Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Employee satisfaction factors and influences: an evaluation study
(USC Thesis Other)
Employee satisfaction factors and influences: an evaluation study
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Employee Satisfaction Factors and Influences: An Evaluation Study
by
Kristina JoAnn Lindsey
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2022
© Copyright by Kristina JoAnn Lindsey 2022
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Kristina JoAnn Lindsey certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Briana Hinga
Eric Canny
Jennifer Phillips, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022
iv
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the employee satisfaction rate and factors and
influences on satisfaction among employees who work in IT Departments of healthcare
organizations in the United States. Specifically, I explored the relationship between the
organizational influences (organizational trust, sense of belonging, compensation, and training),
motivation influences (attribution and expectancy), knowledge influences (expectations from
leadership and procedural knowledge), and their relationship to employee satisfaction. Four
research questions guided this study: 1. What is the employee satisfaction rate in IT Departments
within healthcare organizations? 2. What is the relationship between organizational context and
culture and employee satisfaction in IT Departments within healthcare organizations? 3. What is
the relationship between employee motivation and employee satisfaction in IT Departments
within healthcare organizations? 4. What is the relationship between employee knowledge and
employee satisfaction in IT Departments within healthcare organizations? Using a quantitative
research design, online surveys were shared via social media through LinkedIn, Twitter,
Facebook, and via email, seeking information technology (IT) employees working in a
healthcare setting. The population size was 56 respondents. Multiple regression analysis with p-
value and Pearson’s-r was used to explore the correlation between the dependent and
independent variables. Results of the analysis found a positive correlation between employee
satisfaction and the independent variables of trust, belonging, compensation, training, attribution
motivation, expectancy motivation, and procedural knowledge. A positive correlation was found
for compensation, training, and attribution. However, the mean of responses was below 75% for
these variables, indicating a need to be developed to improve employee satisfaction.
Recommendations were discussed for addressing these three variables.
v
Acknowledgements
I am eternally grateful to my dissertation chair, Dr. Jennifer Phillips, for her leadership,
guidance, support, and encouragement throughout the dissertation process. I would also like to
thank my committee members, Dr. Eric Canny and Dr. Briana Hinga, for their support and
guidance on my dissertation. To my study group (girl-power): Gohar Momjian, Kiersten Elliott,
Becky Bosco, Stephanie Lowrey, and Suzanne Burns, I could not have made it through this
program without your friendship, support, and camaraderie! Ezequiel Ramirez, Bill Sherod, and
Jared Sinclair, I am grateful for your friendship throughout the program and your help and
guidance as I began my research and data analysis. I am grateful for my friends who have
encouraged me to continue throughout this three-year process. I am grateful that the USC OCL
EdD program is so well constructed that it guided me every step of the way and made this
program enjoyable and rewarding. Finally, I would like to thank my family: Bruce Lindsey,
Wilma Lindsey, Zachary Lindsey, and Erica Brown for their encouragement on my journey to
complete a doctorate. This dissertation represents a large piece of the culmination of a lifelong
goal to become a doctor.
vi
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... v
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 2
Importance of Addressing the Problem .............................................................................. 3
Field Context and Mission .................................................................................................. 4
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions .................................................................... 4
Methodological Framework ................................................................................................ 5
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 6
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................... 7
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .......................................................................................... 8
The History of Employee Satisfaction, Engagement, and Retention Research .................. 8
Employee Satisfaction and Engagement ........................................................................... 10
Factors Affecting Employee Satisfaction ......................................................................... 15
Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Framework ....................................................................... 22
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences ............................... 24
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 35
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 37
Overview of Methodology ................................................................................................ 37
Ethics and Role of the Researcher .................................................................................... 44
Chapter Four: Results ................................................................................................................... 46
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 46
vii
Results for Research Question 1: What Is the Employee Satisfaction Rate in IT
Departments at Healthcare Organizations? ....................................................................... 53
Results for Research Question 2: What Is the Relationship Between
Organizational Context and Culture and Employee Satisfaction in IT Departments
at Healthcare Organizations? ............................................................................................ 59
Research Question 3: What Is the Relationship Between Employee Motivation
and Employee Satisfaction in IT Departments at Healthcare Organizations? .................. 73
Research Question 4: What Is the Relationship Between Employee Knowledge
and Employee Satisfaction in IT Departments at Healthcare Organizations? .................. 82
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 87
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations......................................................................... 89
Discussion of Results ........................................................................................................ 89
Recommendations for Practice ......................................................................................... 98
Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................................... 103
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 104
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 105
References ................................................................................................................................... 108
Appendix A: Survey Questions .................................................................................................. 123
Appendix B: Information Sheet for Exempt Research ............................................................... 134
viii
List of Tables
Table 1: Organizational Influences 26
Table 2: Motivation Influences 30
Table 3: Knowledge Influences and Knowledge Type 32
Table 4: Study Questions and Data Source 38
Table 5: Research Questions and Analysis Factors 42
Table 6: Demographic Characteristics of the Sample 48
Table 7: Composite Variables 52
Table 8: Cronbach’s Alpha Results for Satisfaction Scale 54
Table 9: Satisfaction Responses 55
Table 10: Mean, Variance, and Standard deviation of Satisfaction Responses 57
Table 11: Cronbach’s Alpha Organizational Context Independent Variable
Organizational Trust 60
Table 12: Mean and SD Organizational Context Independent Variable
Organizational Trust 60
Table 13: Survey Responses Organizational Context Independent Variable
Organizational Trust 61
Table 14: Cronbach’s Alpha Organizational Context Independent Variable Sense of
Belonging 63
Table 15: Mean and SD Organizational Context Independent Variable Sense of
Belonging 64
Table 16: Survey Responses Organizational Context Independent Variable Sense of
Belonging 64
ix
Table 17: Cronbach’s Alpha Organizational Context Independent Variable
Compensation 66
Table 18: Mean and SD Organizational Context Independent Variable Compensation 67
Table 19: Survey Responses Organizational Context Independent Variable
Compensation 67
Table 20: Cronbach’s Alpha Organizational Context Independent Variable Training
Opportunities 70
Table 21: Mean and SD for Organizational Context Independent Variable Training
Opportunities 70
Table 22: Survey Responses Organizational Context Independent Variable Training
Opportunities 71
Table 23: Cronbach’s Alpha Attribution 74
Table 24: Mean and SD for Attribution 75
Table 25: Survey Responses Attribution 75
Table 26: Cronbach’s Alpha Expectancy Motivation 78
Table 27: Mean and SD Expectancy Motivation 78
Table 28: Survey Responses Expectancy Motivation 79
Table 29: Cronbach’s Alpha Knowledge: Job Expectations (Declarative) 83
Table 30: Survey Responses Knowledge: Job Expectations (Declarative) 83
Table 31: Cronbach’s Alpha Knowledge: Job Procedures (Procedural) 84
Table 32: Mean and SD Job Procedures (Procedural) 85
Table 33: Survey Responses Knowledge: Job Procedures (Procedural) 85
Table A1: Survey Questions 123
x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 35
Figure 2: Satisfaction Baseline 58
Figure 3: Correlation of Satisfaction to Organizational Context Independent Variable
Organizational Trust 62
Figure 4: Correlation between Satisfaction and Organizational Context Independent
Variable Sense of Belonging 65
Figure 5: Correlation Satisfaction and Organizational Context Independent Variable
Compensation 68
Figure 6: Correlation Satisfaction and Organizational Context Independent Variable
Training Opportunities 72
Figure 7: Correlation Satisfaction and Attribution Motivation 76
Figure 8: Correlation Satisfaction and Expectancy Motivation 80
Figure 9: Correlation Satisfaction to Knowledge of Job Procedures 86
1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Employee satisfaction, engagement, and retention rates are aspects of employee relations
that all organizations must manage daily. Employee satisfaction and retention is an important
factor for organizations as there is a dollar value that can be ascribed to human capital that, when
lost, has a true financial cost to the organization (Kasekende et al., 2013). The cost of employee
turnover for organizations is high and adversely impacts corporate profits and organizational
performance (Mahan et al., 2019). Voluntary employee turnover rates across all industries in the
United States exceeded 17% in 2018, an 8% increase from the previous year; if this trend
continues, annual voluntary employee turnover could reach 35% by 2023 (Mahan et al., 2019).
Employee turnover in information technology (IT) departments in the United States increased
from 34% in 2015 to 38% in 2019 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021), which already
exceeds the average across all industries. In 2020, the global pandemic of Covid-19 changed the
work environment dramatically and immediately. Organizations throughout the world had to
adapt to the changing world and moved quickly into a telework situation with employees
working from home as countries shut down and enacted stay at home orders (Bansal, 2020). This
new challenge of how to work successfully during a global pandemic has necessitated a change
in business and sales practices, as well as changes in how employees are managed (Bailey &
Breslin, 2021). The impact of Covid-19 will be discussed further in the limitations and
delimitations section in Chapter 5.
Declining employee satisfaction and subsequently retention rates are a problem
throughout the United States (Mahan et al., 2019). There are monetary costs associated with
turnover, including the cost of replacing and training new staff, loss of valuable employee
experience and knowledge, combined with the hidden costs that negatively impact employee
2
morale and corporate culture (Frank et al., 2004; Mahan et al., 2019). This study investigates the
factors that affect employee satisfaction within an IT Department in a healthcare system and
makes recommendations to improve employee satisfaction.
Background of the Problem
Employee satisfaction consists of a variety of factors that include compensation (salary),
job characteristics, training and development opportunities, supervisor support, career
advancement opportunities, work-life balance (Dockel et al., 2006), benefits, pay, relationships
with coworkers, and job satisfaction (Bernthal & Wellins, 2001). Dissatisfied employees leave
organizations, and employee turnover in the healthcare industry reached 18.2% in 2017, which is
the highest rate in a decade (Wells, 2018). As already mentioned, employee turnover rates in IT
organizations across industries in the United States increased from 34% in 2015 to 38% in 2019
(U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021).
The relationship an employee has with their supervisor is significant, and open and
honest communication between leaders and staff helps build trust, strengthening the
interpersonal relationship and feelings of support (Korsgaard et al., 2002). Employees appreciate,
expect, and deserve equal treatment from leadership in the workplace (Lucas, 2019). When some
staff are allowed to be social loafers and underperform their peers, it becomes an equity issue
that leaders and organizations should address (Clark & Estes, 2008) to help build and maintain
trust and support between leader and employee. Employees’ report placing a high value on
corporate culture, supportive senior leadership, and competitive salary and benefits (Kumar &
Arora, 2012).
As Clark and Estes (2008) described, the interplay of employee knowledge, motivation,
and organizational factors impact employee performance at work and thus can affect corporate
3
performance and results. Employee knowledge is often blamed, but “many of the gaps between
current performance and the levels required to achieve business goals are caused by a lack of
motivation, not a lack of knowledge and skills” (Clark& Estes, 2008, p.100). This study explored
employee satisfaction and the influences of trust, sense of belonging, compensation, training,
motivation, and knowledge.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
Employee satisfaction is necessary to an organization since satisfied employees are more
likely to stay, and dissatisfied employees leave the company. The potential financial costs to an
organization when employees leave include replacing staff, loss of valuable employee experience
and knowledge, combined with the potentially negative impact on employee morale and
corporate culture (Bernthal & Wellins, 2001). In the United States, employee turnover can cost
an organization a minimum of $15,000 per employee for low skilled labor (Mahan, 2019). In
skilled labor, such as that found among IT employees, employee turnover can cost up to twice an
employee’s annual salary (Atencio et al., 2003). Studies have identified that employee turnover
carries a cost to organizations, especially for skilled labor, which is affected by the ease of
movement in competitive sectors, competitive compensation, and the employee’s relationship
with their leader (Bernthal & Wellins, 2001; Ferreira & Potgieter, 2018; Mahan, 2019).
Employee satisfaction has been positively linked to employee engagement and improved
performance at work (Gallup, 2021). Over 18 years of tracking employee engagement and
retention data, Hartner et al. (2018) discovered that, on average, 17% of U.S. workers are
actively disengaged at their workplace. Organizations that are successful in actively engaging
their employees have shown four times the earnings per share growth than their competitors
(Hartner et al., 2018). Organizations in the top quartile of employee engagement experience
4
higher customer engagement, greater productivity, increased employee retention, and 21%
higher profitability than the lowest quartile companies (Hartner et al., 2018). They also found
that the employer could have prevented 77% of employee turnover. Gathering different data
pieces in this study was expected to allow the satisfaction indicators to be evaluated in relation to
organizational practices, policies, procedures, methods, and structures to determine if there are
additional contributing factors impacting the problem.
Field Context and Mission
The field of focus for this study was the information technology employee population
working in healthcare organizations in the United States. Most companies in the United States
use different types of technology to run or manage their business and need employees trained in
information technology to help support the use of technology. Healthcare systems are an
excellent example of organizations that use many different types of technology and devices to
support and care for their patients.
The US Bureau of Labor Statistics (2019) estimated there are 22 million healthcare-
related workers in the United States. As of January 2021, there were nearly 3 million workers in
Information Technology (Mlitz, 2021). Research determined that across industries, full time IT
employees make up close to 5% of total employees, with some industries having a higher
percentage, such as 9.6% in the financial services sector and 11.7% in the insurance sector
(Mlitz, 2021; US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2019). This population of workers has been
underrepresented in studies to date and are being evaluated in this study.
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the employee satisfaction rate and factors and
influences on satisfaction among employees who work in IT Department of healthcare
5
organizations in the United States. The data analysis focused on IT Department employees’
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related to employee satisfaction. This
study seeks to propose interventions that can improve employee satisfaction in healthcare
organizations.
Four research questions guided this study:
1. What is the employee satisfaction rate in IT Departments within healthcare
organizations?
2. What is the relationship between organizational context and culture and employee
satisfaction in IT Departments within healthcare organizations?
3. What is the relationship between employee motivation and employee satisfaction in IT
Departments within healthcare organizations?
4. What is the relationship between employee knowledge and employee satisfaction in IT
Departments within healthcare organizations?
Methodological Framework
The conceptual framework that was used is the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis,
which uses a systematic method to evaluate knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences, and explore employee satisfaction. This study employed a modified approach to the
Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis to evaluate the organizational and motivational influences
that impact employee satisfaction. Knowledge was explored, but it was considered a tertiary
priority within the research agenda. Employees must have the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational support to effectively do their job. That includes having the skills for the job,
knowing what is expected of them, receiving competitive compensation, and being treated fairly.
6
This research study used the design of a quantitative method for data collection and
analysis. Quantitative research examines theories by evaluating the relationship among variables
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). A field study open to employees within the IT Department at
healthcare organizations in the United States was used to gather employee opinions and
attitudes to answer the study’s research questions. Surveys are a standard method used in
quantitative research (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Definition of Terms
This section provides definitions of frequently used terms relating to employee
satisfaction, engagement, and retention used throughout this dissertation.
• Accountability is comprised of the actions, processes and procedures that someone enacts
as they take responsibility for their actions (Emanuel & Emanuel, 1996) and has evolved
to do more than just describe responsibility; it has become a cultural phenomenon or
cultural keyword with a broader scope and meaning that extends into governance
(Dubnick, 2014).
• Attrition refers to the loss of employees through resignation, retirement, elimination of a
position or other similar reason (Sandhya & Kumar, 2011).
• Employee retention rate is the percentage of employees that remain at an organization
over a specified time frame, maintaining employees that are already hired (Bernthal &
Wellins, 2001).
• Leadership effectiveness relies on group membership and the perceptions of the followers
or employees, believing the leader embodies the group identity and is competent and
successful (van Knippenberg, 2011).
7
• Organizational context and culture include the values, norms, behaviors, environment, or
background of a company, which are real yet not physical features (Benton et al., 2017;
Hogan & Coote, 2014). Organizational context and culture impact how staff view their
leader’s effectiveness (Benton et al., 2017).
• Performance indicators relating to employee retention are items that can be measured to
evaluate the problem, such as coworker relationships, benefits, pay, work-life balance,
satisfaction, and the relationship with their supervisor (Bernthal & Wellins, 2001).
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. This chapter provided the key concepts and
terminology found in a discussion about employee satisfaction. The organization’s mission,
goals, stakeholders, and framework for this study were introduced. Chapter Two provides a
review of the current literature surrounding the scope of the study. Topics addressed include
employee retention rate, leadership effectiveness, communication, accountability, and
competitive compensation. Chapter Two presents the IT Department knowledge, motivation and
organizational influences explored in this study. Chapter Three details the methodology for
selecting participants, data collection and analysis. In Chapter Four, the data was assessed and
analyzed. Chapter Five provides recommendations for practice and future research.
8
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
The purpose of this literature review is to provide the reader with an understanding of
employee satisfaction as it affects organizations and employee motivation and knowledge. The
first part of this chapter gives a brief overview of the history of employee turnover research, the
evolution of theories, and the primary areas that influence retention and employee satisfaction.
The second part of this chapter discusses the assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences using the Clark and Estes (2008) (KMO) gap analysis framework, which was the basis
for the research. Finally, the conceptual framework for the study will be discussed.
The History of Employee Satisfaction, Engagement, and Retention Research
Employee retention and turnover have been discussed and studied over the past century.
One of the earliest articles, “How to reduce labor turnover,” was written in 1917 by Boyd Fisher.
Fisher (1917) explored the cost of hiring and replacing staff and suggested ways to retain
employees, such as hiring the most qualified individual, paying fair wages, providing steady
work, and providing career opportunities that entice staff to remain with a company. One of the
first empirical studies that evaluated employee turnover was published by Marion Bills in 1925,
titled “Social status of the clerical work and his permanence on the job,” which evaluated
clerical workers' propensity to quit a job based on whether their father was a professional or
unskilled (semiskilled) laborer. Marion Bills’ study did not include statistical tests when
evaluating the relationship of parental occupation to turnover. Still, it did use a predictive
research design that was a precursor to what is now the standard research design used for testing
theories (Steel, 2002).
Employee turnover articles began to reappear in the 1960s, with only a few published in
the prior 35 years. A study by Charles Hulin in 1966 used methodologies that have become the
9
basis of standard research design. His measures were psychometrically sound, the design was
used to strengthen validity, the study focused on individual results instead of aggregated data,
and the focus was on voluntary attrition only (Smith et al., 1969; Steel, 2002). Hulin (1966)
evaluated clerical staff using surveys and determined that job satisfaction can significantly
predict whether an employee will quit or remain with an organization; his research led to future
scholars evaluating the factors that create job satisfaction.
Retention research took on a new focus in the 1960s and 1970s with many empirical
articles studying employee turnover by evaluating weighted application blanks, selection tests
such as vocational interests, and achievement motivation to evaluate and report predictive
validity in relation to employees who remained at an organization (Buel, 1964; Cascio, 1976;
Federico et al., 1976; Hines, 1973; Kerr, 1947, 1948; Schuh, 1967; Schwab & Oliver, 1974).
Kraut (1975) evaluated people’s intention to resign from an organization as a precursor to them
leaving; he found a strong correlation between intent to stay and turnover for both the short and
the long term. A weighted application blank (WAB) uses a procedure that involves selecting an
employee characteristic to measure, such as job tenure, identify which questions on a job
application predict the employee behavior that is being analyzed, determine each question’s
predictive power, assign a weighted value to all relevant questions, and then score each
applicant’s job application according to the scoring key that has been created (Kaak et al., 1998).
Over time this type of retrospective data collection being used as predictive data has been shown
to be a flawed methodology for analysis (Hom et al., 2017). Throughout the 1960s and 1970s,
studies began evaluating employee retention and factors that influence turnover, such as job
satisfaction, workplace conditions, and employee commitment to the organization (Fleishman &
Harris, 1962; Hellriegel & White, 1973; Hulin, 1966; Karp & Nickson, 1973). Early studies
10
found that people who left organizations reported leaving due to a negative perception of their
leader (Fleishman & Harris, 1962; Ley, 1966). Turnover was reported to be based on their
manager's leadership style and how the employee felt they were treated (Fleishman & Harris,
1962; Ley, 1966) or work conditions such as pay, shift work, or being underutilized for their
skills and abilities (Hellriegel & White, 1973).
Moving to present-day research, with 18 years of tracking employee satisfaction,
engagement, and retention data, Hartner et al. (2018) discovered that 17% of U.S. workers are
actively disengaged at their workplace. Organizations that are successful in actively engaging
their employees have shown four times the earnings per share growth than their competitors
(Hartner et al., 2018). Organizations in the top quartile of employee engagement experience
higher customer engagement, greater productivity, increased employee retention, and 21%
higher profitability than the lowest quartile companies (Hartner et al., 2018). Harter et al. found
that the employer could have prevented 77% of employee turnover. Employee satisfaction is a
strong determinant of employee engagement, and both factors influence retention and an
employee’s choice to stay with an organization. Satisfaction can be looked at as the precursor to
engagement and retention, and organizations should measure satisfaction to understand if
changes should be made in the organization to influence all three factors positively.
Employee Satisfaction and Engagement
Employee satisfaction refers to the overall utility (usefulness and fulfillment) an
employee gains from their job and work environment (Gevrek et al., 2017). Job satisfaction is
impacted by work conditions, pay, and feelings of competence at the work people do (Gevrek et
al., 2017). Gevrek et al. (2017) also found that job satisfaction and engagement were positively
interrelated. Employee engagement represents the passion and commitment an employee has for
11
their organization and job (Vance, 2006). Engagement can range from highly engaged to actively
disengaged employees looking to leave the company (Gallup. 2021). Engagement can also
impact the organization's success and financial health (Shahnawaz & Jafri, 2009; Vance, 2006).
Research on employee satisfaction and engagement focuses on defining factors that lead to
satisfaction and measuring levels of engagement. The following sections will look at employee
satisfaction, levels of engagement, measurement of engagement, and the significance of
retention.
Employee Satisfaction
Essential factors for creating employee satisfaction are open communication, a good
relationship with one’s supervisor, mutual trust with supervisors, favorable work conditions and
environment, and education and training opportunities (Kontoghiorghes & Frangou 2009).
Meeting employee needs, both professional and personal, can create satisfaction and
engagement, promoting corporate goals and objectives and retaining the most talented employees
(Kontoghiorghes & Frangou 2009). Job satisfaction, work engagement, and self-efficacy were
negatively correlated with employee turnover intention (De Simone et al., 2018), which suggests
that increased satisfaction and engagement can positively impact employee retention.
A study by Muliawan et al. (2009) found that job satisfaction, pay satisfaction, personal
and professional growth opportunities, and organizational commitment strongly influence
turnover intention; the factor with the most substantial impact was the need for growth and
development. Singh et al. (2010) found a negative correlation between pay satisfaction and job
satisfaction with employee turnover intention. Turnover intention is defined as an employee’s
conscious and deliberate desire to leave a company. Tett and Meyer (1993) found that
12
employees’ perceptions and attitudes about job satisfaction, commitment to the company, and
turnover intention influence turnover and whether employees leave an organization. A study by
Bothma and Roodt (2013) found a reliable, statistically significant relationship between turnover
intention and people leaving an organization; the criteria found to be most significant were work
engagement, burnout, helping behavior, work alienation, and task performance. Turnover
intention is strongly related to actual turnover; thus, turnover intent is widely considered an
outcome measure (Singh et al., 2010). Employee satisfaction can lead to engagement and
retention (Tett & Meyer, 1993), and the employer could possibly influence and turn around up to
77% of the situations where employees quit and leave an organization (Hartner et al., 2018)
Levels of Engagement
Employees can be engaged physically, cognitively, and emotionally, which indicates the
level and awareness of commitment developing in a person (Callan & Lawrence, 2009). Callan
and Lawrence (2009) describe the first level of engagement demonstrated behaviorally as being
physical with the body and mental energy connected to work activities. The second level of
engagement is cognitive awareness and understanding their role and mission at work. The final
level is emotional, where the employee has made meaningful connections at work with other
employees, leaders, and customers (Callan & Lawrence, 2009).
Gallup (2021) has studied employee engagement for decades; they have identified three
levels of engagement distinct from the levels specified by Callan and Lawrence (2009): actively
engaged, not engaged, and actively disengaged. The Gallup studies found that engagement
includes a higher level of involvement, connection, and enthusiasm for the company and the
work (Gallup, 2021). Higher levels of engagement are associated with employees feeling
meaningfulness for the work they perform, feeling valued, and having a psychological
13
connection with the organization (Gallup, 2021). They have studied employee perception and
perceived satisfaction, finding that employees who are actively engaged have higher
performance outcomes than actively disengaged employees (Gallup, 2021).
Measurement of Engagement
The gold standard method for measuring employee engagement is formal employee
engagement surveys (Gallup 2021). Engagement surveys measure many factors that represent
engagement and can provide a score or rating for the organization to use and compare year over
year (Gallup, 2021). Companies often measure engagement using ten themes: pride in the
company, satisfaction with the employer, job satisfaction, performing well and doing challenging
work, recognition for performance, personal support from their supervisor or manager, employee
effort above the minimum required, employee understanding the connection between their job
and the corporate mission, career advancement opportunities, and intention to stay with the
employer (Vance, 2006). Burnout is a common occurrence when an employee feels
overwhelmed with a lack of control, which can negatively impact employee satisfaction and
performance (Vance, 2006). A benefit of increasing employee engagement is a positive increase
in performance, productivity, and commitment, giving companies a competitive advantage in
their market and decreasing employee turnover (Vance, 2006). Studies have shown that
employee retention is improved when employees have a high level of engagement, and they will
be more likely to use their idle work time to benefit the organization (Wagner, 2006). Research
shows that employee engagement is stronger when staff have an emotional connection to work,
feel valued and vital, and have a positive relationship with their supervisor (Wagner, 2006).
Thus, satisfaction and engagement are strong predictors of intention to stay at a company. Corace
(2007) found three primary factors significant for employee engagement: satisfaction with their
14
current position, employee perception of being valued by the organization, and the degree to
which employees feel that the organization values trust and collaboration. Gallup (2021) found
that management in an organization influences up to 70% of employee engagement scores,
underscoring the importance of developing positive, supportive, and trusting relationships with
employees.
Significance of Retention
The importance of employee retention and preventing turnover has financial and personal
implications for an organization. Employee retention is defined as the steps an employer takes to
keep desired employees at a company (Frank et al., 2004). Turnover costs the United States
economy more than $5 trillion annually and results in reduced corporate earnings and stock
prices (Frank et al., 2004). The direct and indirect turnover costs include recruitment, training
new workers, lost corporate knowledge and expertise, poor customer service, lost customers, and
lower employee morale (Frank et al., 2004). Turnover includes the loss of specific corporate
knowledge that leaves with high performing and experienced staff and is an important factor for
organizational success and longevity (Shahnawaz & Jafri, 2009). Studies have shown companies
with highly engaged and motivated employees have experienced increased operating income up
to 19% over a three-year period (Johnson et al., 2018). Kontoghiorghes and Frangou (2009)
evaluated satisfaction and retention of talented employees and the associated predictors of
retention. They found the highest correlation with corporate culture's organizational dimensions,
change-driven culture, respect, effective recruitment, and a high degree of organizational
flexibility. Thus, the factors that were found to be highly correlated with no turnover of talented
staff suggest that innovative organizations with high levels of flexibility that also foster integrity
15
and respect in a high-performance environment will be more likely to retain talented employees
(Kontoghiorghes & Frangou 2009).
Atencio et al. (2003) found that turnover and replacing a staff member can cost an
organization up to twice the employee’s annual salary due to recruiting and training costs for the
new staff and lost profitability while shorthanded. In Gallup’s State of the American Workplace
poll (2017), of the over 100 million full-time employees in the United States, only 33% are
engaged at work compared to 70% engagement at the world’s best organizations. Gallup (2017)
also found that nearly 16% of US employees are actively disengaged; the remaining 51% of the
work population are not engaged and are passive or just going through the motions at work
(Bedarkar & Pandita, 2014). The estimated economic impact that actively disengaged employees
cost the United States in terms of lost productivity each year is $483 billion to $605 billion
(Gallup, 2017). Research has found that close to 51% of workers seek to leave their job, which
coincides with the percentage of employees not engaged at work (Gallup, 2017). Shahnawaz and
Jafri (2009) studied employee attitudes and turnover intention, and they found job satisfaction
was a strong predictor for reducing turnover intention in people who remain at an organization
(stayers), and organizational commitment predicted turnover intention with people who leave the
organization (leavers). A company’s reputation can be affected by high turnover rates, which can
have a negative financial impact on the organization (Shahnawaz & Jafri, 2009).
Factors Affecting Employee Satisfaction
Research has found several factors that impact employee satisfaction. According to
Dockel et al. (2006), employee satisfaction consists of six factors: financial compensation, job
characteristics, training and development opportunities, supervisor support, career opportunities,
and work-life balance. Some of the primary factors that influence satisfaction and retention have
16
accelerated over the years: job mobility and the ease of moving to a new organization, seeking
higher pay and benefits, training opportunities, and personal growth (Chambers et al., 1998).
Additional factors helpful in employee satisfaction are competitive compensation, the
organization having a talent mindset, development opportunities that support career progression,
and moving poor performers out of the organization (Chambers et al., 1998). Lesabe and Nkosi
(2007) found that employee satisfaction and retaining talented employees can bring financial
gains to an organization; the factors that will help keep vital employees are competitive
compensation and benefits, organizational commitment, training and development, a positive
work environment, and job training. Essential factors for creating employee satisfaction are open
communication, a good relationship with their supervisor, mutual trust with supervisors,
favorable work conditions and environment, and education and training opportunities
(Kontoghiorghes & Frangou 2009). Employees value a positive corporate culture, supportive
senior leadership, competitive salary and non-wage benefits (Kumar & Arora, 2012). The factors
that will be evaluated further in this section are compensation, organizational commitment,
organizational culture and climate, trust in leadership and managerial impact.
Compensation and Benefits
Compensation and benefits are essential to employee satisfaction, and they should be fair
and equitable. Studies have found that compensation was not a primary factor for retention if the
pay was reasonable and equitable (Lesabe & Nkosi, 2007). Meyer and Allen (1991) found that
compensation is not a primary reason for people to leave an organization; instead, organizational
commitment, which is discussed in the next section, is more important. A study by
Higginbotham (1997) found that the salary and generous benefits are important factors in
employee satisfaction and retention, if the pay is competitive, it will not be a primary motivator.
17
A lower wage can affect motivation from an extrinsic perspective and negatively affect retention
(Ngaruiya et al., 2014). Engaged employees who receive competitive compensation report
increased feelings of trust and empowerment from their leader, increasing feelings of job
satisfaction (Piersol, 2007). Engaged employees increase profits, and Pierson (2007) found that
franchises in the top 20% of employee retention reported having a 55% higher profit margin than
those with a lower employee retention rate.
Organizational Commitment
Organizational commitment refers to the attitudes and psychological state that
characterize the relationship a person has with a company and indicate an employee’s quit or
retention intentions. Organizational commitment is an employee’s beliefs and identification with
a company’s mission, vision, and values (Jiang et al., 2017). Ongoing training should be used to
reinforce the bond and identification an employee has with an organization and its culture
(Gould-Williams et al., 2015). Public service motivation (PSM) are the values and attitudes an
employee has that encourages them to act for the benefit of society or an organization (Gould-
Williams et al., 2015). Many studies have shown the relationship between PSM and employee
satisfaction and organizational commitment are based on shared values between the employee
and company (Gould-Williams et al., 2015). An employee feeling that their values are congruent
with the organization’s values increases feelings of satisfaction (Gould-Williams et al., 2015).
Employees who are satisfied with their job and have high self-esteem are more likely to remain
with a company (Jiang et al., 2017).
Organizational Culture and Climate
Organizational culture is made up of the shared beliefs and values that a company’s
leaders establish. Corporate culture is shared and reinforced to shape employees’ perceptions and
18
behaviors (Flamholtz & Randle, 2011). Many studies have found that a positive and supportive
corporate culture and climate are vital ingredients that improve employee satisfaction and the
desire to remain with an organization (Flamholtz & Randle, 2011; Johnson, 2018; Wagner,
2006).
Shim (2014) described corporate culture as being based on employees’ perceptions and
expectations of achievement, the perceived cooperation and supportiveness of leadership,
competence, values, and rewards. A strong corporate culture has been described as one that
employees both understand and can articulate (Flamholtz & Randle, 2011). Corporate culture
comprises many aspects that go beyond the obvious ones of employee compensation, benefits,
and perks and include engagement, communication, and job features (Cordes et al., 2010; Macey
et al., 2009). Companies with low turnover have a more positive and constructive organizational
culture than high turnover organizations (Shim, 2014). Additionally, companies that emphasize
rewards and reduce workload are perceived to have a more positive culture, and a focus solely on
rewards will be viewed with a more negative evaluation of culture (Shim, 2014). Training,
cooperation, support, and responsiveness are ways employees measure organizational
commitment from leaders and their company (Shim, 2014). Finally, Shim (2014) found that
organizational culture was the most significant factor to explain an employee’s intention to leave
an organization.
Many studies in the past decade have identified corporate culture as a strong factor
impacting employee satisfaction with cooperation, supportiveness, and responsiveness, the traits
they would like to see in their leader and the culture (Langer & LeRoux, 2017). Culture has been
found to influence employees' confidence, motivation, and performance (Hopp & Stephan, 2012;
Wagner, 2006; Wang & Wu, 2012). Qualities of culture that positively influence employee
19
retention are achievement, supportiveness, responsiveness, and commitment (Langer & LeRoux,
2017). Research has shown that corporate culture directly affects employee turnover (Langer &
LeRoux, 2017). Bedarkar and Pandita (2014) identified three key drivers of engagement:
communication, work-life balance, leadership, and the impact these drivers have on employee
engagement, employee performance, and ultimately organizational financial performance (Callan
& Lawrence, 2009). Organizations should integrate these three drivers into their corporate
culture to increase employee engagement, which will improve organizational performance
(Bedarkar & Pandita, 2014).
Work climate is described as employee’s perceptions of work conditions, including
pleasant and rewarding work experiences, growth opportunities, feeling the organization hires
competent co-workers, and involvement in decision making (Dawson & Abbott, 2011). When a
culture of excellence is created in an organization, it can build employee engagement and
satisfaction and positively impact their intent to stay (Wagner, 2006). Organizational
commitment is based on the emotional attachment an employee has to a company based on
shared values and vision (Dawson & Abbott, 2011). Person-organization fit describes how well
the norms and values of an organization fit with an employee, highlighting the importance of
hiring staff that fits well with a company (Dawson & Abbott, 2011). Talented employees are an
integral part of an organization and should be developed and supported since their company-
specific knowledge can bring a high value to the organization (Dawson & Abbott, 2011).
Organizations that create a positive culture can help recruit and retain employees, build
organizational commitment, and have a higher likelihood of developing and sustaining
competitive advantage (Dawson & Abbott, 2011).
20
Highly motivated employees thrive in a climate where employees have a high level of
trust in their leader and coworkers and have the resources they need, being aligned with the
company's goals and values (Hopp & Stephan, 2012; Wang & Wu, 2012). Corporate culture
needs to be periodically evaluated and developed by an organization so that it is attractive to
existing employees and to recruit new employees (Dawson & Abbott, 2011). Companies that
develop and foster a positive work environment and support and develop their employees will be
more likely to have highly committed staff with a greater intention of staying with the
organization (Dawson & Abbott, 2011).
Trust in Leadership and Managerial Impact
Leadership is an integral component of the workplace environment and impacts
employees daily. Manev (2003) found that good managers can negatively impact employee
turnover, thus increasing employee retention. They also found that poor hiring practices at an
organization can increase turnover (Maney, 2003). Leaders should help employees balance work
activities to prevent emotional exhaustion and burnout since these factors can increase turnover
(Ngaruiya et al., 2014). Understanding employees' motivational behaviors is an essential factor
that leaders can use to influence and build a positive corporate culture to help in retention efforts
(Ngaruiya et al., 2014). Leaders play an essential role in developing and sustaining a culture of
engagement that will attract and retain quality staff, with the critical qualities of culture being
supervisor support, organizational support, compensation, recognition, and fair treatment /
procedural justice (Popli & Rizvi, 2016; Singh et al., 2010). There is a significant relationship
between a positive leadership style and employee satisfaction and engagement, influencing
employee retention (Popli & Rizvi, 2016). A study by Corace (2007) found that employees view
their direct supervisor as the primary driver for job satisfaction and feel that leadership is
21
responsible for creating a culture of value and collaboration. Engaged employees are committed
members of an organization aligned to the company’s values and vision and are essential
components of its success (Corace, 2007). Manager training is essential in improving trust and
communication between employees and their leaders, improving employee satisfaction and
retention (Nelsey & Brownie, 2012). Having open and honest communication between leaders
and staff is an important factor in building trust and helps employees understand the
organization’s expectations (Korsgaard et al., 2002).
A Gallup poll of more than 1 million employed Americans in 2017 found that the number
one reason people quit their job was a bad supervisor or boss. Gallup also found that 75% of
employees who voluntarily left their job stated they left because of their boss and not their
position. The importance and impact managers have on employee satisfaction is underscored by
a Gallup poll (2021), finding that management makes up 70% of the variance in employee
engagement scores; thus, management is a primary contributor to employee satisfaction and
retention. Firth et al. (2004) examined the leaders’ role in retention to help determine how
managers could reduce employees’ intention to quit, and they found that stress, job
dissatisfaction, and lack of commitment to the organization have a substantial impact on
retention. Two of the critical stressors found to trigger an employee’s intention to quit are work
overload and job ambiguity (Firth et al., 2004). These findings suggest that leaders need to
monitor employees' workload and the relationship between employee and supervisor and help
staff reduce and manage stress levels (Firth et al., 2004). Many studies have identified the
relationship with a manager or leadership at a firm as one of the primary drivers that impact
employee retention. The importance of a leader empowering employees, showing support and
value for the employee was a key motivator impacting employee retention (Thomas &
22
Velthouse, 1990). Popli and Rizvi (2016) concluded that transformational leaders are associated
with positive employee engagement, and their style motivates and inspires staff to work toward
organizational goals. They also found that transactional leadership, the ability to clarify
expectations of performance to receive rewards, is an equally important skill for effective leaders
to use (Popli & Rizvi, 2016).
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Research has shown that diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) is part of a deeper
accountability for organizations to work on and provide to the employees in the company
(Darling-Hammond & Snyder, 2015). Organizations need to understand the benefits of DEI so
that they can work to successfully create, implement, and monitor initiatives that will bring DEI
to all employees in the organization (Conner & Rabovsky, 2011; Darling-Hammond & Snyder,
2015; Darling-Hammondet al., 2014). The integration of DEI with corporate culture can
strengthen an employee’s sense of trust and belonging at an organization (Darling-Hammond &
Snyder, 2015). Studies have shown an increased sense of trust and belonging can also increase
employee satisfaction (Nelsey & Brownie, 2012). In studying employee satisfaction factors
relative to DEI, it is important to gather disaggregated data to evaluate satisfaction based on race,
gender, and other minoritizing categories to gain a deeper understanding of satisfaction related to
diversity of employees (Conner & Rabovsky, 2011). Armed with more data, organizations could
adjust policies and behaviors that would support accountability and fair treatment for all
employees (Darling-Hammond et al., 2014).
Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Framework
Employee satisfaction and retention are complex issues that can be influenced by
personal beliefs, knowledge about the work required, motivation, competitive compensation,
23
organizational processes or culture, and many other factors. Applying a theoretical framework to
the problem can help isolate the specific issues that need to be explored. The Clark and Estes
(2008) knowledge, motivation, and organization (KMO) gap analysis framework evaluates
factors ranging from personal to organizational; it is used in this study to identify the
components of employee satisfaction:
The purpose of the individual and team gap analysis is to identify whether all employees
have adequate knowledge, motivation, and organizational support to achieve important
work goals. All three of these factors must be in place and aligned with each other for
successful goal achievement. (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 48)
Each component of knowledge, motivation, and organization are interconnected, and all
must be working together well if there is going to be effective organizational change (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Organizations should be careful not to assume they understand an issue and create
solutions before understanding the actual cause. A gap analysis helps to evaluate the factors that
are creating or affecting the problem. Once the real reason(s) are known, it is possible to develop
an action plan relevant to the situation (Clark & Estes, 2008).
For this study, the Clark and Estes (2008) KMO model was adapted to identify and
analyze factors impacting employee satisfaction. Knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences are evaluated separately to examine each influence more accurately. Even though
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences are being classified separately, there are
relationships between the influences, which was also investigated. For example, it is possible for
organizational influences to be impacted by knowledge and vice versa.
This study is exploratory and used a modified gap analysis to evaluate employee
satisfaction with a focus on organizational and individual motivation influences. The study’s
24
goal is to understand the primary factors that influence employee satisfaction. Knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences relating to employees will be presented along with data
from general learning and motivation literature.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
The organizational goal is to evaluate and measure employee satisfaction so that a
baseline can be determined and, if needed, improvement plans can be created. Stakeholder
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that impact employee satisfaction will be
analyzed separately. Each of these influences should be working in concert with the others
within an organization. The organizational influences are addressed first.
Organizational Influences
Organizational culture is made of the beliefs, values, goals, feelings, and process that
employees learn over time at a company (Clark and Estes, 2008). Organizational culture creates
and frames the general perceptions, group norms, corporate climate, and group thinking within a
company (Schein & Schein, 2017). Corporate culture is a group phenomenon learned and
structured within the organization (Schein & Schein, 2017). Corporate culture is made up of the
beliefs, emotions, goals, and core values of an organization that significantly impact performance
(Clark and Estes, 2008). Organizational influences and stakeholder knowledge, and motivational
influences impact employee performance and organizational performance, achievement, and
success (Clark and Estes, 2008). Organizational influences impact a stakeholder’s ability to
succeed within a company, and these influences can be categorized as either models or settings.
Gallimore & Goldenberg (2001) describe cultural models as the shared understanding or
mental schema that explain how an organization, or the world works or is expected to work.
Models are important because they combine cognitive and behavioral aspects relating to events
25
or the environment and explain what is valued or idealized and help direct the perceived rules
around how individuals should interact and behave (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001).
In more colorful terms, cultural models can be described as “tools for the mind” (Cole,
1985) that represent, in a given community or ecological niche, historically evolved and
shared ways of perceiving, thinking, and storing possible responses to adaptive
challenges and changing conditions. Cultural models are so familiar they are often
invisible and unnoticed by those who hold them (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001, p. 47).
Models become the unconscious basis upon which people act as they go about their daily job
within an organization. Cultural settings are created whenever two or more people interact
together to accomplish a shared goal or task at work or within the home (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001). Cultural settings provide the context and shared experience that are a product
of a team or group interaction (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Settings are the embodiment of
shared experiences. The organizational influences that were reviewed are a culture of trust,
providing adequate and competitive compensation, creating a sense of belonging, and training
and career growth opportunities. Table 1 depicts the organizational influences from a model and
setting perspective this study examines.
26
Table 1
Organizational Influences
Organizational influence
category
Organizational influences
Cultural model influence 1
The organization needs a culture of trust between employees and
senior leadership.
Cultural model influence 2
The organization environment supports a sense of belonging
among its employees.
Cultural setting influence 1
The organization needs to provide adequate compensation to
employees to support retention.
Cultural setting influence 2
The organization needs to provide training opportunities to
employees that support growth and advancement.
Cultural Model: Culture of Trust
A culture of trust can significantly affect performance and commitment to an
organization (Meier et al., 2019). Companies that have developed a supportive culture that
fosters mutual trust have experienced higher performance from their staff and improved retention
(Hopp & Stephan, 2012; Wang & Wu, 2012). Building a culture of trust with employees
involves open and honest communication from leadership within the organization (Korsgaard et
al., 2002). Improving employee satisfaction through communication and building a trusting
relationship and culture are essential activities that organizations can do to improve retention.
Some of the highly ranked traits were trustworthiness, dependability, and supportiveness
27
(Nelsey, & Brownie, 2012); these traits can be developed and improved through training,
mentoring, and personal development.
Cultural Model: Sense of Belonging
Organizational culture and identity influence an employee’s commitment and sense of
belonging within the organization (Jaitli & Hua, 2013). When employees feel a sense of
belonging in a company, they feel more connected and work harder to support corporate
objectives (Jaitli & Hua, 2013). Effective communication between leadership and an employee
can help increase a sense of belonging (Jaitli & Hua, 2013). Employees have expressed increased
satisfaction when recognized for their performance (Hartner, 2018; Nelsey & Brownie, 2012).
Cultural Setting: Competitive Compensation
Competitive compensation is significant to employees affecting their motivation to do a
good job and desire to stay with an organization (Bernthal & Wellins, 2001; Ferreira & Potgieter,
2018). Competitive compensation is strongly correlated with employee satisfaction and retention
(Lesabe & Nkosi, 2007). Competitive compensation is an essential factor for employees that
encourages them to remain with an organization (Dockel et al., 2006). A variety of satisfaction
indicators have been studied previously; the primary ones are pay, benefits, coworker
relationships, work-life balance, and relationship with their manager (Bernthal & Wellins, 2001).
Cultural Setting: Training and Career Growth
Training and career growth are important factors for employee satisfaction and retention
(Chambers et al., 1998; Dockel et al., 2006; Lesabe & Nkosi, 2007). Training and development
are essential for career growth and have been shown to improve employee satisfaction (Lesabe &
Nkosi, 2007). Companies should focus on training opportunities and career growth to increase
employee satisfaction and position them positively in the war for talented staff members
28
(Chambers et al., 1998). Studies found that job training is one of the most important factors
relating to employee satisfaction and that "on the job training" is rated higher and produces more
loyalty than off the job training, which is conducted on people's own time (Hassan et al., 2013).
Nelsey and Brownie (2012) found that nurses across multiple generations from baby boomers to
Generation Y ranked several managerial traits as important even though they ranked the order of
importance differently.
Motivation Influences
In addition to knowledge, motivation is an important influence on an employee’s attitude
and performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). Literature was reviewed that explored the motivational
influences that impact employees and leaders in an organization in relation to employee
satisfaction and retention. Attribution theory and Expectancy theory will be used to evaluate the
motivational drivers influencing employee satisfaction in this study.
Attribution Theory: Recognition is Due to Work Effort
Attribution theory states that people try to understand other people’s behavior by
attributing beliefs, feelings, and intentions to what they do (Weiner, 2019). Meece et al. (2006)
found that the level to which an individual will strive for achievement is connected to how the
individual evaluates their success and failure based on other achievement situations. People will
engage in an achievement activity when they believe that they can succeed at the task (Meece et
al., 2006). Attribution theory addresses how an individual’s past experiences will impact their
beliefs and actions in the future (Weiner, 2010). The specific attribute that was evaluated was the
employee’s belief that recognition they receive is due to their work effort.
29
Expectancy Theory: Belief in Ability to Meet Work Performance Goals
Expectancy theory states that people are motivated to act in a particular way when they
believe they will accomplish a specific outcome; the strength of their expectancy grows with the
probability that they will achieve their goal (Atkinson, 1957; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Atkinson
(1957) explained that the strength of motivation is affected by the expectancy or a person’s
subjective belief in the probability that the behavior will be successful in attaining a goal.
Tolman (1955) discussed expectancy theory as being made up of 3 things: discrimination and
categorizing things that can be acquired, believing an outcome can be achieved based on past
experiences, and the drive to pursue or escape a specific result based on achievement or
avoidance of the outcome. Expectancy-value measures competence in terms of a person’s
expectancy beliefs, combined with their ability beliefs (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Expectancy
values and beliefs are strong indicators of success and performance for individuals in meeting
their goals (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000).
The specific motivation that was evaluated is an employee’s belief that they can meet
performance goals. Employees reported placing a high value on corporate culture, supportive
senior leadership, and competitive salary and benefits (Kumar & Arora, 2012). If supported by
leadership, the value and expectancy of fair treatment will bring more satisfaction to staff and
increase their satisfaction level and desire to stay at a company. Since employees appreciate and
expect equal and fair treatment from leadership in the workplace (Lucas, 2019), they will support
this expectation. Support from leadership can build employee confidence and support their desire
and belief that they can meet organizational performance goals.
Expectancy theory was used by Mitchell (1972) to predict satisfaction and retention in
individuals of naval aviation squadrons and found a strong prediction for satisfaction and
30
retention. Finney et al. (2012) studied the impact of mentoring. They found that increasing
employee engagement provided mentees with higher self-efficacy and growth in their work and a
higher competence in managerial skills and responsibilities (Finney et al., 2012). Thus, when
leaders support and build trust with employees, they can help foster self-efficacy, improve the
expectancy of success, and improve performance. Table 2 outlines the two motivation influences
that are examined in this study concerning employee satisfaction.
Table 2
Motivation Influences
Motivation Construct Motivation Influence
Attribution
Employees need to believe the recognition they receive is due
to their work effort.
Outcome Expectancy
Employees need to believe they will be successful in meeting
their performance goals at work.
31
Knowledge Influences
Literature has been reviewed that focuses on employees’ knowledge about their job and
having the skills needed to effectively complete their work. Knowledge is an essential aspect of
an employee understanding how to effectively complete their daily work, which has also been
shown to create job satisfaction (Vnoučková & Urbancová, 2015). Employees are the primary
stakeholder in the employee retention equation. They must be well informed about the work they
are expected to do in their job to carry it out effectively and meet or exceed their manager's
expectations (Memon et al., 2017).
Knowledge influences are important to evaluate since an employee must understand and
be competent in all aspects of their job. They must understand what the employer expects of
them to carry out their daily job duties (Schmidt, 2007). Employees need to understand the work
expectations at the process and procedural level for all their duties to meet the expectations of
their management and the organization (Kraimer et al., 2011). Two types of knowledge will be
evaluated, declarative and procedural. Declarative knowledge is information, facts or details
about something, and procedural knowledge is knowing how to complete a task, procedure, or
process (Wuryaningrum et al., 2020). Each knowledge influence will be categorized into one of
these two types, declarative or procedural, to make the distinction clear.
Declarative Knowledge: Knowing Leadership Expectations
The first knowledge influence to be evaluated is declarative. Employees need to
understand what is expected of them from their manager and the organization; this can facilitate
open and honest communication between them and their leader (Korsgaard et al., 2002). Clear
communication from leadership can provide an understanding of work objectives and help
employees understand what is needed to succeed (Jaitli & Hua, 2013; Nelsey & Brownie, 2012).
32
Procedural Knowledge: Knowing Work Procedures and Tasks
The second knowledge influence to be evaluated is procedural: employees need to know
how to execute the procedures and tasks to complete their daily work effectively. Learning and
career opportunities are important to staff and can also improve satisfaction (Musser, 2001).
Training and mentoring are ways staff can learn the specific tasks and procedures to effectively
execute their job and meet expectations (Hassan et al., 2013). Table 3 depicts the assumed
knowledge influences and the applicable knowledge type.
Table 3
Knowledge Influences and Knowledge Type
Knowledge type Assumed knowledge influence
Declarative
Employees need to know what leadership expects of them
in the execution of their job.
Procedural
Employees need to know how to accomplish the procedures
and tasks that go into completing their daily work
effectively.
33
Conceptual Framework: Interaction of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization
Knowledge, motivation, organization, accountability, leadership effectiveness, and
corporate culture are all integral factors that can be evaluated through the KMO framework.
Figure 1 shows the employee satisfaction problem that can be addressed using KMO to improve
employee satisfaction rates. Employees must have the knowledge and understand the processes
and procedures related to their job and understand what leadership expects of them so that they
can work effectively and meet expectations. Motivation to do a job well comes from intrinsic and
extrinsic factors of which competitive compensation and leadership fairness are highly valued by
employees (Bernthal & Wellins, 2001; Ferreira & Potgieter, 2018).
Employee satisfaction is a problem affecting many organizations (Hartner, 2018). The
KMO Framework is appropriate for examining the problem of practice because it evaluates
knowledge and motivation at a personal and organizational level and looks at organizational
barriers and impacts on performance (Clark and Estes, 2008). “A theory of change refers to a
belief or perspective about how a situation can be adjusted, corrected, or improved,” (Tuck &
Yang, 2013, p. 10). The theory of change that will be applied to employee satisfaction is that
improved communication and accountability by leadership and competitive compensation
practices can increase satisfaction and inspire employees to remain with a company. The purpose
of this study is to evaluate the employee satisfaction rate and factors and influences on
satisfaction among employees who work in IT Department of healthcare organizations in the
United States. The KMO Framework applies to the individual, team, and organizational levels
and can be used to identify whether employees have adequate knowledge, motivation, and
organizational support to achieve important work-related goals. All three of these factors
34
interconnect and must be aligned for successful goal achievement within an organization (Clark
and Estes, 2008).
Accountability, leadership effectiveness, and corporate culture are all integral factors that
can be evaluated through the KMO framework. Figure 1 shows the factors impacting employee
satisfaction that can be addressed using KMO to determine a baseline employee satisfaction rate.
From an organizational perspective, there are accountability and cultural influences that can
make employees feel valued and supported or can do the opposite. It is important to provide
adequate training and have an aligned incentive and reward program to foster a feeling of
belonging for the employees. Figure 1 depicts the conceptual framework.
35
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework
Conclusion
This chapter has reviewed the literature relating to employee satisfaction and retention
from a historical perspective and the lens of knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences. Literature was reviewed that explored the many factors and influences on employee
satisfaction. The literature review also discussed a modified gap analysis using the Clark and
Estes knowledge, motivation, and organization influences framework. The gap analysis
identified organizational influences from a model and setting perspective to provide context for
evaluating the problem of practice. Motivation influences were identified using attribution and
36
expectancy theory related to employee satisfaction factors and influences. Finally, knowledge
from a declarative and procedural perspective relating to employee satisfaction was explored.
The discussion throughout the literature review provides the context for evaluating and
understanding the problem of practice and research questions.
37
Chapter Three: Methodology
This study explored the primary factors impacting employee satisfaction. The Clark and
Estes (2008) gap analysis framework was applied to the exploration of employee satisfaction
using a quantitative survey design. This chapter outlines the methodology and research design,
data instrumentation and collection, and the data analysis plan. Four questions guided this study:
1. What is the employee satisfaction rate in IT Departments within healthcare organizations
in the United States?
2. What is the relationship between organizational context and culture and employee
satisfaction in IT Department within healthcare organizations?
3. What is the relationship between employee motivation and employee satisfaction in IT
Departments within healthcare organizations?
4. What is the relationship between employee knowledge and employee satisfaction in IT
Departments within healthcare organizations?
This chapter begins with an overview of the methodology and explains the methods,
stakeholders, and sampling criteria for this quantitative study.
Overview of Methodology
This quantitative study design used surveys in a convenience sampling of employees
working in IT departments at healthcare organizations in the United States. Quantitative research
is often framed using numbers, closed-ended questions and answers, and evaluates the
relationship between variables using specific data (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Quantitative
survey design is used to identify a specific population's attitudes and opinions to answer research
38
questions (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Validity in quantitative research means the concepts or
variables are accurately measured or evaluated (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The survey was
designed to provide content and construct validity to ensure the survey measured the specific
items being evaluated and the scores and data helped answer the research questions (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). Surveys were selected over other methods, such as interviews so that a larger
population of participants could be included in the study, given the nature of this study. The
quantitative survey method was ideal for investigating employee satisfaction since it can gather
first-hand data and provide the reasons people are satisfied in their work and with their company.
Table 4 identifies the study questions and data sources.
Table 4
Study Questions and Data Source
Study questions Survey
What is the employee satisfaction rate in IT Departments within healthcare
organizations in the United States?
X
What is the relationship between organizational context and culture and
employee satisfaction in IT Department within healthcare organizations?
X
What is the relationship between employee motivation and employee
satisfaction in IT Departments within healthcare organizations?
X
What is the relationship between employee knowledge and employee
satisfaction in IT Departments within healthcare organizations?
X
39
Data Collection: Surveys
This study's data collection method was a survey using Qualtrics, an online tool. The
quantitative survey used an adapted survey with 59 questions, which took approximately 5
minutes to complete. Appendix A documents the survey protocol.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
The recruitment and data collection used a convenience sampling of IT workers in
healthcare organizations targeted through postings on social media sites, LinkedIn, Twitter, and
Facebook. Emails were also sent to healthcare IT workers in the researcher’s network of
contacts. The posting and email communication described the study and its purpose, the
importance of the research, consent and anonymity of responses, and use of the data. The method
of data collection for this study was an online survey. Surveys provide the researcher with
quantitative data and insight into the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that
work together and impact employee satisfaction. Surveys are a method to gather direct responses
from stakeholders (Fink, 2017). The survey data collected provided opinions and perspectives of
which factors are important to IT employees concerning employee satisfaction.
The instrumentation used was an anonymous survey. A portion of the survey was adapted
from the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) short-form created by the University of
Minnesota, which has been in use since 1967 (Weiss et al., 1967). This study's survey contained
59 total questions: 20 Likert-type multiple-choice questions taken from the MSQ relating to
employee satisfaction, 8 demographic questions, 6 open-ended questions, and 25 additional
Likert-type questions focused on the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on
satisfaction (Appendix A). Surveys with pre-defined answer options (closed-ended) were
selected as the primary instrument to provide a straightforward comparison of responses. Six
40
open-ended questions provided richer data and more detailed descriptions to further understand
those influences. The majority of closed-ended questions had five multiple-choice answer
options: very dissatisfied, dissatisfied, neither/neutral, satisfied, and very satisfied. Eleven
multiple-choice questions had the options strongly disagree, disagree, neither, agree, and
strongly agree. The answers were scored with weights from one to five, respectively. The short-
form MSQ measures employee job satisfaction in 20 areas: ability utilization, achievement,
activity, advancement, authority, company policies, compensation, co-workers, creativity,
independence, moral values, recognition, responsibility, security, social status, social service,
supervision-human relations, supervision-technical, variety, and working conditions (Weiss et
al., 1967).
The scores were evaluated against the scale of general employee satisfaction. The raw
scores were converted into percentile scores. Adopting an instrument that has been used widely
helped with validity and reliability. Qualtrics was the tool used to collect and store the data.
Using an established survey with validated questions and using a tool such as Qualtrics that was
created for this exact purpose was important to ensure reliable data collection and simplify data
analysis (Cresswell & Cresswell, 2018). The survey needs to be clear, concise, ordered
appropriately, and visually appealing (Robinson & Firth, 2019). The MSQ survey questions were
created to evaluate employee satisfaction and engagement, making the survey a good fit for this
research topic. Survey questions were categorized into the KMO framework areas to get a
holistic view of the issue from personal to organizational factors. The MSQ survey has a manual
that accompanies the survey and explains how to rate the questions and apply three different
scales to the raw data for analysis (Weiss et al., 1967). The survey took approximately 5
41
minutes to complete. The data collection and evaluation are described more in the following
sections.
Data Analysis
Data analysis is the evaluation and classification of data to make meaning from the data
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). During the analysis, survey items were presented in a narrative
format with tables and visual images. The data was evaluated using inferential analysis, looking
at knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences in relation to employee satisfaction. The
results of the inferential analysis are presented in Chapter Four. Demographic data were
evaluated concerning the survey responses to determine if there were any confounding variables
that influenced both the dependent and independent variables (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Table 5 shows the research questions and inferential data analysis that was conducted for each
research question.
42
Table 5
Research Questions and Analysis Factors
Research
question
Independent
variable (s)
Level of
measurement
Dependent
variable
Level of
measurement
Test
What is the
relationship
between
organizational
context and
culture and
employee
satisfaction?
Trust
(OModel)
Interval
Satisfaction
(MSQ)
Interval
Correlation
/Multiple
regression
Sense of
Belonging
(OModel)
Financial
Compensation
(salary)
(OSetting)
Training
(OSetting)
What is the
relationship
between
employee
motivation
and
employee
satisfaction?
Attribution
Interval
Satisfaction
(MSQ)
Interval
Correlation
/Multiple
regression
Expectancy
What is the
relationship
between
employee
knowledge
and
employee
satisfaction?
Job
Expectations
(Declarative)
Interval
Satisfaction
(MSQ)
Interval
Correlation
/Multiple
regression
Job
Procedures
(Procedural)
43
Validity and Reliability
An established survey was adapted for this study to maximize reliability and validity with
established questions, a rating scale, and evaluation criteria for analyzing the data. The
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) has been used to measure satisfaction among
employees across industries since 1967 and was designed to measure 20 aspects of satisfaction
with a score in the 75
th
percentile or higher considered high satisfaction and a score in the 25
th
percentile or lower considered low satisfaction (Weiss et al., 1967). The Hoyt reliability
coefficient for general employee satisfaction as measured by the MSQ short form was found to
be .87 to .92 for the different job roles evaluated, which indicates a high level of reliability and
internal consistency (Weiss et al., 1967). Validity and reliability of the MSQ has been validated
through multiple studies that analyzed or used the MSQ as the dependent variable for general
employee satisfaction in comparison to specific satisfaction variables (Weiss et al., 1967).
Surveys have increased validity since they measure people’s opinions, which are personal beliefs
and cannot be considered incorrect (Fink, 2017). Ensuring anonymity of research participants
may reduce fear in providing open and honest responses and may increase the trustworthiness of
the study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Salkind and Frey (2020) suggested that a survey
instrument's reliability can be increased by using clear survey questions, uniform instructions,
and minimal distraction during the survey. They also explained the importance of ensuring that
the survey instrument used measures what is intended and is valid. The survey response rate is
another factor that impacts data validity (Fink, 2017). He suggested that incentives could be used
to increase the response rate.
An instrument must work as expected each time it is used to be considered reliable
(Salkind & Frey, 2020). It is important to have all aspects of the protocol developed with validity
44
and reliability in mind, from the survey instrument itself to recruitment, administration, and data
analysis. Pretesting the survey is important to ensure the questions are well written, clear, and
that the responses provide useful data (Robinson & Firth, 2019). The MSQ survey has
established validity and reliability, which partially conveyed for 20 questions in this study. The
additional 39 questions in this survey do not have established validity and reliability. The survey
was administered electronically via the internet, which can simplify the survey process and keep
the data confidential (Pazzaglia et al., 2016). Using an online survey was expected to improve
the response rate and help minimize errors.
Ethics and Role of the Researcher
The study used a quantitative approach to gather data from human subjects working in IT
Departments at healthcare organizations in the United States. The researcher's primary concern
was not to harm the research participants in a study (Maxwell, 2013). Low-level psychological
stress was the only risk to participants identified by the researcher. Participants were contacted
through social media sites and via email with an invitation to complete the survey. Potential
participants were informed about the study's details and were provided with a consent form. The
survey was voluntary and anonymous, and there was no coercion.
Research with human subjects must ensure their protection, provide sufficient
information to allow informed consent, allow subjects to withdraw at any time, remove all
unnecessary risks, and be conducted by qualified researchers (Glesne, 2011). This study ensured
participant protection by using an information sheet for exempt research as required by the
University of Southern California (Appendix B). The information sheet informed the participant
that data from the study could be published. Anonymity was managed through the survey tool
45
Qualtrics, which is password protected and configured to gather data anonymously. No
compensation incentives were offered to participants.
46
Chapter Four: Results
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the employee satisfaction rate and its factors
and influences on employees who work in Information Technology (IT) departments of
healthcare organizations in the United States. The results of the study were not able to determine
causation between the independent and dependent variables as this was not an experiment that
used random sampling; the analysis of results focused on determining relationships. Six open-
ended questions were included in the survey, but respondents provided so few responses that the
data was not significant and has been excluded from the analysis of results. This study utilized
the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model to explore if employee satisfaction was influenced
by organizational culture and context, employee motivation, and employee knowledge.
Chapter Four presents the results of this study. First, the demographic data of the
participant group is presented using graphs and tables. Secondly, an analysis of the survey results
is discussed through graphs and tables showing the participants' responses and results. Next, the
research questions are addressed using inferences from the data in the surveys. Lastly, a
summary of the results is presented.
Participants
The participants included individuals working in IT Departments at healthcare
organizations throughout the United States. The participant group included a mixture of gender,
ethnicities, age groups, and sexual orientation. Demographic data collected included personal
classifications, type of role in their organization, and information on the organization and IT
department size. The participant group included 56 respondents, representing a very small
percentage of the total population of IT workers in healthcare in the United States. Information
Technology workers are estimated to be nearly 3 million workers across all industries (Mlitz,
47
2021), yet those working in healthcare are a small percentage of the population, considering the
many disparate industries in the marketplace.
The survey collected demographic data from the 56 research participants to gather a more
in-depth understanding of the participants. Demographic data, such as age, race, and gender,
were collected. The survey received 56 responses, but not every respondent answered all
questions, including those related to demographics. Table 6 depicts all the participant
demographic data.
48
Table 6
Demographic Characteristics of the Sample (N = 56)
Questions Response options
n %N
What is your age?
18 to 29 4 7.1
30 to 39 14 25.0
40 to 49 17 30.4
50 to 59 17 30.4
60 to 70 3 5.4
70 and above 1 1.8
What is your race or ethnicity?
White 32 58.2
Black 3 5.5
Asian 4 7.3
American Indian 0 0.0
Hispanic 9 16.4
Pacific Islander 0 0.0
Other 7 12.7
What is your gender?
Male 29 52.7
Female 25 45.5
Non-binary/third gender 0 0.0
Prefer not to say 1 1.8
How many years have you worked at your current
company?
0 to 5 years 31 56.4
6 to 10 years 10 18.2
11 to 15 years 10 18.2
16 to 20 years 1 1.8
21 to 25 years 1 1.8
26 to 30 years 1 1.8
36 years and above 1 1.8
What type of role/position are you currently in at
your company?
Employee/individual
contributor
26 47.3
Leadership / Managerial
Position
29 52.7
Do you work in the United States?
Yes 55 100.0
No 0
49
Questions Response options
n %N
What is the size of your current company (number
of employees)?
1 to 4 0 0
5 to 9 0 0
10 to 19 0 0
20 to 49 0 0
50 to 99 2 3.6
100 to 249 2 3.6
500 to 999 3 5.5
1000 to 9,999 11 20.0
10,000 or more
employees
37 67.3
What is the size of the IT Department at your
company (number of employees)?
Less than 50 employees 6 11.1
51 to 100 employees 1 1.9
101 to 200 employees 6 11.1
201 to 300 employees 5 9.3
301 to 400 employees 7 13.0
401 to 500 employees 13 24.1
Greater than 500
employees
16 29.6
Note. For the question of age, there were 56 respondents, race had 55 respondents, gender had 55
respondents, years with company had 55 respondents, type of role had 55 respondents, do you
work in the United States had 55 respondents, size of your company had 55 respondents, and size
of IT Department had 54 respondents. Four categories (size of company, size of department,
race, and years at current company) have too small a population size to conduct inferential
analysis of the results.
Analysis of Results
The survey sample is sufficient to conduct data analysis of the identified organizational,
motivational, and knowledge factors influencing employee satisfaction. A sample size of 30 or
more respondents is considered large enough to perform statistical analysis without using small
50
sample tests (Salkind & Frey, 2020). The research questions were discussed in Chapter 3 and
explored the relationship between the dependent and independent variables. The independent
variables in this study are the organizational context and culture relating to organizational trust,
sense of belonging, training opportunities, compensation; motivation from an attribution and
expectancy perspective; and employee knowledge about how to do their job and their
understanding of what is expected by their leadership in how they execute their job
responsibilities.
The dependent variable is employee satisfaction based on the 20 factors of employee
satisfaction measured in the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ). The validity and
reliability of the MSQ for evaluating general employee satisfaction has been evaluated through
numerous studies and has been found to be high for all job roles, with the Hoyt reliability
coefficient of .87 to .92 (Weiss et al., 1967). Chapter 3 of this study contains an in-depth
discussion of this instrument. Qualtrics XM Stats iQ calculated a strong positive correlation
between the dependent variable and independent variables. The following pages present the
descriptive quantitative results and statistical relationships between the dependent and
independent variables.
Correlation between influences was evaluated using composite variables that combined
the questions relating to each factor into a single variable. The composite variables were
evaluated by converting Likert-type responses into a numerical value (Strongly Dissatisfied = 1,
Dissatisfied = 2, Neutral = 3, Satisfied = 4, Strongly Dissatisfied = 5). I conducted a Cronbach’s
alpha test for each variable: satisfaction, knowledge influences, motivational influences, and
organizational influences using the SPSS statistical program. The Cronbach’s alpha test
measures internal consistency or how closely correlated each question is within a specific group
51
of questions to determine if the questions reliably measured the same construct or topic (Salkind
& Frey, 2020). A score of .70 or higher is considered good and indicates reliability and internal
consistency that is satisfactory (Salkind & Frey, 2020). The higher the Cronbach’s score, the
more confident a researcher can be that their questions have internal consistency and correlation
(Salkind & Frey, 2020). A Cronbach’s alpha score of 0.9 and above is excellent, 0.8 ≤ α < 0.9 is
good, 0.7 ≤ α < 0.8 is acceptable, 0.6 ≤ α < 0.7 is questionable, 0.5 ≤ α < 0.6 is poor, and α < 0.5
is unacceptable (Salkind, 2010; Salkind & Frey, 2020). The analysis excluded any missing
responses. A composite variable score was created by averaging the subscale scores. Table 7
shows the composite variables, sample size, median, average, confidence interval of average,
standard deviation, minimum and maximum score.
52
Table 7
Composite Variables
Variable
Sample
size
Median Avg
Confidence
interval of
average
SD Min Max
Satisfaction 50 4 3.88 3.74 to 4.03 0.52 2.3 4.8
Organizational
Trust
52 4 3.75 3.51 to 3.99 0.88 2 5
Organizational
Sense of
Belonging
53 4 3.89 3.67 to 4.10 0.79 2 5
Organizational
Compensation
53 3.7 3.42 3.13 to 3.70 1.02 1 5
Organizational
Training
53 3.7 3.58 3.37 to 3.80 0.77 2 5
Motivation
Attribution
53 3.7 3.54 3.30 to 3.78 0.87 1.3 5
Motivation
Expectancy
53 4 3.91 3.71 to 4.10 0.71 2.3 5
Knowledge
Declarative
52 3.7 3.67 3.49 to 3.84 0.63 2 4.7
Knowledge
Procedural
53 4 3.82 3.63 to 4.02 0.72 1.7 5
Note. The Likert-type responses were converted into a numerical value (Strongly Dissatisfied =
1, Dissatisfied = 2, Neutral = 3, Satisfied = 4, Strongly Dissatisfied = 5). These values were used
to compute the median, average, confidence interval, minimum, and maximum.
53
Results for Research Question 1: What Is the Employee Satisfaction Rate in IT
Departments at Healthcare Organizations?
Research question 1 sought to evaluate the overall employee satisfaction of the survey
respondents. The purpose of using satisfaction as the dependent variable was to create a
satisfaction baseline as the dependent variable that could then be compared with the independent
variables. The 20 questions used for the baseline were adapted from the MSQ survey short form
for employee satisfaction. The questions were scored using a 5-point Likert type scale (Strongly
Dissatisfied = 1, Dissatisfied = 2, Neutral = 3, Satisfied = 4, Strongly Satisfied = 5).
I conducted a Cronbach’s alpha test for questions 13 - 32 using the SPSS statistical
program with a = .900. This score shows an excellent level of reliability and internal consistency
for the satisfaction questions that were adapted from the MSQ. Table 9 depicts the Cronbach’s
alpha internal consistency results for questions 13 - 32, which measured general employee
satisfaction. The results of .900 illustrate a high level of internal consistency for the questions.
The Cronbach’s alpha scaled statistic indicate there would be no significant change if any
questions were deleted and removed. Table 8 shows the Cronbach’s alpha results for the
satisfaction scale.
54
Table 8
The Cronbach’s Alpha Results for Satisfaction Scale (n = 50)
Cronbach’s alpha
Cronbach’s alpha based on standardized
items
N of items
0.900 0.904 20
Note. Questions 9-28, Satisfaction, Cronbach’s Alpha Results (Likert-type scale, Strongly
Dissatisfied = 1, Dissatisfied = 2, Neutral = 3, Satisfied = 4, Strongly Satisfied = 5).
A descriptive analysis of questions 13 - 32 was conducted, the raw survey data was
entered into SPSS and was then analyzed. The numerical value correlation for the Likert type
scale was the following: Strongly Dissatisfied = 1, Dissatisfied = 2, Neutral = 3, Satisfied = 4,
Strongly Satisfied = 5. The data included a count of responses, percentage of responses, mean,
variance, and standard deviation. The data included responses from 50 participants; incomplete
responses were removed. Table 10 depicts the statistics collected for each satisfaction question
count and percentage. A composite analysis of the subscale, Satisfaction, was then conducted to
determine the mean, variance, and standard deviation for questions 13 - 32. The calculated mean
of 77.58 suggests high satisfaction within questions 13 - 32. The results are illustrated in Table 9,
depicting satisfaction count and percentage, and Table 10 depicts the mean, SD, and variance for
the 20 satisfaction questions.
55
Table 9
Satisfaction Responses (n = 50)
Prompt
Very
satisfied
Satisfied
Neither /
neutral
Dissatisfied
Very
dissatisfied
Total
Select which
option that best
describes you.
% n % n % n % n % n n
The chance to do
something that
makes use of
my abilities?
43.4 23 39.6 21 7.5 4 7.5 4 1.9 1 53
The feeling of
accomplishment
I get from the
job?
34 18 45.3 24 18.9 10 1.9 1 0 0 53
Being able to keep
busy all the
time?
37.7 20 50.9 27 7.5 4 3.8 2 0 0 53
The chances for
advancement on
this job?
13.2 7 26.4 14 22.6 12 32.1 17 5.7 3 53
The chance to tell
other people
what to do?
7.5 4 30.2 16 58.5 31 3.8 2 0 0 53
The way company
policies are put
into practice?
1.9 1 40.4 21 38.5 20 15.4 8 3.8 2 52
My pay and the
amount of work
I do?
15.1 8 47.2 25 18.9 10 15.1 8 3.8 2 53
The way my co-
workers get
along with each
other?
34 18 41.5 22 15.1 8 7.5 4 1.9 1 53
The chance to try
my own
methods of
doing the job?
34 18 52.8 28 9.4 5 1.9 1 1.9 1 53
56
Prompt
Very
satisfied
Satisfied
Neither /
neutral
Dissatisfied
Very
dissatisfied
Total
Select which
option that best
describes you.
% n % n % n % n % n n
The chance to
work alone on
the job?
32.7 17 50 26 15.4 8 0 0 1.9 1 52
Being able to do
things that don't
go against my
conscience?
41.5 22 39.6 21 13.2 7 5.7 3 0 0 53
The praise I get
for doing a
good job?
21.2 11 46.2 24 15.4 8 13.5 7 3.8 2 52
The freedom to
use my own
judgment?
37.7 20 52.8 28 3.8 2 5.7 3 0 0 53
The way my job
provides for
steady
employment?
43.4 23 52.8 28 3.8 2 0 0 0 0 53
The chance to do
things for other
people?
22.6 12 66 35 9.4 5 1.9 1 0 0 53
The chance to be
"somebody" in
the community?
13.5 7 46.2 24 34.6 18 1.9 1 3.8 2 52
The way my boss
handles his/her
employees?
35.8 19 35.8 19 9.4 5 17 9 1.9 1 53
The competence
of my
supervisor in
making
decisions?
30.2 16 43.4 23 9.4 5 17 9 0 0 53
The chance to do
differently
things from
time to time?
26.4 14 56.6 30 9.4 5 3.8 2 3.8 2 53
57
Prompt
Very
satisfied
Satisfied
Neither /
neutral
Dissatisfied
Very
dissatisfied
Total
Select which
option that best
describes you.
% n % n % n % n % n n
The working
conditions?
28.3 15 50.9 27 17 9 3.8 2 0 0 53
Table 10
Mean, Variance, and Standard Deviation of Satisfaction Responses (n=50)
M Variance SD N of items
77.58 110.698 10.521 20
Note. questions 13 - 32, Scale Mean Results (Likert-type scale, Strongly Dissatisfied = 1,
Dissatisfied = 2, Neutral = 3, Satisfied = 4, Strongly Satisfied = 5).
58
The satisfaction baseline was created using 20 satisfaction questions, which 50
participants answered and depicted their overall level of satisfaction in their current position.
Forty-six percent of the respondents were satisfied or strongly satisfied, 48% were neutral, and
6% were dissatisfied or strongly dissatisfied. Figure 2 shows the summary of the satisfaction
baseline data. A mean over 75 in the MSQ depicts high levels of satisfaction (Weiss et al., 1967).
Figure 2
Satisfaction Baseline (n=50)
Note: Questions 13 - 32, Scale Mean Results (Likert-type scale, Strongly Dissatisfied = 1,
Dissatisfied = 2, Neutral = 3, Satisfied = 4, Strongly Satisfied = 5).
2.0%
0.0%
4.0%
0.0%
4.0% 4.0%
8.0%
20.0%
12.0%
20.0%
14.0%
4.0%
8.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.6
Percent of Respondents
Satisfaction number
Satisfaction Baseline
59
Analysis of the satisfaction baseline questions supports the use of the 20 satisfaction questions as
an overall satisfaction variable and can be used as a dependent variable against which to compare
the independent variables.
Results for Research Question 2: What Is the Relationship Between Organizational
Context and Culture and Employee Satisfaction in IT Departments at Healthcare
Organizations?
Research question 2 sought to evaluate the organizational influences on employee
satisfaction based on four variables: trust in the organization, a sense of belonging,
compensation, and training opportunities. Each variable was measured using a 3-question scale
associated with it that was then analyzed in relation to the dependent variable of satisfaction.
Cronbach’s alpha was run for each of the organizational context variables.
The Cronbach’s alpha test for questions 33, 34 and 36, organizational trust, produced an
a = .746, which shows acceptable consistency and reliability for the 3 questions as a group,
meaning the questions measure the same research item or topic. Additionally, the correlation was
evaluated with P-value and Pearson’s-r. A Pearson’s-r correlation coefficient was computed to
assess the linear relationship between the organizational context variable trust (independent
variable) and satisfaction (dependent variable). The results were calculated using Qualtrics Stats
iQ showing a p <0.00001, n – 50, r = .705. A very low p-value is <0.050 and is statistically
significant, which supports the correlation of satisfaction and employee feelings of trust in their
organization (Salkind & Frey, 2020). The r close to 1 shows a positive linear relationship
between variables (Salkind & Frey, 2020). In other words, as employees’ feelings of trust
increase within an organization, their feelings of satisfaction also increase. Both of these
statistical measures confirm a strong positive correlation between employee satisfaction and
60
organizational trust. The mean for organizational trust was 3.8 out of 5, which depicts very high
levels of satisfaction (Weiss et al., 1967). Cronbach’s alpha is shown in Table 11, Table 12
depicts the mean and SD for organizational trust, Table 13 shows the counts and percentages of
answers for the organizational trust questions, and Figure 3 shows the correlation between
satisfaction and organizational trust.
Table 11
Cronbach’s Alpha Organizational Context Independent Variable Organizational Trust (n = 52)
Cronbach’s alpha Cronbach’s alpha based on standardized items N of items
0.746 0.737 3
Note. Questions 33, 34, 36, Trust, Cronbach’s Alpha Results (Likert-type scale, Strongly
Dissatisfied = 1, Dissatisfied = 2, Neutral = 3, Satisfied = 4, Strongly Satisfied = 5).
Table 12
Mean and SD Organizational Context Independent Variable Organizational Trust (n=52)
Mean SD N of Items Sample size
3.8 0.9 3 52
61
Table 13
Survey Responses Organizational Context Independent Variable Organizational Trust (n = 52)
Prompt Very satisfied Satisfied
Neither /
neutral
Dissatisfied
Very
dissatisfied
Total
Select which
option that best
describes you.
% n % n % n % n % n n
The way my
boss backs up
his/her
employees
(with top
management)?
35.8 19 35.8 19 9.4 5 17 9 1.9 1 53
Company
policies and
the way in
which they are
administered?
9.6 5 44.2 23 23.1 12 21.2 11 1.9 1 52
The personal
relationship
between my
boss and
his/her
employees?
35.8 19 39.6 21 7.5 4 15.1 8 1.9 1 53
Note. Survey responses for questions 33, 34, 36.
62
Figure 3
Correlation of Satisfaction to Organizational Context Independent Variable Organizational
Trust (n = 52)
The survey data showed a strong positive relationship between employee satisfaction and
organizational trust. The analysis found a positive correlation, p = <0.00001, n = 52, r = 0.705,
suggesting as organizational trust increases so does satisfaction. The mean of responses was 3.8
out of 5 or 76% which shows a high level of satisfaction (Weiss et al., 1967). Trust is the first of
four variables of organization context being evaluated in relationship to satisfaction.
63
The second variable of organizational context being evaluated in relationship to
satisfaction is a sense of belonging. Three questions measured a sense of belonging that were
evaluated in relation to the dependent variable of satisfaction. The Cronbach’s alpha test for
questions 37, 39, 41, sense of belonging, produced an a = .808, which shows good consistency
and reliability for the 3 questions as a group. The results were calculated using Qualtrics Stats iQ
showing a p <0.00001, n = 53, and r = .705. Both of these statistical measures confirm a strong
positive correlation between employee satisfaction and a sense of belonging. The mean for a
sense of belonging was 3.9 out of 5, which depicts very high levels of satisfaction (Weiss et al.,
1967). The Cronbach’s alpha is shown in Table 14, Table 15 depicts the mean and SD for a sense
of belonging, Table 16 shows the counts and percentages of answers for the sense of belonging
questions, Figure 4 shows the correlation between satisfaction and sense of belonging.
Table 14
Cronbach’s Alpha Organizational Context Independent Variable Sense of Belonging (n = 53)
Cronbach’s alpha
Cronbach’s alpha based on standardized
items
N of items
0.809 0.808 3
Note. Questions 37, 39, 41 Sense of Belonging, Cronbach’s Alpha Results (Likert-type scale,
Strongly Dissatisfied = 1, Dissatisfied = 2, Neutral = 3, Satisfied = 4, Strongly Satisfied = 5).
64
Table 15
Mean and SD Organizational Context Independent Variable Sense of Belonging (n = 53)
Mean SD N of items Sample size
3.9 0.8 3 53
Table 16
Survey Responses Organizational Context Independent Variable Sense of Belonging (n = 53)
Prompt Very satisfied Satisfied
Neither /
neutral
Dissatisfied
Very
dissatisfied
Total
Select which
option that best
describes you.
% n % n % n % n % n n
The way my
job provides
for a secure
future?
30.2 16 47.2 25 11.3 6 11.3 6 0 0 53
I feel like I
belong at this
organization?
26.4 14 41.5 22 24.5 13 5.7 3 1.9 1 53
The way the
company
treats its
employees?
24.5 13 43.4 23 24.5 13 7.5 4 0 0 53
65
Figure 4
Correlation between Satisfaction and Organizational Context Independent Variable Sense of
Belonging (n = 53)
The survey data showed a strong positive relationship between employee satisfaction and
a sense of belonging. The analysis found a positive correlation, p = <0.00001, n = 53, r = 0.764,
suggesting sense of belonging increases as satisfaction increases. The mean of responses for
sense of belonging was 3.9 out of 5 or 78%, which shows a high level of satisfaction (Weiss et
al., 1967). Sense of belonging is the second of four variables of organization context being
evaluated in relationship to satisfaction.
66
The third variable of organizational context being evaluated in relationship to satisfaction
is compensation. Three questions measured compensation in relation to the dependent variable of
satisfaction. Cronbach’s alpha was run for questions 42-44, compensation, produced an a = .808,
which shows good consistency and reliability for the 3 questions as a group. The results were
calculated using Qualtrics Stats iQ showing a p <0.00001, n = 53, and r = 0.361. Both of these
statistical measures confirm a strong positive correlation between employee satisfaction and
compensation. The r above 0 shows a positive linear relationship between variables; however,
the lower r shows a weaker correlation between compensation and satisfaction. The mean for
compensation was 3.4 out of 5 or 68%, which depicts moderate levels of satisfaction (Weiss et
al., 1967). Moderate levels of satisfaction are below 75% satisfaction (Weiss et al., 1967),
indicating a need in the organization, which should be evaluated for remediation and will be
discussed further in Chapter 5. Cronbach’s alpha is shown in Table 17, Table 18 depicts the
mean and SD for organizational trust, Table 19 shows the counts and percentages of answers for
the compensation questions, and Figure 5 shows the correlation between satisfaction and
compensation.
Table 17
Cronbach’s Alpha Organizational Context Independent Variable Compensation (n = 53)
Cronbach’s alpha
Cronbach’s alpha based on standardized
items
N of items
0.809 0.808 3
Note. Questions 42 - 44, Compensation, Cronbach’s Alpha Results (Likert-type scale, Strongly
Dissatisfied = 1, Dissatisfied = 2, Neutral = 3, Satisfied = 4, Strongly Satisfied = 5).
67
Table 18
Mean and SD Organizational Context Independent Variable Compensation (n = 53)
Mean SD N of items Sample size
3.4 1 3 53
Table 19
Survey Responses Organizational Context Independent Variable Compensation (n = 53)
Prompt
Very
satisfied
Satisfied
Neither /
neutral
Dissatisfied
Very
dissatisfied
Total
Select which
option that
best describes
you.
% n % n % n % n % n n
How my pay
compares
with that for
similar jobs
in other
companies?
17 9 32.1 17 18.9 10 28.3 15 3.8 2 53
How my pay
compares
with that of
other
workers at
this
company?
15.1 8 39.6 21 24.5 13 18.9 10 1.9 1 53
I believe I am
fairly
compensated
for the work
I do?
13.2 7 43.4 23 24.5 13 15.1 8 3.8 2 53
68
Figure 5
Correlation Satisfaction and Organizational Context Independent Variable Compensation (n =
53)
The survey data showed a weaker positive relationship between employee satisfaction
and compensation. The survey responses were more disperse for each level of satisfaction. The
analysis found a weaker positive correlation, p = <0.00001, n = 53, r = 0.361, suggesting as
compensation increases, so does satisfaction but to a weaker degree than the prior two
independent variables categorized under organizational context. This may indicate that
compensation, as long as it is fair, is not as significant a driver in employee satisfaction as other
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Satisfaction
Compensation
Satisfaction Related to Compensation
69
factors. This assertion is supported by a study by Higginbotham (1997), which found that salary
and generous benefits are important factors in employee satisfaction and retention; if the pay is
competitive, it will not be a primary motivator. Compensation is the third of four independent
variables of organization context being evaluated in relationship to satisfaction.
The fourth and final variable of organizational context being evaluated in relationship to
satisfaction is training opportunities. Three questions measured training opportunities in relation
to the dependent variable of satisfaction. The Cronbach’s alpha test for questions 45 - 47,
training opportunities, produced an a = 0.939, which shows excellent consistency and reliability
for the 3 questions as a group. The results were calculated using Qualtrics Stats iQ showing a p
<0.00001, n = 53, and r = 0.630. The r close to one shows a positive linear relationship between
variables. The mean for training was 3.6 out of 5 or 72%, which depicts moderate levels of
satisfaction (Weiss et al., 1967). Moderate levels are below 75% satisfaction (Weiss et al., 1967)
and indicate a need in the organization, which should be evaluated for remediation and will be
discussed further in Chapter 5. Cronbach’s alpha is shown in Table 21, Table 22 depicts the
mean and SD for training opportunities, Table 23 shows the counts and percentages of answers
for the training opportunities questions, and Figure 6 shows the correlation between satisfaction
and training opportunities.
70
Table 20
Cronbach’s Alpha Organizational Context Independent Variable Training Opportunities (n =53)
Cronbach’s alpha
Cronbach’s alpha based on standardized
items
N of items
0.937 0.939 3
Note. Questions 45 - 47, Training Opportunities, Cronbach’s Alpha Results (Likert-type scale,
Strongly Dissatisfied = 1, Dissatisfied = 2, Neutral = 3, Satisfied = 4, Strongly Satisfied = 5).
Table 21
Mean and SD for Organizational Context Independent Variable Training Opportunities
Mean SD N of items Sample size
3 0.8 3 53
71
Table 22
Survey Responses Organizational Context Independent Variable Training Opportunities (n = 53)
Prompt Strongly agree Mostly agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Mostly
disagree
Strongly
disagree
Total
Select which
option that best
describes you.
% n % n % n % n % n n
I am taught the
skills I need
to do my job
successfully?
9.4 5 58.5 31 26.4 14 5.7 3 0 0 53
The way my
boss trains
his/her
employees?
5.7 3 43.4 23 34 18 17 9 0 0 53
The way my
boss
provides
help on hard
problems?
28.3 15 30.2 16 20.8 11 20.8 11 0 0 53
72
Figure 6
Correlation Satisfaction and Organizational Context Independent Variable Training
Opportunities (n = 53)
The survey data showed a strong positive relationship between employee satisfaction and
training opportunities. The analysis found a strong positive correlation, p = <0.00001, n = 53, r =
0.630, suggesting as training opportunity increases so does satisfaction. The high positive
correlation suggests that training opportunities will produce higher satisfaction levels. The mean
of responses being 72% depicts moderate levels of satisfaction (Weiss et al., 1967), which should
be evaluated for remediation and will be discussed further in Chapter 5. Training opportunities
73
was the final independent variable under organizational context evaluated in relationship to
satisfaction.
Analysis of Organizational Factors
The four independent variables of organization context that were analyzed are
organizational trust, sense of belonging, compensation, and training opportunities. The survey
results showed a strong positive relationship for organizational trust, belonging, and training. A
weaker positive relationship was found for financial compensation in relation to satisfaction. The
results indicate trust, sense of belonging, and training opportunities are highly connected to
employee satisfaction and that financial compensation should be reasonable yet is not as strong a
driving force for employee satisfaction. Prior research supports these results, as prior studies
have found employees report placing a high value on corporate culture, supportive senior
leadership, mutual trust, and competitive salary and benefits (Kontoghiorghes & Frangou, 2009;
Kumar & Arora, 2012). The mean of responses for compensation and training were below 75%,
indicting a need that should be evaluated and addressed in an organization. Recommendations
for these variables will be discussed in Chapter 5.
Research Question 3: What Is the Relationship Between Employee Motivation and
Employee Satisfaction in IT Departments at Healthcare Organizations?
Research question 3 sought to evaluate the relationship between employee satisfaction
and motivation. Two motivational influences were evaluated: attribution and expectancy.
Attribution motivation is when employees believe they can do something based on past
experiences (Meece et al., 2006 & Weiner, 2019), and for this study specifically I evaluated if
they believe the recognition they receive is due to their individual work efforts. Expectancy
74
motivation refers to an employee’s belief that they will be successful in meeting performance
goals at work (Atkinson, 1957; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). The two influences were measured
using a 3-question scale associated with each variable that were then analyzed in relation to the
dependent variable of satisfaction.
Cronbach’s alpha was run for each variable of motivation. The Cronbach’s alpha test for
questions 48 - 50, attribution motivation, produced an a = .863, which shows good consistency
for the 3 questions as a group. Additionally, a strong correlation was seen with p = <0.00001, n =
53, and r = 0.633. These statistical measures confirm a strong positive correlation between
employee satisfaction and attribution motivation. The mean of responses was 3.5 out of 5 or
70%. This result depicts moderate levels of satisfaction (Weiss et al., 1967), which should be
evaluated for remediation and will be discussed further in Chapter 5. Cronbach’s alpha is shown
in Table 24, Table 25 depicts the mean and SD for organizational trust, Table 26 shows the
counts and percentages of answers for the attribution motivation questions, and Figure 7 shows
the correlation between satisfaction and attribution.
Table 23
Cronbach’s Alpha Attribution (n = 53)
Cronbach’s alpha
Cronbach’s alpha based on standardized
Items
N of items
0.863 0.863 3
Note. Questions 48 – 50. Expectancy, Cronbach’s Alpha Results (Likert-type scale, Strongly
Dissatisfied = 1, Dissatisfied = 2, Neutral = 3, Satisfied = 4, Strongly Satisfied = 5).
75
Table 24
Mean and SD for Attribution
Mean SD N of items Sample size
3.5 0.9 3 53
Table 25
Survey Responses Attribution (n = 53)
Prompt
Strongly
agree
Mostly agree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Mostly
disagree
Strongly
disagree
Total
Select which
option that
best describes
you.
% n % n % n % n % n n
The way I am
noticed
when I do a
good job?
13.2 7 49.1 26 22.6 12 11.3 6 3.8 2 53
The way I get
full credit
for the
work I do?
11.3 6 45.3 24 22.6 12 18.9 10 1.9 1 53
The
recognition
I get from
leadership
for the
work I do?
15.1 8 45.3 24 26.4 14 11.3 6 1.9 1 53
76
Figure 7
Correlation Satisfaction and Attribution (n = 53)
The survey data shows a strong positive correlation between attribution and satisfaction.
The analysis found a strong positive correlation with p = <0.00001, n = 53, r = 0.633, suggesting
that employees have higher levels of satisfaction when they believe the recognition they receive
is due to their specific work efforts and is not misattributed to others or is recognition for team
effort (Corace, 2007 & Wagner, 2006). The mean of responses was 3.5 out of 5 or 70%. This
result depicts moderate levels of satisfaction (Weiss et al., 1967), which should be evaluated for
remediation and will be discussed further in Chapter 5 This result suggests that as employees feel
77
recognition is based on their individual work effort as opposed to their teams' effort, their
satisfaction level will also increase.
The second variable, expectancy motivation, evaluated employees’ belief that they will
be successful in meeting performance goals at work. Expectancy was measured using a 3-
question scale that was then analyzed in relation to the dependent variable of satisfaction. The
Cronbach’s alpha test for questions 51 - 53, expectancy motivation, produced an a = .682, which
shows questionable internal consistency for the 3 questions as a group. A Cronbach’s alpha score
between 0.7 > a > 0.6 means the results are questionable (Salkind, 2010; Salkind & Frey, 2020),
and there is a lower degree of reliability or internal consistency for the group of 3 questions. This
means the questions may not measure the same variable as intended. Additionally, correlation
was evaluated with p = 0.0000659, n = 53, and r = 0.534. The mean for the variable expectancy
was 3.9 out of 5 or 78%, which shows a very high level of satisfaction from the respondents.
Cronbach’s alpha is shown in Table 27, Table 28 depicts the mean and SD for expectancy
motivation, Table 29 shows the counts and percentages of answers for the expectancy, and
Figure 8 shows the correlation between satisfaction and expectancy motivation.
78
Table 26
Cronbach’s Alpha Expectancy Motivation (n = 53)
Note. Questions 51 - 53, Expectancy, Cronbach’s Alpha Results (Likert-type scale, Strongly
Dissatisfied = 1, Dissatisfied = 2, Neutral = 3, Satisfied = 4, Strongly Satisfied = 5).
Table 27
Mean and SD Expectancy Motivation (n = 53)
Mean SD N of items Sample size
3.9 0.7 3 53
Cronbach’s alpha Cronbach’s alpha based on
standardized items
N of
items
.668 .682 3
79
Table 28
Survey Responses Expectancy Motivation (n = 53)
Prompt
Strongly
agree
Mostly
agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Mostly
disagree
Strongly
disagree
Total
Select which
option that best
describes you.
% n % n % n % n % n n
I can accomplish
what is
expected of
me in my daily
work?
28.3 15 45.3 24 11.3 6 13.2 7 1.9 1 53
I am capable of
meeting
performance
goals set by
the
organization?
32.1 17 58.5 31 5.7 3 3.8 2 0 0 53
My team will be
able to meet
the annual
performance
goals
established by
leadership?
15.1 8 54.7 29 17 9 9.4 5 3.8 2 53
80
Figure 8
Correlation Satisfaction and Expectancy Motivation (n = 53)
Analysis found p = 0.0000659, n = 53, r = 0.534, suggesting a strong positive
correlation between expectancy motivation and satisfaction along with a mean of responses 78%,
which indicates that employees have higher levels of satisfaction when they believe they will be
successful in meeting performance goals at work (Weiss et al., 1967).
81
Analysis of Motivational Factors
The two independent variables of motivation analyzed were attribution and expectancy.
The survey results showed a strong positive relationship for attribution and expectancy in
relation to satisfaction. Specifically, I evaluated if employees believe (attribute) they can do
something based on past experiences, for this study, if they believe the recognition they receive
is due to their specific work efforts. The mean for attribution was 3.7 out of 5 or 74%, which
shows a moderate level of satisfaction for the respondents (Weiss et al., 1967). The findings from
this study support prior research that found employees strive for achievement when they believe
their success and failure is based on their personal achievement (Meece et al., 2006; Weiner,
2010). Recommendations to address moderate satisfaction will be addressed in Chapter 5.
For the independent variable measuring expectancy, I evaluated if employees believe
they will be able to meet performance expectations. The Cronbach’s alpha for expectancy
showed questionable reliability for the 3 questions as a group. Evaluating the three questions,
question 53 was worded asking the employee if they felt their team could meet performance
goals and is clearly different than the other two questions that were specific to the employee's
feeling for their own performance. This could be updated in future research to address the
individual rather than the team and could then be tested to see if internal consistency and
Cronbach’s alpha improved for the question set. The positive correlation between expectancy
and satisfaction supports prior research that has found individuals are motivated to act in a
particular way when they believe they will accomplish a specific outcome (Atkinson, 1957;
Wigfield & Eccles, 2000).
82
Research Question 4: What Is the Relationship Between Employee Knowledge and
Employee Satisfaction in IT Departments at Healthcare Organizations?
Research question 4 sought to evaluate the knowledge influences on employee
satisfaction based on two independent variables: job expectations (declarative knowledge) and
knowledge of procedures (procedural knowledge). Job expectations referred to an employee’s
understanding what leadership expects from them to execute their job (Jaitli & Hua, 2013;
Nelsey & Brownie, 2012). Knowledge of procedures refers to an employee knowing all of the
procedures and tasks that go into completing their daily work successfully (Hassan et al., 2013;
Musser, 2001).
Both variables were measured using a 3-question scale associated with it that were then
analyzed in relation to the dependent variable of satisfaction. Cronbach’s alpha was run for each
component of knowledge. The Cronbach’s alpha test for questions 54, 55, 57, job expectations
produced a = 0.531, which shows poor internal consistency for the 3 questions as a group. A
Cronbach’s alpha score between 0.6 > a > 0.5 means the results are poor (Salkind, 2010; Salkind
& Frey, 2020), and there is a low degree of reliability or internal consistency for the group of 3
questions. This means the questions likely did not measure the same variable. Because the
internal consistency of the questions is poor, they will not be included in further analysis.
Evaluation of the questions showed a discrepancy that may have caused the low consistency.
Question 54 asked about the company policies toward employees; questions 55 and 57 asked
about the employees view of their individual role and job responsibilities. The questions could be
updated to focus on the employees’ view of their work and could be tested in future research.
Cronbach’s alpha is shown in Table 30; Table 31 shows the survey counts and percentages for
responses. Additional statistical analysis was intentionally omitted.
83
Table 29
Cronbach’s Alpha Knowledge: Job Expectations (Declarative) (n = 52)
Cronbach’s alpha
Cronbach’s alpha based on standardized
items
N of items
0.531 0.537 3
Note. Questions 54, 55, 57, Job Expectations, Cronbach’s Alpha Results (Likert-type scale,
Strongly Dissatisfied = 1, Dissatisfied = 2, Neutral = 3, Satisfied = 4, Strongly Satisfied = 5).
Table 30
Survey Responses Knowledge: Job Expectations (Declarative) (n = 52)
Prompt
Strongly
agree
Mostly gree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Mostly
disagree
Strongly
disagree
Total
Select which
option that best
describes you.
% n % n % n % n % n n
The policies and
practices toward
employees of
this company
are clear?
11.3 6 58.5 31 17 9 11.3 6 1.9 1 53
Do you feel as
though your job
responsibilities
are clearly
defined?
9.6 5 51.9 27 15.4 8 23.1 12 0 0 52
Is it clear to you
what your
role/position
demands or
requires of you
to meet your
company's
objectives?
17 9 58.5 31 18.9 10 5.7 3 0 0 53
84
The second knowledge variable is knowledge of procedures and tasks (procedural
knowledge) needed to complete their daily work successfully. Procedural knowledge was
measured using a 3-question scale associated with it that was then analyzed in relation to the
dependent variable of satisfaction. The Cronbach’s alpha for questions 59 - 61, procedural
knowledge, produced an a = .806, which showed good consistency for the 3 questions as a
group. Additionally, analysis found p = <0.00001, n = 53, r = 0.665. The r close to 1 shows a
positive linear relationship between variables. These statistical measures confirm a strong
positive correlation between employee satisfaction and procedural knowledge. The mean of
responses for the procedural knowledge variable was 3.8 out of 5 or 76%, which shows a high
level of satisfaction. Cronbach’s alpha is shown in Table 32, Table 33 depicts the mean and SD
for procedural knowledge, Table 34 shows the counts and percentages of answers for the
procedural knowledge questions, and Figure 10 shows the correlation between satisfaction and
procedural knowledge.
Table 31
Cronbach’s Alpha Knowledge: Job Procedures (Procedural Knowledge) (n = 53)
Cronbach’s alpha
Cronbach’s alpha based on standardized
items
N of items
0.806 0.806 3
Note. Questions 59 - 61, Job Procedures, Cronbach’s Alpha Results (Likert-type scale, Strongly
Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5).
85
Table 32
Mean and SD Job Procedures (Procedural Knowledge)
Mean SD N of items Sample size
3.8 0.7 3 53
Table 33
Survey Responses Knowledge: Job Procedures (Procedural Knowledge) (n – 53)
Prompt
Strongly
agree
Mostly agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Mostly
disagree
Strongly
disagree
Total
Select which
option that best
describes you.
% n % n % n % n % n n
My Company gives
me the tools and
technologies I
need to do my
job well
30.2 16 54.7 29 5.7 3 9.4 5 0 0 53
For most of my
tasks, I feel I
receive all the
information I
need to perform
my job well?
9.4 5 56.6 30 18.9 10 15.1 8 0 0 53
My company
provide me the
training needed
to perform me
job effectively?
13.2 7 64.2 34 15.1 8 5.7 3 1.9 1 53
86
Figure 9
Correlation Satisfaction to Knowledge of Job Procedures (Procedural Knowledge)
Analysis found p = <0.00001, n = 53, r = 0.665, suggesting a strong positive correlation
between procedural knowledge and satisfaction, which indicates that employees have higher
levels of satisfaction when they understand the tasks and procedures require to complete their
daily work effectively. The mean of responses 76% shows high levels of satisfaction. The results
show a positive relationship between employee satisfaction when the employee has the
procedural knowledge required to complete their job successfully.
87
Analysis of Knowledge Factors
The two independent variables of knowledge that were analyzed were leadership
expectations and procedural knowledge. The survey questions for leadership expectations had
poor internal consistency, as shown by the Cronbach’s alpha score of 0.531, so additional
statistical analysis was not run for that variable. The questions were re-evaluated and found to
ask about the company and the individual, which likely reduced the reliability and internal
consistency for the three questions making up the variable.
The second independent variable, procedural knowledge, had good internal consistency
and showed a strong positive correlation between employee satisfaction and the employee
understanding the tasks and procedures needed to successfully complete their job. The mean of
responses for the variable was 3.8 or 76%, which shows a high level of satisfaction among the
survey respondents. Prior research supports these results. Knowledge of the procedures and
tasks required for their work is an essential aspect of an employee understanding how to
effectively complete their daily work, which has also been shown to create job satisfaction
(Kraimer et al., 2011; Memon et al., 2017; Vnoučková & Urbancová, 2015).
Conclusion
Analysis of the organizational factors and employee knowledge and motivation in
relation to employee satisfaction showed a positive correlation for all variables except for
knowledge job expectations from leadership, which was excluded from analysis due to poor
internal reliability of the research questions, suggesting that highly rated organizational factors
will have a corresponding higher level of employee satisfaction. The variables compensation and
training were positively correlated to satisfaction yet showed low satisfaction as demonstrated by
the mean of responses, indicating remediation efforts may be needed, recommendations are
88
discussed in Chapter 5 . When employees feel positive motivational factors, specifically
attribution and recognition for the work they do, then they will have higher levels of satisfaction
at work. Finally, the variables of knowledge had mixed results. The first variable, employee’s
knowledge and understanding the expectations of leadership, lacked internal consistency for the
question leading to that variable being omitted from further statistical evaluation. The second
variable, procedural knowledge, showed a positive correlation to satisfaction and a high mean of
responses at 76%, suggesting that when employees understand the tasks and procedures required
for the work they perform for their job, will likewise have higher levels of satisfaction. Chapter 5
will discuss the results, recommendations, and implications for future research.
89
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
This study sought to investigate the factors that influence employee satisfaction from an
organizational context and employee motivation and knowledge perspective. The study utilized
online surveys to gather opinions from information technology (IT) workers in healthcare
settings and their work environment.
Four research questions guided this study:
1. What is the employee satisfaction rate in IT Departments within healthcare organizations?
2. What is the relationship between organizational context and culture and employee
satisfaction in IT Departments within healthcare organizations?
3. What is the relationship between employee motivation and employee satisfaction in IT
Departments within healthcare organizations?
4. What is the relationship between employee knowledge and employee satisfaction in IT
Departments within healthcare organizations?
This chapter first presents a discussion of the results of this study organized by research
question. Secondly, it presents the recommendations. Next, limitations and delimitations of the
study are presented. Finally, Chapter Five discusses the recommendations for future research
and the conclusion.
Discussion of Results
I conducted a quantitative study to evaluate the factors affecting employee satisfaction
relating to three areas: organizational context, employee motivation, and employee knowledge.
The study’s results show a positive correlation between the independent variables: organizational
trust, sense of belonging, training, attribution motivation, procedural knowledge, and the
dependent variable employee satisfaction. A weaker positive correlation was found between the
90
independent variables of compensation and expectancy motivation. The independent variable
knowledge of job expectations was found to have poor reliability in the questions measuring the
variable as determined by the Cronbach’s alpha of .531, which resulted in additional statistical
analysis being omitted. The results are discussed in relation to the literature and presented based
on the research questions.
Discussion of Research Question 1 Results: Satisfaction
Research question one examined satisfaction within IT departments at healthcare
organizations. Twenty questions in the survey measuring 20 variables of satisfaction were
adapted from the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) short form created by the
University of Minnesota, which has been in use since 1967 (Weiss et al., 1967) to create a
baseline measure of satisfaction to be used as the dependent variable in this study. Employee
satisfaction consists of a variety of factors that include compensation, job characteristics, training
and development opportunities, supervisor support, career advancement opportunities, work-life
balance (Dockel et al., 2006), benefits, pay, relationships with coworkers, and job satisfaction
(Bernthal & Wellins, 2001). Analysis of the satisfaction variable in this study found excellent
reliability for the 20 satisfaction questions as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of .900 (Salkind,
2010; Salkind & Frey, 2020). Further, a mean of 3.9 out of 5 or 78% satisfied shows a high level
of satisfaction for the MSQ (Weiss et al., 1967). Thus, the participants in this survey reported
overall satisfaction across the 20 variables of satisfaction measured in the satisfaction baseline
questions. Using the MSQ as the basis for the satisfaction questions created the dependent
variable used in the evaluation of the independent variables.
91
Discussion of Research Question 2 Results: Organizational Context
Research question two evaluated the relationship between organizational context and
culture and employee satisfaction in IT departments within healthcare organizations. Prior
studies have found that a positive and supportive corporate culture and climate are vital
ingredients that improve employee satisfaction and the desire to remain with an organization
(Flamholtz & Randle, 2011; Johnson, 2018; Wagner, 2006). Four variables of organizational
context and culture were evaluated in this study: organizational trust, a sense of belonging,
compensation, and training opportunities. The results regarding each of these variables are
discussed in more detail below.
Organizational Trust
Organizational trust is the first variable evaluated for organizational context. Feelings of
trust include the relationship an employee has with their leader. The relationship an employee
has with their direct manager, including open communication and trust, has been found to be
important to employee satisfaction (Kontoghiorghes & Frangou 2009). As the research has
shown, building a relationship of trust between employees and leaders improves retention,
satisfaction, and organizational trust (Hopp & Stephan, 2012; Meier et al., 2019; Nelsey &
Brownie, 2012; Wang & Wu, 2012).
The survey results from this study support the findings of prior research in the strong
positive correlation between the dependent variable of employee satisfaction and the independent
variable of trust. Analysis found adequate reliability for the questions of trust as demonstrated
with a Cronbach’s alpha of .746 (Salkind, 2010; Salkind & Frey, 2020), and p <0.00001, n – 50,
r = .705 show a strong positive linear relationship or correlation between satisfaction and
organizational trust. The mean of responses was 3.8 out of 5 or 76%, which represents a high
92
level of satisfaction (Weiss et al., 1967). This variable in the study supports prior research and
can be used to further the body of knowledge evaluating the factors and influences of employee
satisfaction.
Sense of Belonging
A sense of belonging at an organization is the second variable of organizational context
that was evaluated. As Jaitli and Hua (2013) discovered, organizational culture and identity
influence an employee’s commitment and sense of belonging within the organization. They also
found effective communication between leadership and employees can increase a sense of
belonging, including feeling more connected and improving their performance at work (Jaitli &
Hua, 2013). The survey for this study confirmed that a sense of belonging is an important part of
employee satisfaction, as demonstrated by a Cronbach’s alpha of .808, showing good reliability
for the questions comprising the independent variable of belonging (Salkind, 2010; Salkind &
Frey, 2020), and p <0.00001, n = 53, and r = .705, which shows a strong positive linear
relationship or correlation between satisfaction and sense of belonging. The mean of responses
was 3.9 out of 5 or 78%, which represents a high level of satisfaction (Weiss et al., 1967). This
variable in the study supports prior research and can be used to further the body of knowledge
evaluating the factors and influences of employee satisfaction.
Compensation
The third independent variable evaluated as part of organizational context is
compensation. Compensation, which includes salary, has been found to be important to
employee satisfaction and the desire to remain with an organization (Bernthal & Wellins, 2001;
Ferreira & Potgieter, 2018). Results of this study found good reliability for the questions
comprising the variable with a Cronbach’s alpha of .808 (Salkind, 2010; Salkind & Frey, 2020),
93
and p <0.00001, n = 53, and r = 0.361 reflect a positive but weaker correlation between
satisfaction and compensation. These results support prior research, which has found
compensation is important as long as it is competitive and may not be as strong a driving force
for satisfaction as other variables (Lesabe & Nkosi, 2007; Ngaruiya et al., 2014). The mean of
responses for compensation was 3.4 out of 5 or 68%, which is considered moderate satisfaction
for the MSQ (Weiss et al., 1967). These results suggest that an organization may need to
evaluate compensation and ensure it is fair and reasonable so as not to negatively impact
employee satisfaction. Addressing this need will be discussed further in the recommendations
section of this chapter.
Training
The fourth and final variable of organizational context is training. Training and career
growth have been evaluated in previous studies in relation to employee satisfaction and have
been found to be important factors (Chambers et al., 1998; Dockel et al., 2006; Lesabe & Nkosi,
2007). Musser (2001) found that learning and career opportunities are important to staff and can
also improve satisfaction. Training and mentoring are ways staff can learn the specific tasks and
procedures to effectively execute their job and meet expectations (Hassan et al., 2013). In this
study, the dependent variable of satisfaction was evaluated in relation to training opportunities
and was found to have a strong positive correlation. The Cronbach’s alpha of .939 showed
excellent reliability for the questions comprising the variable (Salkind, 2010; Salkind & Frey,
2020), and p <0.00001, n = 53, and r = 0.630 demonstrate a strong positive correlation. The
mean of responses was 3.6 out of 5 or 72%, which depicts a moderate level of satisfaction
(Weiss et al., 1967). This result may indicate a need that organizations should evaluate and
94
address to ensure the need is met for employees. Addressing this need will be discussed further
in the recommendations section of this chapter.
Summary of Organization Context Variables
The four variables of organizational context: organizational trust, a sense of belonging,
compensation, and training opportunities, were evaluated in relation to the dependent variable of
employee satisfaction. The results showed a strong positive correlation between trust, belonging
and training, but a weaker positive correlation was found between compensation and satisfaction.
Further analysis of the mean of responses found that compensation and training are needs
reported by the participants of this study, who came from many different organizations within
the United States. These results suggest compensation and training should be further evaluated
by healthcare organizations to ensure they maintain employee satisfaction. These results also
support prior research. A study by Kumar and Arora (2012) found that employees report placing
a high value on corporate culture, supportive senior leadership, and competitive salary and
benefits. This variable in the research study supports the evidence in prior studies and adds to the
body of research on the topic of employee satisfaction in relation to organizational context and
culture.
Discussion of Research Question 3 Results: Motivation
Research question 3 explored the relationship between employee motivation and
employee satisfaction in IT Departments within healthcare organizations. Employee motivation
was evaluated from an attribution and outcome expectancy perspective. For this study,
attribution refers to employees receiving recognition for their work effort. Prior studies have
demonstrated that employees expressed increased satisfaction in their job when they were
recognized for their work performance (Hartner. 2018; Nelsey & Brownie, 2012). In this study,
95
the dependent variable of satisfaction was evaluated in relation to attribution, or belief that
recognition is due to an employees’ personal work effort. The Cronbach’s alpha of .863 showed
good reliability for the questions comprising the variable (Salkind, 2010; Salkind & Frey, 2020),
and p = <0.00001, n = 53, and r = 0.633 demonstrate a strong positive correlation. The mean of
responses was 3.5 out of 5 or 70%, which depicts a moderate level of satisfaction (Weiss et al.,
1967). This result may indicate a need that organizations should evaluate and address to ensure
the need is met for employees. Addressing this need will be discussed further in the
recommendations section of this chapter.
The second variable of motivation that was evaluated in this study was expectancy
motivation, specifically an employee’s belief that they have the ability to meet work performance
goals. As was previously discussed in this study, expectancy theory states that people are
motivated to act in a particular way when they believe they will accomplish a specific outcome;
the strength of their expectancy grows with the probability that they will achieve their goal
(Atkinson, 1957; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Expectancy values and beliefs are strong indicators
of success and performance for individuals in meeting their goals (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000) and
can lead to higher rates of satisfaction. In this study, the dependent variable of satisfaction was
evaluated in relation to expectancy, belief that employees can meet work performance
expectations.
The Cronbach’s alpha of .682 showed questionable reliability for the questions
comprising the variable (Salkind, 2010; Salkind & Frey, 2020), and p = 0.0000659, n = 53, and
r = 0.534 demonstrate a strong positive correlation. The mean of responses was 3.9 out of 5 or
78%, which depicts a high level of satisfaction (Weiss et al., 1967). The survey questions were
re-evaluated due to the Cronbach’s alpha showing questionable reliability for these questions,
96
meaning the questions may not measure the same variable. Two of the questions asked about the
employee’s beliefs for their own work, and the third question asked about their belief for their
team. This difference would explain why the reliability of the questions is questionable. Future
research could reword the team-oriented question to focus on the employee and retest the
reliability and reevaluate the Cronbach’s alpha to see if it improved.
Discussion of Research Question 4 Results: Knowledge
Research question 4 evaluated the relationship between employee knowledge and
employee satisfaction in IT Departments within healthcare organizations. Employee knowledge
was evaluated based on two factors: knowing what leadership expects from them to execute their
job (declarative knowledge) and knowing the procedures and tasks required to complete their
daily work (procedural knowledge). Composite variables were created for each type of
knowledge and were evaluated in relation to employee satisfaction.
Knowledge, specifically knowing what leadership expects from an employee to execute
their job, has been evaluated in prior studies. The first knowledge influence that was evaluated is
an employee’s understanding of what is expected from their manager and the organization,
which can facilitate open and honest communication between them and their leader (Korsgaard
et al., 2002). Clear communication from leadership can provide an understanding of work
objectives and help employees understand what is needed to succeed (Jaitli & Hua, 2013; Nelsey
& Brownie, 2012). Knowledge is an essential aspect of an employee understanding how to
effectively complete their daily work (Kraimer et al., 2011; Schmidt, 2007), which has also been
shown to create job satisfaction (Vnoučková & Urbancová, 2015).
In this study, the dependent variable of satisfaction was evaluated in relation to
knowledge and an employee understanding the job expectations from leadership. The
97
Cronbach’s alpha of .531 showed poor reliability for the questions comprising the variable
(Salkind, 2010; Salkind & Frey, 2020). The survey questions were re-evaluated due to the
Cronbach’s alpha showing poor reliability and consistency for the questions, meaning the
questions likely did not measure the same variable. One of the questions asked about the
employee’s beliefs about corporate policies, the second question asked if they felt job
responsibilities were clearly defined, and the third question asked about the clarity of the
employees’ role in meeting corporate objectives. The questions are very different, which would
explain why the reliability of the questions is poor. Future research could reword the three
question to focus on the employee and could retest the reliability and reevaluate the Cronbach’s
alpha to see if it improved. Because of the poor reliability and consistency of the questions, no
further statistical analysis was completed, and further evaluation was omitted for the variable of
knowledge of job expectations.
The second knowledge influence evaluated was procedural knowledge and evaluated an
employee’s knowledge of the tasks and procedures required to execute their daily job
successfully. Clear communication from leadership can provide an understanding of work
objectives and help employees understand what is needed to succeed (Jaitli & Hua, 2013; Nelsey
& Brownie, 2012). Learning and career opportunities are important to staff and can also improve
satisfaction (Musser, 2001). Training and mentoring are ways staff can learn the specific tasks
and procedures to effectively execute their job and meet expectations (Hassan et al., 2013). In
this study, the dependent variable of satisfaction was evaluated in relation to knowledge of job
processes and procedures. The Cronbach’s alpha of .806 showed good reliability for the
questions comprising the variable (Salkind, 2010; Salkind & Frey, 2020), and p = <0.00001, n =
53, r = 0.665 demonstrate a strong positive correlation. The mean of responses was 3.8 out of 5
98
or 76%, which depicts a high level of satisfaction (Weiss et al., 1967). This variable in the
research study supports the evidence in prior studies and adds to the body of knowledge on the
topic of employee satisfaction in relation to the importance of procedural knowledge.
Recommendations for Practice
The survey results were mixed. The independent variables of organizational trust, sense
of belonging, and procedural knowledge supported findings from prior research relating to
employee satisfaction. The variables of trust, belonging, training, expectancy, and procedural
knowledge all had strong positive correlations with satisfaction, which suggests that positive
experience in these areas support higher levels of employee satisfaction. The variables of
compensation, training, and attribution had positive correlations with satisfaction, but the mean
of responses for these variables were below the 75% threshold established for this study. These
results suggest these variables are areas of need for employees that should be evaluated and
managed by organizations to ensure appropriate support is provided to support higher employee
satisfaction.
This study had issues with internal reliability for two of the variables, expectancy
motivation, which had questionable reliability demonstrated by the Cronbach’s alpha of 0.668
and the variable of knowledge job expectations. had poor reliability demonstrated by a
Cronbach’s alpha of 0.531. These areas would need to be revisited in future research with
changes being made to the survey questions and then reevaluating the Cronbach’s alpha to see if
the reliability improved for the variables. This study evaluated IT employees in healthcare and
could be extended to IT employees in other types of organizations due to the similarity in work
that IT employees conduct for an organization. Organization specific research would be needed
before more specific recommendations could be made for a specific organization.
99
The literature regarding employee satisfaction that was reviewed during this study
evaluated employees in numerous industries and departments. The findings for half of the
variables in this study support the findings from prior research and could thus be extended to
employees in other industries and departments. The results suggest that organizations will benefit
from programs that support and develop each of the variables evaluated: building trust, fostering
a sense of belonging, providing competitive compensation, training and growth opportunities,
recognizing employees for the work they perform, supporting employee’s belief in their ability to
meet performance goals, ensuring employees know procedures to execute their job, along with
understanding leaderships expectations from the employee.
Recommendation 1: Organizations Need to Benchmark Compensation
Based on the results of this study compensation was found to have a positive correlation
to satisfaction, but the mean of responses for compensation was below 75%, showing lower
satisfaction, indicating an unmet need for employees in their work. The first recommendation is
that organizations develop a benchmarking program that evaluates market salary for each role in
their organization and compares them to roles in the same industry, market, and region so as to
understand if compensation is competitive. Competitive pay that is in range of market wages has
been found to be important to employee satisfaction and retention in past studies (Bernthal &
Wellins, 2001; Chambers et al., 1998; Dockel et al., 2006; Ferreira & Potgieter, 2018; Lesabe &
Nkosi, 2007; Piersol, 2007).
Benchmarking is the process of gathering comparative metrics for a given variable or
performance indicator to compare to similar organizations (Bernthal & Wellins, 2001; Dowd,
2005). As Ozcan (2008) explained, performance at healthcare systems should be measured and
compared across multiple providers to understand how the organizations are functioning in
100
relation to each other for any number of performance metrics. There are organizations, such as
the bureau of labor statistics and staffing companies, that evaluate and publish comparative
compensation information on a yearly basis that could be used to conduct the benchmark. If pay
is not competitive with similar organizations following this analysis, then a plan should be made
to improve compensation quickly to meet market expectations. This process should be done
annually or biannually to ensure the organization remains competitive to maintain or improve
employee satisfaction.
The theory of change that was applied to this study in part stated that employee
satisfaction could be improved through competitive compensation. Leaders play an essential role
in developing and sustaining a culture of engagement that will attract and retain quality staff and
one of the critical qualities of culture is compensation (Popli & Rizvi, 2016; Singh et al., 2010).
Past studies have found motivation to do a job well and to remain with an organization is
influenced by the extrinsic factor of competitive compensation (Bernthal & Wellins, 2001;
Ferreira & Potgieter, 2018). The results of this study support the assertion that competitive salary
is important to employees and is an area of need for employees, which corporations should
monitor and manage.
Recommendation 2: Specific Assessment of Skills and Targeted Training to Address the
Training Need
Based on the results of this study, training was found to have a positive correlation to
satisfaction, yet the mean of responses was below 75%. This result demonstrated lower
satisfaction, indicating a need for employees in their work. The second recommendation is that
organizations first conduct a skills assessment for their employees and then create a targeted
training plan to address the training needs of each employee. Lesabe and Nkosi (2007) found that
101
employee satisfaction and retaining talented employees can bring financial gains to an
organization; one of the factors that will help keep vital employees is training and development
opportunities including job training.
Essential factors for creating employee satisfaction are education and training
opportunities (Kontoghiorghes & Frangou 2009). Ongoing training should be used to reinforce
the bond and identification an employee has with an organization and its culture (Gould-
Williams et al., 2015). Training and career growth are important factors for employee
satisfaction and retention (Chambers et al., 1998; Dockel et al., 2006; Lesabe & Nkosi, 2007).
Training and development are essential for career growth and have been shown to improve
employee satisfaction (Lesabe & Nkosi, 2007). Studies found that job training is one of the most
important factors relating to employee satisfaction; "on the job training" is rated higher and
produces more loyalty than off-the-job training, which is conducted on people's own time
(Hassan et al., 2013). It follows that targeted skills training following a skills assessment will be
a satisfier for employees. Training and mentoring are ways staff can learn the specific tasks and
procedures to effectively execute their job and meet expectations (Hassan et al., 2013). Bars and
Gage (2010) suggested that developing procedural knowledge requires a person to have
repetitive experiences with a specific skill or task, and Clark and Estes (2008) defined training as
specific experiences in which people gain knowledge or skill based on practice and feedback.
Finally, procedural knowledge as described by Anderson (2015) is knowledge that builds from
prior knowledge already gained and understood.
Pre- and post-training measures are important to gather and track so that it may be
determine if training efforts are effective. Clark and Estes (2008) describe an updated four-level
model for evaluation as part of their gap analysis framework, which is based on Kirkpatrick’s
102
(2006) four-level evaluation model. Both models recommend assessing the program and the
change in skills and knowledge in the employee over time so as to evaluate the impact of the
interventions on the employees within the organization. The four-level models of evaluation
should be applied to this recommendation to learn if the intervention was effective in producing
improvement in employee satisfaction within individual organizations. It is important to assess
skills for existing employees and then create a specific training plan to address any gaps in their
skills (Clark & Estes, 2008). This study gathered responses across many healthcare organizations
in the United States; it would be inappropriate to recommend specific interventions for an
individual organization without further analysis being completed at the organizational level.
Recommendation 3: Performance Feedback to Address Attribution
Attribution was found to have a positive correlation to satisfaction in this study, yet the
mean of responses was below 75%. This result indicates a need for employees in their work,
specifically attributing recognition for their work being due to their individual performance.
Performance feedback was not specifically addressed in the questions of this survey, but research
suggests performance feedback can address this need. Performance feedback is often done
through interactions with an employee and their leader, including ad hoc feedback and annual
performance reviews (Finney et al., 2012; Popli and Rizvi (2016). Employees have expressed
increased satisfaction when they are given performance feedback and are recognized for their
individual performance (Hartner, 2018; Nelsey & Brownie, 2012). Korn et al., (2016) found that
people adjust their perceptions of success based on positive or negative performance feedback.
After receiving performance feedback individuals with attribute successes either positively or
negatively based on whether the feedback was positive or negative (Korn et al., 2016). It follows
that, when leaders provide constructive performance feedback for their employees, they can help
103
foster self-efficacy, improve the attribution of successful outcomes, and improve employee
performance.
The theory of change that was applied in part to this study was that employee satisfaction
could be improved through improved communication with the employee's leader. Leaders play
an essential role in developing and sustaining a culture of engagement that will attract and retain
quality staff with supervisor support and recognition being important aspects the leader can
provide (Popli & Rizvi, 2016; Singh et al., 2010). Annual performance reviews should be
consistently delivered among employees, should provide a fair assessment of employee abilities,
and should provide actionable feedback. Performance feedback is an important part of the
managerial process that can help employees grow, thrive, and enjoy their work experience.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitation and delimitations are influencing factors in a study. Limitations are factors
outside of the control of the researcher, and delimitations are decisions made by the researcher
that influence the study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Possible limitations of the study were that
participants may not have been truthful in their responses and may have been influenced by their
mental state while taking the survey. The survey responses to this study were limited, which
reduced the sample size and prevented the evaluation of disaggregated results to study the
impacts of diversity, equity, and inclusion. This study was conducted during the Covid-19
pandemic, which caused a global change in how business was conducted and how employees
were working due to the world-wide stay at home orders that were enacted throughout 2020 and
2021 in an effort to curb the spread of the virus (Bailey & Breslin, 2021; Bansal, 2020). The
impacts of Covid-19 on the results of this study could be studied in future longitudinal research.
The knowledge and experience of the researcher and the participants may also have impacted the
104
results of the study. This study was limited by the number of research subjects, administration
time, and the region where the study took place, which may have influenced the researcher and
the research participants' perceptions and culture.
Delimitations are factors that affect a study and are based on decisions made by the
researcher (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Possible delimitations were influenced by the survey
instrument adapted for this study and the specific questions in that survey. Additionally, the
participants' selection criteria and the survey instrument adapted for the study were a delimiting
choice made by the researcher. During this research, the survey data represented a field study of
employees working in IT Departments in healthcare organizations in the United States. However,
the research can provide insight into factors to consider when addressing employee satisfaction.
Furthermore, the Clark and Estes (2008) KMO gap analysis framework can be used by other
researchers evaluating problems of practice at different organizations and departments.
Recommendations for Future Research
A limitation of this study was that it focused on employees working in an IT department
at healthcare organizations in the United States. Future research could expand the population
surveyed to encompass IT employees across multiple business sectors. Future research could
investigate the variables of satisfaction in more detail to provide greater insight into the specific
influences on employee satisfaction. This quantitative study was not a true experiment since a
random sample was not used thus causation could not be determined between the variables. On
opportunity for future research could use the survey from this study and expand the population
size so that results could be disaggregated and used to evaluate the influences of diversity,
equity, and inclusion. Future research could utilize random sampling to try and control for
confounding variables and to establish causation. The variables of expectancy motivation and
105
knowledge of job expectations had issues with internal reliability and validity that should be
addressed through rewording the questions in future studies to focus on the employee instead of
the team. Once the issues with the scale used to measure these variables is corrected, the study
could be used in a single organization to give specific feedback on the issues that need to be
addressed to improve employee satisfaction.
Conclusion
The interaction of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences with
organizational performance have been studied for the last few decades in organizations. Having
held leadership roles in Information Technology departments for the past 20 years I have
witnessed firsthand the negative effects of strong employees leaving organizations due to being
dissatisfied. The loss of these valuable people made me realize employee satisfaction is vital for
the health and wellbeing of the individual as well as the organization. The purpose of this study
was to evaluate the employee satisfaction rate and factors and influences on satisfaction among
employees who work in IT Departments of healthcare organizations in the United States. The
Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework was appropriate for examining the problem of
practice in this study because it evaluates knowledge and motivation at the stakeholder level and
looks at organizational barriers and impacts on stakeholder performance. The intent of this
research was to evaluate and confirm the KMO influences that impact employee satisfaction so
that companies may become informed and make adjustments that will improve their employees’
satisfaction and, ultimately, the employee retention rate. All three of these factors interconnect
and must be aligned for successful goal achievement within an organization (Clark and Estes,
2008). Accountability, leadership effectiveness, and corporate culture are all integral factors that
can be evaluated through the KMO framework. The results for research question 1 satisfaction,
106
confirmed employee satisfaction is high among workers within the healthcare IT field as
demonstrated by the 78% mean of responses indicating high satisfaction among the survey
respondents.
The results for research question 2, organizational context, found a strong positive
correlation between organizational trust, sense of belonging, training, and satisfaction, but a
weaker positive correlation between compensation and satisfaction. Further analysis of these four
variables found the mean of responses for compensation and training was below 75%, indicating
lower satisfaction and a need for employees in order to experience satisfaction. Compensation
and training are variables that should be monitored and managed by organizations to ensure the
employee need is met to improve satisfaction.
The results for research question 3, motivation, found that attribution had a strong
positive correlation with satisfaction, but the mean of responses was 70%, which depicts a
moderate level of satisfaction that should be investigated by organizations to improve employee
satisfaction. The second variable of expectancy had questionable reliability for the survey
questions for this variable, which would need to be addressed in future research and retested.
Future research could address the reliability issue with the questions and then retest the survey.
The study results for research question 4, knowledge, found poor reliability for the first
variable job expectancy, so additional analysis of this variable was omitted from the study.
Future research could reword the questions and retest the survey. The second variable,
procedural knowledge, had a strong positive correlation with satisfaction, and the mean of
responses of 76% indicated a high level of employee satisfaction.
The recommendations based on the results of this study are 1. Organizations need to
benchmark compensation, 2. Specific assessment of skills and targeted training to address the
107
training need, and 3. Performance feedback to address attribution motivation. Each of these
recommendations provide a specific intervention that organizations could implement to address
employee satisfaction. Further investigation at specific organizations would be needed before
additional recommendations would be appropriate. The results for this study extend research on
the topic of employee satisfaction and the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
that affect satisfaction and could be used throughout IT departments in areas outside of
healthcare to identify opportunities to improve employee satisfaction. Employees are people who
have feelings, needs, and expectations that should be taken seriously by organizations, who
should work to meet those needs, and in the process improve employee satisfaction.
108
References
Allen, D., & Bryant, P. (2012). Managing employee turnover dispelling myths and fostering
evidence-based retention strategies (1st ed.). Business Expert Press.
https://doi.org/10.4128/9781606493410
Anderson, J. A. (2015). Cognitive psychology and its implications (8th ed.). Worth Publishers.
Anupam Bansal. (2020). Opinion - covid 19: Impact of covid 19 on businesses. Shoes &
Accessories. http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/trade-
journals/opinion-covid-19-impact-on-businesses/docview/2463718837/se-
2?accountid=14749
Arora, R. (2012). A research study of factors influencing talent retention in BPO industry.
Journal of Strategic Human Resource Management, 1(2), 54–62.
Atencio B., Cohen J., & Gorenberg B. (2003) Nurse retention: Is it worth it? Nursing Economics,
21(6), 262-269.
Atkinson, J. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological Review,
64(6p1), 359–372. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043445
Bailey, K., & Breslin, D. (2021). The COVID‐19 Pandemic: What can we learn from past
research in organizations and management? International Journal of Management
Reviews : IJMR, 23(1), 3–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12237
Baars, B. J., & Gage, N. M. (2010). Cognition, brain, and consciousness: Introduction to
cognitive neuroscience (2nd ed.). Elsevier.
Bedarkar, M., & Pandita, D. (2014). A study on the drivers of employee engagement impacting
employee performance. International conference on trade, Markets and Sustainability
(ICTMS-2013), 133, 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.174
109
Benton, A., Dill, K., & Williams, A. (2017). Sacred time: Ensuring the provision of excellent
supervision. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 32(4), 290–305.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15555240.2017.1408416
Bernthal, P. & Wellins, R. (2001). Retaining talent: A benchmarking study. Development
Dimensions International, Inc.
Bills, M. (1925). Social status of the clerical worker and his permanence on the job. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 9(4), 424–427. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0065881
Boone, H., & Boone, D. (2012). Analyzing likert data. Journal of extension, 50(2), 1-5.
Bothma, C., & Roodt, G. (2013). The validation of the turnover intention scale. SA Journal of
Human Resource Management, 11(1), 1–e12. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v11i1.507
Buel, W. (1964). Voluntary female clerical turnover: The concurrent and predictive validity of a
weighted application blank. Journal of Applied Psychology, 48(3), 180–182.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043613
Callan, V., & Lawrence, S. (2009). Building employee engagement, job satisfaction, health and
retention. In S. Cartwright & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of
organizational well being (pp. 411-438). Oxford University Press.
Cascio, W. (1976). Turnover, biographical data, and fair employment practice. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 61(5), 576-580. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.61.5.576
Chambers, E., Foulon, M., Handfield-Jones, H., & Hankin, S., Michaels III, E. (1998). The war
for talent. The McKinsey Quarterly, 1(3), 44–5.
Clark, R., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing, Inc.
110
Cole, M. (1985). The zone of proximal development: Where culture and cognition create each
other. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian
perspectives (pp. 146–161). Cambridge University Press.
Conner, T., & Rabovsky, T., (2011). Accountability, affordability, access: A review of the recent
trends in higher education policy research. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), 93–112.
Corace, C. (2007). Engagement - enrolling the quiet majority. Organization Development
Journal, 25(2), 171-175.
Cordes, C., Richerson, P., & Schwesinger, G. (2010). How corporate cultures coevolve with the
business environment: The case of firm growth crises and industry evolution. Journal of
Economic Behavior & Organization, 76(3), 465–480.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2010.09.010
Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Snyder, J. (2015). Meaningful learning in a new paradigm for
educational accountability: An introduction. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23.
https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.1982
Darling-Hammond, L., Wilhoit, G., & Pittenger, L. (2014). Accountability for college and career
readiness: Developing a new paradigm. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22.
https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n86.2014
Dawson, M., & Abbott, J. (2011). Hospitality culture and climate: A proposed model for
retaining employees and creating competitive advantage. International Journal of
Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 12(4), 289-304.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15256480.2011.614533
111
Deery, M., & Jago, L. (2015). Revisiting talent management, work-life balance and retention
strategies. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(3), 453–
472. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-12-2013-0538
De Simone, S., Planta, A., & Cicotto, G. (2018). The role of job satisfaction, work engagement,
self-efficacy and agentic capacities on nurses’ turnover intention and patient satisfaction.
Applied Nursing Research, 39, 130–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2017.11.004
Dockel, A., Basson, J. & Coetzee, M., (2006). The Effect of retention factors on organisational
commitment: an investigation if high technology employees. South African Journal of
Human Resource Management, 4(2), 20–28. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v4i2.91
Dowd, A. (2005). Data don’t drive: Building a practitioner-driven culture of inquiry to assess
community college performance. University of Massachusetts, Lumina Foundation for
Education.
Dubnick, M. (2014). Accountability as cultural keyword. In M. Bovens, R. E. Goodin, & T.
Schillemans (Eds.), Oxford handbook of public accountability (pp. 23–28). Oxford
University Press.
Emanuel, E., & Emanuel, L. (1996). What is accountability in health care? Annals of Internal
Medicine, 124(2), 229-239.
Federico, S., Federico, P., & Lundquist, G. (1976). Predicting women’s turnover as a function of
extent of met salary expectations and biodemographic data. Personnel Psychology, 29(4),
559–566. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1976.tb02079.x
Ferreira, N., & Potgieter, I. (2018). Career-related dispositional factors in relation to retention
within the retail sector: An exploratory study. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 28(5),
400–406. https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2018.1527545
112
Fink, A. (2017). How to conduct surveys: a step-by-step guide (Sixth edition). SAGE.
Firth, L., Mellor, D., Moore, K., & Loquet, C. (2004). How can managers reduce employee
intention to quit? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(2), 170–187.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940410526127
Fisher, B. (1917). How to reduce labor turnover. The Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 71(1), 10–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/000271621707100103
Flamholtz, E., & Randle, Y. (2020). Corporate culture: The ultimate strategic asset. Stanford
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780804777544
Fleishman, E., & Harris, E. (1962). Patterns of leadership behavior related to employee
grievances and turnover. Personnel Psychology, 15, 43–56.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1962.tb01845.x
Frank, F, Finnegan, R., & Taylor, C. (2004). The race for talent: Retaining and engaging workers
in the 21st century. Human Resources Planning, 27(3), 12-27.
Gallimore, R. & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
31(1), 45-56.
Gallup. (2017). State of the American workforce.
https://www.gallup.com/workplace/238085/state-american-workplace-report-2017.aspx.
Gallup (2021). Who We Are. https://www.gallup.com/corporate/212381/pressing-problems-
solved.aspx.
Gevrek, D., Spencer, M., Hudgins, D., & Chambers, V. (2017). I can’t get no satisfaction: The
power of perceived differences in employee intended retention and turnover. Personnel
Review, 46(5), 1019–1043. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-06-2015-0189
113
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming Qualitative Researchers (4th ed., pp. 162-183). Pearson Education,
Inc., publishing as Allyn & Bacon
Gould-Williams, J., Mostafa, A., & Bottomley, P. (2015). Public service motivation and
employee outcomes in the Egyptian public sector: Testing the mediating effect of person-
organization fit. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 25(2), 597-622.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mut053
Hartner, J. (2018). Employee engagement on the rise in the U.S. Gallop.
ttps://news.gallup.com/poll/241649/employee-engagement-rise.aspx
Hassan, W., Razi, A., Qamar, R., Jaffir, R., & Suhail, S. (2013). The effect of training on
employee retention. Global Journal of Management and Business Research.
Heathfield, S. (2020, July 16). How to ensure gender equality in the workplace. The Balance
Careers. https://www.thebalancecareers.com/create-workplace-gender-equality-4134484
Hellriegel, D., & White, G. (1973). Turnover of professionals in public accounting: A
comparative analysis. Personnel Psychology, 26(2), 239–249.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1973.tb01135.x
Higginbotham, J. (1997). The satisfaction equation. Research & Development, 39(10),1-9.
Hines, G. (1973). Achievement motivation, occupations, and labor turnover in New Zealand.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 58(3), 313–317. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036300
Hogan, S., & Coote, L. (2014). Organizational culture, innovation, and performance: A test of
Schein’s model. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1609–1621.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.09.007
114
Hom, P., Lee, T., Shaw, J. & Hausknecht, J. (2017). One hundred years of employee turnover
theory and research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 530–545.
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000103
Hopp, C., & Stephan, U. (2012). The influence of socio-cultural environments on the
performance of nascent entrepreneurs: Community culture, motivation, self-efficacy and
start-up success. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 24(9-10), 917–945.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2012.742326
Hulin, C. (1966). Job satisfaction and turnover in a female clerical population. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 50(4), 280–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023613
Jaitli, R., & Hua, Y. (2013). Measuring sense of belonging among employees working at a
corporate campus. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 15(2), 117–135.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRE-04-2012-0005
Jiang, Z., Gollan, P., & Brooks, G. (2017). Relationships between organizational justice,
organizational trust and organizational commitment: a cross-cultural study of China,
South Korea and Australia. International Journal of Human Resource Management,
28(7), 973-1004. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1128457
Johnson, S., Robertson, I., & Cooper, C. (2018). Well-being: productivity and happiness at work.
(2013). Journal of Public Mental Health, 12(3), 173–174. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPMH-
10-2012-0010
Kaak, S., Feild, H., Giles, W., & Norris, D. (1998). The weighted application blank: A cost-
effective tool that can reduce employee turnover. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, 39(2), 18–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/001088049803900204
Karp, H., & Nickson, J. (1973). Motivator-hygiene deprivation as a predictor of job turnover.
Personnel Psychology, 26(3), 377–384.
115
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17446570.1973.tb01145.x
Kasekende, F., Byarugaba, K. J., & Nakate, M. (2013). Employee satisfaction: Mediator of
organizational service orientation and employee retention. Journal of Business and
Management, 19(3), 41–. https://doi.org/10.6347/JBM.201312_19(3).0003
Kerr, W. (1947). Labor turnover and its correlates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 31(4), 366–
371. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0062050
Kerr, W. (1948). On the validity and reliability of the job satisfaction tear ballot. Journal of
Applied Psychology., 32(3), 275-281. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0063357
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (2006). Seven keys to unlock the four levels of evaluation. Performance
Improvement, 45(7), 5-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.2006.4930450702
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick's four levels of training
evaluation. ATD Press.
Kontoghiorghes, C., & Frangou, K. (2009). The association between talent retention, antecedent
factors, and consequent organizational performance. S.A.M. Advanced Management
Journal (1984), 74(1), 29–.
Korn, C., Rosenblau, G., Rodriguez Buritica, J., & Heekeren, H. (2016). Performance feedback
processing is positively biased as predicted by attribution theory. PloS One, 11(2),
e0148581–e0148581. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148581
Korsgaard, M., Brodt, S., & Whitener, E. (2002). Trust in the face of conflict: The role of
managerial trustworthy behavior and organizational context. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(2), 312-319. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.87.2.312
Kraimer, M., Seibert, S., Wayne, S.,Liden, R., Bravo, J., & Kozlowski, S. (2011). Antecedents
and outcomes of organizational support for development: The critical role of career
116
opportunities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 485–500.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021452
Kraut, A. (1975). Predicting turnover of employees from measured job attitudes. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 13(2), 233–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-
5073(75)90047-1
Kumar, R., & Arora, R. (2012). Determinants of talent retention in BPO industry. Indian Journal
of Industrial Relations, 48(2), 259–273.
Langer, J., & LeRoux, K. (2017). Developmental culture and effectiveness in nonprofit
organizations. Public Performance & Management Review, 40(3), 457-479.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2016.1273124
Lesabe, R., & Nkosi, J., (2007). A qualitative exploration of employees’ views on organisational
commitment. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 5(1), 35–44.
https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v5i1.106
Macey, W., Schneider, B., Barbera, K., & Young, S. (2009). Employee engagement: Tools for
analysis, practice, and competitive advantage. Wiley.
Mahan, T., Nelms, D., Ryan Bearden, C., Pearce, B. (2019). 2019 Retention Report.
https://info.workinstitute.com/hubfs/2019%20Retention%20Report/Work%20Institute%2
02019%20Retention%20Report%20final-1.pdf
Manev, I. (2003). The managerial network in a multinational enterprise and the resource profiles
of subsidiaries. Journal of International Management, 9(2), 133-151
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1075-4253(03)00009-7
Marsh, J., Pane, J., & Hamilton, L. (2006). Making sense of data-driven decision making in
education: Evidence from recent RAND research. In Policy File. RAND Corporation.
117
Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE
Publications.
Meece, J., Anderman, E., & Anderman, L. (2006). Classroom goal structure, student motivation,
and academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), 487–503.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070258
Meier, S., Stephenson, M., & Perkowski, P. (2019). Culture of trust and division of labor in
nonhierarchical teams. Strategic Management Journal, 40(8), 1171–1193.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3024
Memon, M., Sallaeh, R, Baharom, M. N. R., Nordin, S., & Ting, H. (2017). The relationship
between training satisfaction, organisational citizenship behaviour, and turnover
intention. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 4(3), 267–
290. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-03-2017-0025
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation
(4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Meyer, J., & Allen, N. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89.
https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z
Mlitz, K. (2021). Employment in the IT Industry - statistics & facts.
https://www.statista.com/topics/5275/employment-in-the-it-industry/#dossierKeyfigures
Mitchell, A. (1972). Expectancy theory predictions of the satisfaction, effort, performance, and
retention of naval aviation officers. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
8(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(72)90033-5
Muliawan, A., Green, P., & Robb, D. (2009). The turnover intentions of information systems
118
auditors. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 10(3), 117–136.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2009.03.001
Nelsey, L., & Brownie, S. (2012). Effective leadership, teamwork and mentoring – Essential
elements in promoting generational cohesion in the nursing workforce and retaining
nurses. Collegian (Royal College of Nursing, Australia), 19(4), 197–202.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colegn.2012.03.002
Ngaruiya, K., Velez, A., Clerkin, R., & Taylor, J. (2014). Public service motivation and
institutional-occupational motivations among undergraduate students and ROTC cadets.
Public Personnel Management, 43(4), 442-458.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026014530270
Ozcan, Y. (2008). Health care benchmarking and performance evaluation an assessment using
data envelopment analysis (DEA) (1st ed. 2008.). Springer US.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-75448-2
Pazzaglia, A., Stafford, E., & Rodriguez, S. (2016). Survey methods for educators: Selecting
samples and administering surveys (part 2 of 3). Applied Research Methods, August.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=REL2016160%0Ahttp://ies.ed.gov/
Piersol, B. (2007). Employee engagement and power to the edge. Performance Improvement
(International Society for Performance Improvement), 46(4), 30–33.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.122
Popli, S., & Rizvi, I. (2016). Drivers of employee engagement: The role of leadership style.
Global Business Review, 17(4), 965–979. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150916645701
Robinson, S., & Firth, L. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Sage.
Salkind N. (2010). Encyclopedia of research design. Sage.
119
Salkind, N., & Frey, B. (2020). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. Sage.
Sandhya, K., & Kumar, D. (2011). Employee retention by motivation. Indian Journal of Science
and Technology, 4(12), 1778–1782. https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2011/v4i12.34
Schein, E., & Schein, P. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (Fifth edition.). Wiley.
Schmidt, S. (2007). The relationship between satisfaction with workplace training and overall
job satisfaction. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 18(4), 481–498.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1216
Schuh, A. (1967). The predictability of employee tenure: A review of the literature1. Personnel
Psychology, 20(2), 133–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1967.tb02275.x
Schwab, D., & Oliver, R. (1974). Predicting tenure with biographical data: Exhuming buried
evidence. Personnel Psychology, 27(1), 125–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-
6570.1974.tb02068.x
Shahnawaz, M., & Jafri, M. (2009). Job attitudes as predictor of employee turnover among
stayers and leavers/hoppers. Journal of Management Research, 9(3), 159-.
Shim, M. (2014). Do organizational culture and climate really matter for employee turnover in
child welfare agencies? British Journal of Social Work, 44(3), 542- 558.
https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcs162
Singh, P., Loncar, N., & Deon, E. (2010). Pay satisfaction, job satisfaction and turnover intent.
Relations Industrielles (Québec, Québec), 65(3), 470–490.
https://doi.org/10.7202/044892ar
Smith, P., Kendall, L., & Hulin, C. (1969). The Measurement of satisfaction in work and
retirement. Rand McNally.
120
Steel, R. (2002). Turnover theory at the empirical interface: Problems of fit and function. The
Academy of Management Review, 27(3), 346–360.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2002.7389900
Tett, R., & Meyer, J. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention,
and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology,
46(2), 259– 293. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb00874.x
Thomas, K., & Velthouse, B. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive”
model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 666–681.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1990.4310926
Tolman, E. (1955). Principles of performance. Psychological Review, 62(5), 315–326.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0049079
Tuck, E., & Yang, K. (Eds.). (2013). Youth resistance research and theories of change.
Routledge
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2020). 2020 Annual Averages - Employed persons by detailed
occupation, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (bls.gov).
https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2021). https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.t16.htm
U.S. Census (2021). https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/04/who-are-our-health-care-
workers.html
van Knippenberg, D. (2011). Embodying who we are: Leader group prototypicality and
leadership effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1078–1091.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.004
121
Vance R. (2006). Employee Engagement and Commitment: A guide to understanding, measuring
and increasing engagement in your organization. SHRM Foundation.
Vnoučková, U. & Urbancová, H., (2015). Employee turnover and knowledge management in the
Czech Republic. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis,
63(1), 313–325. https://doi.org/10.11118/actaun201563010313
Wagner, S. (2006). Staff retention: From "satisfied" to "engaged.". Nursing Management, 37(3),
24-29. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006247-200603000-00007
Wang, C., & Wu, L. (2012). Team member commitments and start-up competitiveness. Journal
of Business Research, 65(5), 708–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.04.004
Weiner, B. (2010). The Development of an attribution-based theory of motivation: A history of
ideas. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 28–36.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903433596
Weiner, B. (2019). Wither attribution theory? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(5), 603–
604. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2398
Weiss, D., Dawis, R., England, G., & Lofquist, L. (1967). Manual for the minnesota satisfaction
questionnaire. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Industrial Relations Center.
http://vpr.psych.umn.edu/instruments/msq-minnesota-satisfaction-questionnaire
Wells, M. (2018). Healthcare turnover rates in 2018. Daily Pay.
https://www.dailypay.com/business-resources/employee-turnover-rates-in-the-healthcare-
industry/#:~:text=According%20to%20a%20study%20by,over%2085.2%25%20of%20it
s%20workforce
122
Wigfield, A. & Eccles, J. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81.
https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015
Workforce (2003). Ratio of IT staff to employees. https://workforce.com/news/ratio-of-it-staff-
to-employees
Wuryaningrum, R., Bektiarso, S., & Suyitno, I., (2020). The Effects of knowledge-transforming
text on elementary students’ declarative, procedural knowledge, and motivation in
environmental learning. International Journal of Instruction, 13(1), 567–586.
https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13137a
Yang, J., Wan, C., & Fu, Y. (2012). Qualitative examination of employee turnover and retention
strategies in international tourist hotels in Taiwan. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 31(3), 837–848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.10.001
123
Appendix A: Survey Questions
Table A1
Survey Questions
Demographic Questions
Age 20 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 59 60 and above
Race / Ethnicity White Black Asian
American
Indian
Hispanic
Pacific
Islander
Other
Gender Male Female
non-
binary/third
gender
prefer not to
say
How many years
have you worked at
this company?
0 to 9 10 to 19 20 to 29 30 to 39 40 and above
What type of role /
position are you
currently in?
individual
contributor
Leadership
position
Do you work in the
United States?
Yes No
What is the size of
your current company
(number of
employees)?
1 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 19 20 to 49 50 to 99
100 to 249 500 to 999 1000 to 9,999
What is the size of
your current company
IT Department?
Less than 50
employees
51 to 100
employees
101 to 200
employees
201 to 300
employees
301 to400
employees
401 to 500
employees
Greater than
500
employees
124
Multiple choice survey questions and selected open ended questions
Survey Question
Open or
Closed?
Level of
Measuremen
t (nominal,
ordinal,
interval,
ratio)
Response
Options
RQ
Concept
being
measured
(from
emerging
conceptual
framework
The chance to do
something that makes
use of my abilities?
Closed Interval
Very satisfied,
satisfied,
neither,
dissatisfied,
very
dissatisfied
DV (1,2,3) Satisfaction
The feeling of
accomplishment I get
from the job?
Closed Interval
Very satisfied,
satisfied,
neither,
dissatisfied,
very
dissatisfied
DV (1,2,3) Satisfaction
Being able to keep
busy all the time?
Closed Interval
Very satisfied,
satisfied,
neither,
dissatisfied,
very
dissatisfied
DV (1,2,3) Satisfaction
The chances for
advancement on this
job?
Closed Interval
Very satisfied,
satisfied,
neither,
dissatisfied,
very
dissatisfied
DV (1,2,3) Satisfaction
The chance to tell
other people what to
do?
Closed Interval
Very satisfied,
satisfied,
neither,
dissatisfied,
very
dissatisfied
DV (1,2,3) Satisfaction
125
The way company
policies are put into
practice?
Closed Interval
Very satisfied,
satisfied,
neither,
dissatisfied,
very
dissatisfied
DV (1,2,3) Satisfaction
My pay and the
amount of work I
do?
Closed Interval
Very satisfied,
satisfied,
neither,
dissatisfied,
very
dissatisfied
DV (1,2,3) Satisfaction
The way my co-
workers get along
with each other?
Closed Interval
Very satisfied,
satisfied,
neither,
dissatisfied,
very
dissatisfied
DV (1,2,3) Satisfaction
The chance to try my
own methods of
doing the job?
Closed Interval
Very satisfied,
satisfied,
neither,
dissatisfied,
very
dissatisfied
DV (1,2,3) Satisfaction
The chance to work
alone on the job?
Closed Interval
Very satisfied,
satisfied,
neither,
dissatisfied,
very
dissatisfied
DV (1,2,3) Satisfaction
Being able to do
things that don't go
against my
conscience?
Closed Interval
Very satisfied,
satisfied,
neither,
dissatisfied,
very
dissatisfied
DV (1,2,3) Satisfaction
126
The praise I get for
doing a good job?
Closed Interval
Very satisfied,
satisfied,
neither,
dissatisfied,
very
dissatisfied
DV (1,2,3) Satisfaction
The freedom to use
my own judgment?
Closed Interval
Very satisfied,
satisfied,
neither,
dissatisfied,
very
dissatisfied
DV (1,2,3) Satisfaction
The way my job
provides for steady
employment?
Closed Interval
Very satisfied,
satisfied,
neither,
dissatisfied,
very
dissatisfied
DV (1,2,3) Satisfaction
The chance to do
things for other
people?
Closed Interval
Very satisfied,
satisfied,
neither,
dissatisfied,
very
dissatisfied
DV (1,2,3) Satisfaction
The chance to be
"somebody" in the
community?
Closed Interval
Very satisfied,
satisfied,
neither,
dissatisfied,
very
dissatisfied
DV (1,2,3) Satisfaction
The way my boss
handles his/her
employees?
Closed Interval
Very satisfied,
satisfied,
neither,
dissatisfied,
very
dissatisfied
DV (1,2,3) Satisfaction
127
The competence of
my supervisor in
making decisions?
Closed Interval
Very satisfied,
satisfied,
neither,
dissatisfied,
very
dissatisfied
DV (1,2,3) Satisfaction
The chance to do
differently things
from time to time?
Closed Interval
Very satisfied,
satisfied,
neither,
dissatisfied,
very
dissatisfied
DV (1,2,3) Satisfaction
The working
conditions?
Closed Interval
Very satisfied,
satisfied,
neither,
dissatisfied,
very
dissatisfied
DV (1,2,3) Satisfaction
My company's
telework/work from
home policy meets
my needs?
Closed Interval
Very satisfied,
satisfied,
neither,
dissatisfied,
very
dissatisfied
DV (1,2,3) Satisfaction
"Display logic if
disagree or strongly
disagree to the
previous question".
Please explain why
you selected
dissatisfied or very
dissatisfied with the
previous question"
please explain why
you selected disagree
or strongly disagree
to the question above
about your company's
telework policy
meeting your needs?
Open Nominal Open ended DV (1,2,3) Satisfaction
128
The way my boss
backs up his/her
employees (with top
management)?
Closed Interval
Very satisfied,
satisfied,
neither,
dissatisfied,
very
dissatisfied
Trust
(OModel)
Trust
(OModel)
Company policies
and the way in which
they are
administered?
Closed Interval
Very satisfied,
satisfied,
neither,
dissatisfied,
very
dissatisfied
Trust
(OModel)
Trust
(OModel)
The personal
relationship between
my boss and his/her
employees?
Closed Interval
Very satisfied,
satisfied,
neither,
dissatisfied,
very
dissatisfied
Trust
(OModel)
Trust
(OModel)
"Display logic if
disagree or strongly
disagree to the
previous question".
Please explain why
you selected
dissatisfied or very
dissatisfied with the
previous question
Open Nominal Open ended
Trust
(OModel)
Trust
(OModel)
The way my job
provides for a secure
future?
Closed Interval
Very satisfied,
satisfied,
neither,
dissatisfied,
very
dissatisfied
Sense of
Belonging
(OModel)
Sense of
Belonging
(OModel)
I feel like I belong at
this organization?
Closed Interval
Strongly
agree, agree,
neither,
disagree,
strongly
disagree
Sense of
Belonging
(OModel)
Sense of
Belonging
(OModel)
129
"Display logic if
disagree or strongly
disagree to the
previous question".
Please explain why
you feel like you do
not belong at this
organization?
Open Nominal Open ended
Sense of
Belonging
(OModel)
Sense of
Belonging
(OModel)
The way the
company treats its
employees?
Closed Interval
Very satisfied,
satisfied,
neither,
dissatisfied,
very
dissatisfied
Sense of
Belonging
(OModel)
Sense of
Belonging
(OModel)
"Display logic if
disagree or strongly
disagree to the
previous question".
Please explain why
you selected
dissatisfied or very
dissatisfied with the
previous question
Open Nominal Open ended
Sense of
Belonging
(OModel)
Sense of
Belonging
(OModel)
How my pay
compares with that
for similar jobs in
other companies?
Closed Interval
Very satisfied,
satisfied,
neither,
dissatisfied,
very
dissatisfied
Financial
Compensatio
n (OSetting)
Financial
Compensatio
n (OSetting)
How my pay
compares with that of
other workers at this
company?
Closed Interval
Very satisfied,
satisfied,
neither,
dissatisfied,
very
dissatisfied
Financial
Compensatio
n (OSetting)
Financial
Compensatio
n (OSetting)
I believe I am fairly
compensated for the
work I do?
Closed Interval
Strongly
agree, agree,
neither,
disagree,
strongly
disagree
Financial
Compensatio
n (OSetting)
Financial
Compensatio
n (OSetting)
130
I am taught the skills
I need to do my job
successfully?
Closed Interval
Strongly
agree, agree,
neither,
disagree,
strongly
disagree
Training
(OSetting)
Training
(OSetting)
The way my boss
trains his/her
employees?
Closed Interval
Very satisfied,
satisfied,
neither,
dissatisfied,
very
dissatisfied
Training
(OSetting)
Training
(OSetting)
The way my boss
provides help on hard
problems?
Closed Interval
Very satisfied,
satisfied,
neither,
dissatisfied,
very
dissatisfied
Training
(OSetting)
Training
(OSetting)
The way I am noticed
when I do a good
job?
Closed Interval
Very satisfied,
satisfied,
neither,
dissatisfied,
very
dissatisfied
Attribution-
employee
believe the
recognition
they receive
is due to
work effort
Attribution-
employee
believe the
recognition
they receive
is due to
work effort
The way I get full
credit for the work I
do?
Closed Interval
Very satisfied,
satisfied,
neither,
dissatisfied,
very
dissatisfied
Attribution-
employee
believe the
recognition
they receive
is due to
work effort
Attribution-
employee
believe the
recognition
they receive
is due to
work effort
The recognition I get
from leadership for
the work I do?
Closed Interval
Very satisfied,
satisfied,
neither,
dissatisfied,
very
dissatisfied
Attribution-
employee
believe the
recognition
they receive
is due to
work effort
Attribution-
employee
believe the
recognition
they receive
is due to
work effort
131
I can accomplish
what is expected of
me in my daily work?
Closed Interval
Strongly
agree, agree,
neither,
disagree,
strongly
disagree
Expectancy-
employees
believe they
will be
successful in
meeting
performance
goals
Expectancy-
employees
believe they
will be
successful in
meeting
performance
goals
I am capable of
meeting performance
goals set by the
organization?
Closed Interval
Strongly
agree, agree,
neither,
disagree,
strongly
disagree
Expectancy-
employees
believe they
will be
successful in
meeting
performance
goals
Expectancy-
employees
believe they
will be
successful in
meeting
performance
goals
My team will be able
to meet the annual
performance goals
established by
leadership?
Closed Interval
Strongly
agree, agree,
neither,
disagree,
strongly
disagree
Expectancy-
employees
believe they
will be
successful in
meeting
performance
goals
Expectancy-
employees
believe they
will be
successful in
meeting
performance
goals
The policies and
practices toward
employees of this
company are clear?
Closed Interval
Strongly
agree, agree,
neither,
disagree,
strongly
disagree
Job
Expectations
(Declarative)
- need to
know what
leadership
expects of
them to
execute their
job
Job
Expectations
(Declarative)
- need to
know what
leadership
expects of
them to
execute their
job
132
Do you feel as though
your job
responsibilities are
clearly defined?
Closed Interval
Strongly
agree, agree,
neither,
disagree,
strongly
disagree
Job
Expectations
(Declarative)
- need to
know what
leadership
expects of
them to
execute their
job
Job
Expectations
(Declarative)
- need to
know what
leadership
expects of
them to
execute their
job
"Display logic if
disagree or strongly
disagree to the
previous question".
Please explain why
you selected
dissatisfied or very
dissatisfied with the
previous question
Open Nominal Open ended
Job
Expectations
(Declarative)
- need to
know what
leadership
expects of
them to
execute their
job
Job
Expectations
(Declarative)
- need to
know what
leadership
expects of
them to
execute their
job
Is it clear to you what
your role/position
demands or requires
of you to meet your
company's
objectives?
Closed Interval
Strongly
agree, agree,
neither,
disagree,
strongly
disagree
Job
Expectations
(Declarative)
- need to
know what
leadership
expects of
them to
execute their
job
Job
Expectations
(Declarative)
- need to
know what
leadership
expects of
them to
execute their
job
"Display logic if
disagree or strongly
disagree to the
previous question".
Please explain why
you selected
dissatisfied or very
dissatisfied with the
previous question
Open Nominal Open ended
Job
Expectations
(Declarative)
- need to
know what
leadership
expects of
them to
execute their
job
Job
Expectations
(Declarative)
- need to
know what
leadership
expects of
them to
execute their
job
133
My Company gives
me the tools and
technologies I need to
do my job well
Closed Interval
Strongly
agree, agree,
neither,
disagree,
strongly
disagree
Job
Procedures
(Procedural)-
employees
need to know
all of the
procedures
and tasks that
go into
completing
daily work
Job
Procedures
(Procedural)-
employees
need to know
all of the
procedures
and tasks that
go into
completing
daily work
For most of my tasks,
I feel I receive all the
information I need to
perform my job well?
Closed Interval
Strongly
agree, agree,
neither,
disagree,
strongly
disagree
Job
Procedures
(Procedural)-
employees
need to know
all of the
procedures
and tasks that
go into
completing
daily work
Job
Procedures
(Procedural)-
employees
need to know
all of the
procedures
and tasks that
go into
completing
daily work
The company provide
me the training
needed to perform me
job effectively?
Closed Interval
Strongly
agree, agree,
neither,
disagree,
strongly
disagree
Job
Procedures
(Procedural)-
employees
need to know
all of the
procedures
and tasks that
go into
completing
daily work
Job
Procedures
(Procedural)-
employees
need to know
all of the
procedures
and tasks that
go into
completing
daily work
134
Appendix B: Information Sheet for Exempt Research
STUDY TITLE: Employee Satisfaction Factors and Influences: An Evaluation Study
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Kristina J Lindsey
FACULTY ADVISOR: Jennifer Phillips, D.L.S.
You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This document
explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to
you.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the employee satisfaction level at the organization.
Employee engagement and retention rates have been studied in the past yet there is no specific
data for employee satisfaction. You are invited to participate in this study as a current employee
in the IS Department.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
Participants will be asked to complete an anonymous survey via Qualtrics. The survey includes
48 multiple choice questions, 5 demographic questions and 5 open ended questions.
If you decide to take part, you will be asked to participate in an anonymous survey that will be
conducted via Qualtrics.
CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
Surveys will be conducted anonymously, and data will be held confidentially within the Qualtrics
tool.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact:
Primary Investigator: Kristina Lindsey, kjlindse@usc.edu
Faculty Advisor: Dr.Jennifer Phillips, jlp62386@usc.edu
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION.
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu
.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the employee satisfaction rate and factors and influences on satisfaction among employees who work in IT Departments of healthcare organizations in the United States. Specifically, I explored the relationship between the organizational influences (organizational trust, sense of belonging, compensation, and training), motivation influences (attribution and expectancy), knowledge influences (expectations from leadership and procedural knowledge), and their relationship to employee satisfaction. Four research questions guided this study: 1. What is the employee satisfaction rate in IT Departments within healthcare organizations? 2. What is the relationship between organizational context and culture and employee satisfaction in IT Departments within healthcare organizations? 3. What is the relationship between employee motivation and employee satisfaction in IT Departments within healthcare organizations? 4. What is the relationship between employee knowledge and employee satisfaction in IT Departments within healthcare organizations? Using a quantitative research design, online surveys were shared via social media through LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, and via email, seeking information technology (IT) employees working in a healthcare setting. The population size was 56 respondents. Multiple regression analysis with p-value and Pearson’s-r was used to explore the correlation between the dependent and independent variables. Results of the analysis found a positive correlation between employee satisfaction and the independent variables of trust, belonging, compensation, training, attribution motivation, expectancy motivation, and procedural knowledge. A positive correlation was found for compensation, training, and attribution. However, the mean of responses was below 75% for these variables, indicating a need to be developed to improve employee satisfaction. Recommendations were discussed for addressing these three variables.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Why are they still here: a look at employee retention amidst the COVID-19 pandemic
PDF
An evaluation of employee perceptions of onboarding experiences: an evaluation study
PDF
Optimizing leadership and strategy to develop an expenditure-reduction plan: an improvement study
PDF
Development of employee well-being initiatives to improve engagement and performance: an innovative study
PDF
The moderating role of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on employee turnover: A gap analysis
PDF
Taking the pulse on accountability: an innovation study
PDF
Reducing employee turnover through organizational identity
PDF
Leadership in an age of technology disruption: an evaluation study
PDF
Employee standardization for interchangeability across states: an improvement study
PDF
Managers’ learning transfer from the leadership challenge training to work setting: an evaluation study
PDF
Promoting well-being amid a global pandemic: evaluating the impact on nonprofit employees
PDF
The path to satisfaction, connection, and persistence: implementing a strategic and structured employee onboarding program: an innovation study
PDF
Influencing and motivating employee engagement: an exploratory study on employee engagement in organizational injury-prevention programs
PDF
Succession for success: an evaluation study of corporate strategy to improve employee satisfaction for women of color
PDF
Early to mid-career employee development: an exploratory study
PDF
The role of organizational leaders in creating sustainable diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in the workplace
PDF
Increasing financial aid resources available to support low-income first-generation college students: an evaluation study
PDF
Exploring mindfulness with employee engagement: an innovation study
PDF
The role of professional development and certification in technology worker turnover: An evaluation study
PDF
Employee engagement and leadership collaboration: a gap analysis of performance improvement teams in healthcare
Asset Metadata
Creator
Lindsey, Kristina JoAnn
(author)
Core Title
Employee satisfaction factors and influences: an evaluation study
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Degree Conferral Date
2022-05
Publication Date
04/15/2022
Defense Date
04/05/2022
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
employee satisfaction,OAI-PMH Harvest,retention,Satisfaction
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Phillips, Jennifer (
committee chair
), Canny, Eric (
committee member
), Hinga, Briana (
committee member
)
Creator Email
kjlindsey@yahoo.com,kristinajlindsey@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC110960494
Unique identifier
UC110960494
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Lindsey, Kristina JoAnn
Type
texts
Source
20220415-usctheses-batch-924
(batch),
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
employee satisfaction
retention