Lighting Is Our Business

World Is Our Market

Descriptive Study On Employee Satisfaction At AUTILOTE
INDIA LTD. Jaipur

By : Mr. Chandan Chowdhury

Mr. Ankur Shrivastav

BOARD OF DIRCTORS AT AUTOLITE INDIA LTD.

Shri Mahi Pal Gupta (Chairman & Managing Director)

Mr. Amit Mahipal Gupta (Director)

Mr. Adarsh Mahipal Gupta (Director)

Shri Gauri Shankar Das (Independent Director)

Shri Snehil Kumar (Independent Director)

Shri R.S. Mehta (Independent Director)

Shri Sooraj Prakash Batra (Independent Director)

Shri Kuldeep Kumar Gupta (Independent Director)

Introduction:

Employees are said to be the asset of the company. This is the bricks that build the organization and
represent it in the market. No company can grow with out the association of its employees. Each and
every growing company must have a lot of factors to look after; satisfaction of employee is one of
those. This is crucial to make a symbiotic relationship between employee & management. Higher
the satisfaction level, higher the productivity. There are lot of study has been done on this field to
find out the secret how to keep employees happy. Some of them are: Hawthorne studies (1924–
1933), Scientific management (Frederick Winslow Taylor’s, 1911) Maslow’s Hierarchy need theory.
In this environment for employee satisfaction, it is vitally important to know which
factors most affect employee satisfaction. You want to spend your time, money, and energy on
programs, processes, and factors that will have a positive impact on employee satisfaction. A 2009
survey, by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) “looked at 24 factors” that are
regularly thought to relate to employee satisfaction. The study found that employees identified these
five most important factors:

 job security
 compensation/pay
 opportunities to use skills and abilities
 feeling safe in the work environment
 benefits (especially health care) with the importance of retirement benefits rising with age of
the employee

The next five most important satisfaction factors for employees were:

 relationship with immediate supervisor,

 management recognition of employee job performance,
 communication between employees and senior management,
 the work itself, and
 autonomy and independence.

Factors that did were not strongly connected to employee satisfaction included: “the organization’s
commitment to a ‘green’ workplace, networking, career development opportunities, paid training
and tuition reimbursement programs, and organization’s commitment to professional development.”

In contrast, Human Resources professionals ranked these ten factors as most important in employee
satisfaction:
  job security,
 relationship with immediate supervisor,
 benefits,
 communication between employees and senior management,
 opportunities to use skills and abilities,
 management recognition of employee job performance,
 job-specific training,
 feeling safe in the work environment,
 compensation/pay, and
 overall corporate culture.

Apart from all, we can also measure the satisfaction level of the employee so that company can cut
down the employee turn over ratio by reducing the grievance. Otherwise company’s expense
towards the employee would be higher and the human resource accounting goes negative.
One of the mentionable measures to develop the strategy is exit interview.

The exit interview with a terminating employee is your opportunity to obtain information about what
your organization is doing well - and, what your organization needs to do to improve. Used in
concert with employee satisfaction surveys, exit interviews are a rich source of information for
organization improvement. Exit interviews are key to organization improvement since rarely will
you receive such frank feedback from current employees. You’ll find that some items were
resolvable with earlier information but others are not, such as the desire for a large salary increase.

Unfortunately, if you are learning improvement ideas or employee concerns at the exit interview, it
is too late to take action to improve or help the exiting employee. The best time for an employee to
discuss concerns, dissatisfactions and suggestions with his employer is while he is a committed
employee, not on his way out the door. Make sure your organization provides multiple opportunities
to gather and learn from employee feedback, including surveys, department meetings, comment or
suggestion forms, and more.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:
Review of literature plays an important role in understanding the intensive & extensive study on a
particular field. There are lot of people who has done research on the concerned topic. I am taking
the reference of those research paper.

Eskildsen and Nussler (2000) suggest that employers are fighting to get talented employees in order
to maintain a prosperous business. Ray Hammer (2000) as well as many other researchers/authors
agree.

Mark Parrott (2000) believes that, there is a straight line between employee satisfaction and
customer satisfaction. He believes that today’s employees pose a complete new set of challenges,
especially when businesses are forced to confront one of the tightest labor markets in decades.

Employees that are satisfied and happy in with their jobs are more dedicated to doing a good job and
taking care of customers that sustain the operation (Hammer 2000; Marini 2000; Denton 2000). Job
satisfaction is something that working people seek and a key element of employee retention.

Research has shown that there may be many environmental features that can be created and
maintained to give employees job satisfaction. Pay and benefits, communication (Brewer 2000;
Employee 2000; Money 2000; Wagner 2000), motivation, justice (Kirby 2000; Tristram 2000) and
leisure time (Rabbit 2000; Wilson 2000) all seem to play a part as to whether employees are satisfied
with their jobs, according to studies.

A Watson Wyatt Worldwide study found that the practice of maintaining a collegial, flexible
workplace is associated with the second-largest increase in shareholder value (nine percent),
suggesting that employee satisfaction is directly related to financial gain.

According to the Sociotechnical approach (e.g., Emery & Trist, 1960), organizational performance
depends on congruence between the technical and social structures of the organization. Building on
this notion, the Human Relations perspective posits that satisfied workers are productive workers
(e.g., Likert, 1961; McGregor, 1960).

Ostroff (1992), studying a sample of 364 schools, investigated the relationship between employees’
attitudes and organizational performance. Ostroff found that aggregated teacher attitudes such as job
satisfaction and organizational commitment were concurrently related to school performance, as
measured by several performance outcomes such as student academic achievement and teacher
turnover rates.
Ryan, Schmitt, and Johnson (1996) investigated similar relationships between aggregated
employee attitudes, firm productivity, and customer satisfaction. The authors measured these
relationships at two points in time from 142 branches of an auto finance company. Results indicated
employee morale was related to subsequent business performance indicators, customer satisfaction
sentiments, and turnover ratios.
Schneider et al. (2003) report analyses of employee attitude survey data aggregated to the
organizational level of analysis. These authors explored the relationships between several facets
of employee satisfaction and organizational financial (return on assets; ROA) and market
performance (earnings per share; EPS) using data from 35 organizations over a period of eight
years.

In a unique study conducted by Harter et al. (2002), the authors conducted a metaanalysis
of studies previously conducted by The Gallup Organization. The study examined
aggregated employee job satisfaction sentiments and employee engagement, with the latter
variable referring to individual’s involvement with as well as enthusiasm for work. Based on
7,939 business units in 36 organizations, the researchers found positive and substantive
correlations between employee satisfaction-engagement and the business unit outcomes of
productivity, profit, employee turnover, employee accidents, and customer satisfaction. More
importantly, these researchers explored the practical utility of the observed relationships.

Variable of study:
 salary/incentive
 interpersonal relationship
 company’s policy
Objective of the study:

 Understand the level of job satisfaction among the employees

 Identify the key factors that are responsible for increasing satisfaction towards job
 Identify those factors that are not working positively
 Increase the overall productivity level of employees in the concerned organization

Hypothesis:

H0 : Employees at Autolite Ltd are not satisfied with the management system.

Research Methodology:

Title: “Descriptive study on employee satisfaction at AUTILOTE INDIA LTD. Jaipur”

Nature: This is a descriptive type of research.

Sample Design:
Population: All Labours working at Autolite ltd.
Sampling Extent: Study is carried out in Jaipur.
Sampling Element: Individual Trained Labours.
Sampling Size: 40 Labours ( Males)
Sampling Method: Non-Probability Judgement Method.

Data Collection:
Self Designed Questionnaire with Likert Scale in the point of 1 to 5, Where 1 is for minium and 5
for maxium.

Data Analysis:
 Inter item correlation
 Factor analysis
 T test

Data pattern:
Here we feed the data from questionnaire into SPSS data sheet & run the query of central tendency,
standard deviation & parametric nature of data by kurtosis. The classified pattern of data analysis are
plotted below.
Statistics

Your Company’s

jobrole shift incentive bonus overtime contribution leave workload interrelation intrarelation welfare contribution

N Valid 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mean 4.8750 3.9750 3.9000 4.0750 3.9000 4.6250 4.7000 4.4750 4.6750 4.5500 4.6250 4.5250

Median 5.0000 4.0000 4.0000 4.0000 4.0000 5.0000 5.0000 5.0000 5.0000 5.0000 5.0000 5.0000

Std. Deviation .33493 .65974 .74421 .69384 .77790 .54006 .51640 .67889 .57233 .50383 .58562 .50574

Skewness -2.357 .026 -.228 -.100 -.165 -1.044 -1.482 -.940 -1.608 -.209 -1.323 -.104

Std. Error of
.374 .374 .374 .374 .374 .374 .374 .374 .374 .374 .374 .374
Skewness

Kurtosis 3.741 -.567 -.193 -.827 -.515 .084 1.376 -.240 1.754 -2.062 .864 -2.097

Std. Error of
.733 .733 .733 .733 .733 .733 .733 .733 .733 .733 .733 .733
Kurtosis

Minimum 4.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00

Maximum 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

Summary Item Statistics

Maximum /
Mean Minimum Maximum Range Minimum Variance N of Items

Item Means 4.408 3.900 4.875 .975 1.250 .120 12

Item Variances .366 .112 .605 .493 5.394 .021 12

Interpretation:
From the above analysis, we can conclude that the data are not perfectly parametric. The data has
some asymmetric pattern that’s why the deviation between mean & median are not very much.
Reliability test:
Reliability is a measure of how much of the variability in the observed scores actually represent s
variability in the underlying true score. As per the test, it should be greater than .o8 in the scale.

Case Processing Summary

N %

Cases Valid 40 100.0

Excludeda 0 .0

Total 40 100.0

.
Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Cronbach's Standardized
a
Alpha Itemsa N of Items

.834 .320 12

Item-Total Statistics

Cronbach's
Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Squared Multiple Alpha if Item
Item Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation Correlation Deleted

jobrole 48.0250 3.615 -.075 .509 -.201a

shift 48.9250 3.097 .043 .490 -.304a

incentive 49.0000 3.282 -.076 .357 -.185a

bonus 48.8250 3.122 .011 .294 -.276a

overtime 49.0000 2.256 .329 .515 -.744a

yourcontribution 48.2750 3.076 .139 .421 -.364a

leave 48.2000 3.497 -.069 .353 -.196a

workload 48.4250 3.840 -.252 .310 -.025a

interrelation 48.2250 4.128 -.354 .315 .018

intrarelation 48.3500 3.772 -.202 .305 -.105a

welfare 48.2750 3.333 -.021 .361 -.235a

companiescontribution 48.3750 3.676 -.155 .339 -.136a

Interpretation:
The cronbach’s alpha for the scale is 0.834 which is greater than 0.5. thus we can say that our scaling
method is acceptable. The inter item co relation are also high, means our questionnaire are designed
correctly & applicable for the study.

T test:

Here we applied one sample T test to identify whether the null hypothesis is accepted or not based
on significance value.
Objective: To identify whether the employees at AUTOLITE LTD. are satisfied with the
management or not.
H0 : Employees at AUTOLITE LTD. are not satisfied with the company’s policy.

RESULT:

One-Sample Test

Test Value = .05

 95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference

t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Lower Upper

jobrole 91.111 39 .000 4.82500 4.7179 4.9321

shift 37.627 39 .000 3.92500 3.7140 4.1360

incentive 32.719 39 .000 3.85000 3.6120 4.0880

bonus 36.689 39 .000 4.02500 3.8031 4.2469

overtime 31.302 39 .000 3.85000 3.6012 4.0988

yourcontribution 53.577 39 .000 4.57500 4.4023 4.7477

leave 56.951 39 .000 4.65000 4.4848 4.8152

workload 41.223 39 .000 4.42500 4.2079 4.6421

interrelation 51.109 39 .000 4.62500 4.4420 4.8080

intrarelation 56.488 39 .000 4.50000 4.3389 4.6611

welfare 49.409 39 .000 4.57500 4.3877 4.7623

companiescontribution 55.963 39 .000 4.47500 4.3133 4.6367

Interpretation:
The test result shows that the value of significance of all items are remain same i.e 0.00 that is
lesser than the test value i.e 0.05.
Thus we reject the null hypothesis & conclude that Employees at AUTOLITE INDIA LTD. Are
satisfied with the management & their policy.

Factor analysis:
Objective: To find out the underline factors of employee satisfaction & their weight age to overall
result.
KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .332

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 88.267

df 66

Sig. .035

Interpretation:
The test indicates that whether the sample size is applicable for factor analysis or not. The condition
for go further is KMO>0.6. But the observed value is 0.332. So it is not perfect method to
categorize the items.
 COMPONENT
Items 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Incentive .701

Overtime .663

Leave -.546

Companiescontrib

ution

Jobrole .762

yourcontribution .609

Interrelation -.648 .539

Welfare .593

shift .605

workload -.518 -.527

bonus .590 .528

interrelation -.557

Interpretation:
From the above test of factor analysis it is found that it is very hard to categorization the items into
satisfaction level parameter. Though there are some categorizations in the above table but it is hard to club
on aggregate.

Conclusion & implication:

 Employees at the concerned company are found to be satisfied
 Company should focus on welfare programme
 Worker-worker relationship are not satisfactory
 Company should highlight the issue of communication with the employees
 This study helps you to understand the how the inter/intra relation affects the employee satisfaction
level in the organization globally.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Spreng, R.A., & MacKoy, R.D. (1996), “An empirical examination of a model of perceived service
quality and satisfaction”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 72, No.2, pp. 248-53.
Bitner, M.J. (1990), “Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings and
employee responses”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, April, pp. 69-82.

Bolton, R.N., & Drew, J.H. (1991), “A multistage model of customers’ assessments of service
quality and value”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17, March, pp.375-84.

Jordan, Brigitte with Monique Lambert(2009)

Working in Corporate Jungles: Reflections on Ethnographic Praxis in Industry. Chapter
in: Ethnography and the Corporate Encounter: Reflections on Research In and
Corporations. Melissa Cefkin, ed. New York: Berghahn Books.

Ruhleder, Karen and Brigitte Jordan(1996)

Wiring "The New Organization”: Integrating Collaborative Technologies and Team
Based Work. Ruhleder, Karen, Brigitte Jordan and Michael Elmes. Best Paper Award,
Academy of Management, Organizational Communication and Information Systems
Division, Cincinnati, OH, August 13, 1996.