run companies. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Pettigrew, A. (1979). On studying organizational culture. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 24, 570-581.
Platonova, E. A. (2005). The relationship among human resource management,

organizational culture, and organizational performance. (Doctoral Dissertation).
Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational
commitment, job satisfaction and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 59(5), 603-609.
107
Porter, S., & Carter, D. (2000). Common terms and concepts in research. In D. Cormack,
The research process in nursing (4th ed., pp. 17-28). Oxford, England: Blackwell
Science.
Reichheld, F. F. (1996). The loyalty effect: The hidden force behind growth, profits,
and lasting value. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Ritchie, M. (2000). Organizational culture: An examination of its effect on the

internalization process and member performance. Southern Business Review,
25(2), 1–13.
Robertson, I., & Cooper, C. (2011) Well-being: Productivity and happiness at work.
New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillian.
Roethlisberger, F., & Dickson, W. (1939). Management and the worker. Chicago, IL:
Harvard University Press.
Rushdi, Y. A. K., & Kamal, A. N. (2014). A evaluation of Google’s organisational &

recruitment culture. Management, 4(4), 98-101
Sadri, G., & Lees, B. (2001). Developing corporate culture as a competitive advantage.
Journal of Management Development, 20, 853–859.
Saiti, A., & Papadopoulos, Y. (2015). School teachers' job satisfaction and personal
characteristics. The International Journal of Educational Management, 29(1), 73.
Sarangi, S., & Srivastava, R. K. (2012). Impact of organizational culture and

communication on employee engagement: An investigation of Indian private
banks. South Asian Journal of Management, 19(3), 18–33.
Schein, E. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45(2), 109-119
Schein, E. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Schroder, R. (2003). Job satisfaction and its relationship to organizational commitment

and religious commitment for Andrews University employees. (Doctoral
No. 3110129).
Shuck, M. B., & Wollard, K. K. (2009). A historical perspective of employee

engagement: An emerging definition. In M. S. Plakhotnik, S. M. Nielsen, & D. M.
Pane (Eds), Proceedings of the eighth annual college of education & GSN
research conference (pp. 133 – 139). Miami, FL: Florida International
University.
108
Sempane, M. E., Rieger, H. S., & Roodt, G. (2002). Job satisfaction in relation to
organizational culture. Journal of Industrial Psychology, 28(2), 23-30.
Sentuna, M. (2015). Investigation of job satisfaction, organizational commitment and

self-esteem of physical education teachers according to the gender. International
Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 7(2), 93-101.
Sharma, R. D. (2009). Job satisfaction of university teachers: An empirical study. Journal

of Services Research, 9(2), 51-80.
Sheridan, J. E. (1992). Organizational culture and employee retention. Academy of

Management Journal, 35(5), 1036-1056.
Silverthorne, C. (2004). The impact of organizational culture and person-organization fit

on organizational commitment and job satisfaction in Taiwan. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 25(7), 592-599.
Smith, R. J. (2016). Employee engagement in a cardiac catheterization lab. (Doctoral

No. 10008712).
Stangor, C. (2017). Introduction to psychology. Boston, MA: FlatWorld
Stebbins, L. H. (2008). An investigation of individual job satisfaction as an outcome of

individual perception of organizational culture. (Doctoral Dissertation).
Super, D.E. (1939). Occupational level and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 23(5), 547-564.
Taylor, F. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York, NY: Harper &
Brothers
Thomas, K. J. (2013). Compelled to be connected: An ethnographic exploration of

organizational culture, work-life balance, and the use of mobile workplace
technologies. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations &
Theses Global. (1524264368)
Topper, E. F. (2007). Stress in the library. Journal of New Library, 108(11/12), 561-564.
Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Van den Berg, P. T. & Wilderom, C. (2004). Defining, measuring and comparing
organizational cultures. Applied Psychology: International Association for
Applied Psychology, S3(4), 570-582.
109
Wallach, E. J. (1983). Individuals and organizations: The cultural match. Training and
Development Journal, 37(2), 28-36.
Werner, J. M. (1994). Dimensions that make a difference: Examining the impact of in-
role and extrarole behaviors on supervisory ratings. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 79(1), 98-107.
White R., Martin, M., Stimson, M., & Hodge, R. (1991). Management in English
language teaching. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press
Wright, T. A. (2006). The emergence of job satisfaction in organizational behavior: A

historical overview of the dawn of job attitude research. Journal of Management
History, 12(3), 262-277.
Zammuto, R. F., & Krakower, J. Y. (1991). Quantitative and qualitative studies of

organizational culture. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 5,
83-114.
110
CURRICULUM VITA
DONN J. P. WHITEHALL
EDUCATION:
2018 Ph.D., Higher Education Administration
Andrews University
Berrien Springs, Michigan
2005 MSW, Master of Social Work
Howard University
Washington, DC
2003 B.Sc., Information Systems, minor in Business
Columbia Union College
Takoma Park, MD
2000 A.A.S., Computer Studies
Barbados Community College
St. Michael, Barbados
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
2018 - Present Head of Customer Training
PagerDuty
Toronto, Ontario Canada
2017 - 2018 Manager (Acting Director), Training
Security Compass
2014 - 2016 LMS Administrator; Customer Support Manager,
Training
Security Compass
2013 - 2014 Program Coordinator, Strong Academy
100 Strong Inc.
2011 - 2012 IT Support Specialist
thyssenkrupp
2006 - 2010 Technology Consultant (Instructional Technologist),
DLiT
Andrews University
Berrien Springs, Michigan
2003 - 2005 Graduate Assistant to the Dean of Administration, School
of Social Work
111
Howard University
Washington, DC
112

Digital Commons at Andrews University Digital Commons at Andrews University

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digital Commons at Andrews University Digital Commons at Andrews University

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digital Commons at Andrews University Digital Commons at Andrews University

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk brought to you by CORE

Dissertations Graduate Research

A Quantitative Study of Employees' Perceptions of the

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations

A QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF EMPLOYEES’ PERCEPTIONS OF THE

Chair: Elvin Gabriel

TITLE: A QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF EMPLOYEES’ PERCEPTIONS OF THE

Name of researcher: Donn Whitehall

Name and degree of faculty chair: Elvin Gabriel, Ed.D.

Date completed: November 2018

relationship between the organizational culture of a Toronto-based technology company,

and their job satisfaction and engagement.

This study utilized a quantitative, non-experimental, correlational method, while

collected by a Toronto-based technology company in June of 2016. The goal of this

purpose of determining what areas of the organization’s culture, if any, needed to be

organization. Seventy-three percent of the employee workforce - 76 out of a total of 104

correlation analysis to examine the relationship between the variables.

Two of the hypotheses were supported, while two were not.

Research Hypothesis H1: There is a statistically significant relationship between

employees’ perception of the organizational culture of a Toronto-based technology

company, and their job satisfaction. This hypothesis was supported

Research Hypothesis H2: There is a statistically significant relationship between

employees’ perceptions of the organizational culture of a Toronto-based technology

company, and their job engagement. This hypothesis was supported.

employees’ length of time at a Toronto-based technology company, and their job

satisfaction. This hypothesis was rejected

Research Hypothesis H4: There is a statistically significant relationship between

employees. Organizations should therefore strategically plan to develop an

achievement of its goals.

A QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF EMPLOYEES’ PERCEPTIONS OF THE

Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

APPROVAL BY THE COMMITTEE:

- Jeremiah 29:11, NIV

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................... vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................... viii

Background of the Study ......................................................................... 1

2. LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................. 21

4. DATA ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 60

5. DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSION ................ 69

A. COPY OF AUTHORIZATION LETTER ..................................................... 97

B. ORIGINAL SURVEY QUESTIONS ............................................................ 98

C. SURVEY QUESTIONS USED IN STUDY ................................................. 99

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 100

CURRICULUM VITA .............................................................................................. 111

1. Conceptual and Operational Definition of Variables.............................................. 55

2. Demographic Characteristics of Participants .......................................................... 62

3. Survey Items’ Mean, Standard Deviation and Range ............................................. 63

4. Variable Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................ 64

5. Correlation for All Variables .................................................................................. 65

ERG Existence, Relatedness, and Growth

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences

My pursuit of a Ph.D degree in Higher Education Administration has been a very

the dissertation. I am forever grateful to the numerous people – including classmates,

encouraging me to finish what I started.

enormous sacrifice they made on my behalf.

It is only because of my family that I kept going when I wanted to give up on