Management Report Project on Work Performance

Management Report Project on Work Performance

Abstract The objective of this research is to find out if there is any correlation between work performance and job satisfaction through a sample study of sales personnel working in different banks. Additionally, this research sought to understand whether job satisfaction is linked to both work motivation and employee’s perceived style of leadership by Managers. With the help of surveys and interviews conducted with the participants, it was established that job satisfaction was positively related with work productivity.

Similar essay: Argyles Communication Cycle

Work motivation and employee’s perceived style of leadership were also established as positively related with employee job satisfaction. These findings suggest that to increase work productivity, managers may be required to elevate the level of job satisfaction in employees, which may be potentially accomplished via a participative approach to leadership and effective motivation of employees. However, as the study is correlational in nature, the limitations of the current research are indicated under Discussion. Literature Review

Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Productivity The most-used research definition of job satisfaction is by Locke (1976), who defined it as “a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences”. There are other researchers and studies that support this notion of relationship between job satisfaction and productivity indicating that organizations increasing job satisfaction is not only to benefit its employee but also for the organization financial advantages.

As cited by Edward E. Lawler, job satisfaction is related to productivity as this comes from a path goal theory of motivation that has been stated by Georgopoulos, Mahoney and Jones, Vroom, Lawler and Porter. According to them, people are motivated to do things which lead to rewards that they value. In this case, a path-goal theory would predict that high satisfaction will lead to low turnover and absenteeism because the satisfied individual is motivated to go to work where his needs are being satisfied.

As quoted by Dailey and Kirk, 1992, job satisfaction and organisational commitment share an inverse relationship with absenteeism and turnover intention, factors that can sharply cut bottom line. Adverse consequences include lower productivity and morale, and higher cost of hiring, retention and training. Thus, the reverse holds true whereby lower frequencies of absenteeism and turnover could lead to potentially higher contribution to organisational economic productive gains.

In a research done by National Research Institute for one of the largest Food Services providers in the United States, it was suspected that employee satisfaction was the cause for high employee absenteeism, ruling out other tangible factors. Findings showed that low job satisfaction was evident; the National Business Research Institute (NBRI) Root Cause Analysis indicated that a gap existed between employees and the organization’s short and long term goals, vision, and mission.

Proposed recommendations from NBRI included several measures to relay management’s strategic plans to the lowest-ranked employee and ensuring each and every employee’s daily activities were aligned according to such plans. Thereafter, subsequent employee survey results showed significant increases on employee satisfaction, enhancing Total Company Employee Satisfaction dramatically.

Employee Satisfaction Scores took a turn for the better, from a Weakness (below the 50th percentile of the NBRI Normative Database) to being Strength (above the 75th percentile of the NBRI Normative Database) in only six months. What’s more, employee absenteeism was reduced by more than 60%. With this correlation, Organ (1988) found that the job performance and job satisfaction relationship follows the social exchange theory in which employees’ performance constitute a giving back to the organization from which they get their satisfaction.

Recognising the fact that low job satisfaction leads to low productivity, in turn aggravating organisational performance, it is imperative organizations assess the strength of the relationship between employee job satisfaction and productivity level because of underlying implications on redesigning certain aspects of work. A study was conducted by Shanu and Gole (2008) on the satisfaction level of 100 managers from 15 private manufacturing firms. A job satisfaction instrument assessing areas such as recognition, monetary remuneration, working conditions, nature of job, and future advancement was used.

Then, these survey findings were compared with performance evaluations done by executives of assorted companies. In the wake of this, it was discovered that performance levels are consistent with high satisfaction scores. This is congruent with a review of 301 studies, revealing that job satisfaction bolsters up work performance, with a higher inclination towards professional jobs, compared to less complex jobs (see Saari & Judge, 2004). While there are studies to show this correlation, the present study was concerned with whether job satisfaction is significantly associated with performance in the economic aspect.

In a study conducted on 42 manufacturing companies, Patterson, Warr, and West (2004) found that- holding other factors like company size, previous productivity, and industrial sector constant- productivity (financial value of net sales per employee) is positively correlated to job satisfaction In another study, Herzberg et al. (1959) stated that (positive) satisfaction is due to good experiences, and that these are due to `motivators’ – achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility and advancement.

Dissatisfaction is due to bad experiences caused by `hygiene’ factors – supervisors, fellow workers, company policy, working conditions, and personal life (Herzberg et al. , 1959). Therefore, it is unable to ascertain if job satisfaction is positively correlated with economic productivity or whether an inverse relationship exists. The present study seeks to reaffirm findings from the bulk of research in favour of the notion that satisfied employees are more labour productive. Relationship between Motivation and Job Satisfaction

The level of performance of employees relies not only on their actual skills but also on the level of motivation each person exhibits (Burney et al. , 2007). A motivational framework, built on the premise of how employees should be managed, affects job satisfaction. Herzberg’s (1959) two-factor theory of motivation attributes ‘pay and benefits’ to one of the hygiene factors, in that the exclusion of this causes job dissatisfaction (Hugh Greenway & Tim Runacre, 2008). As Argyle (1989) explains, positive job atisfaction is due to motivators such as achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility, and advancement, while dissatisfaction is due to bad experiences caused by hygiene factors such as salary, supervision, company policy, relations with fellow workers, and conditions of work. Lawler (1973) has a theory known as discrepancy theory which states that workers measure job satisfaction based on what they receive versus what they expect to receive, and a comparison in which an actual outcome level is lower than an expected outcome level would lead to dissatisfaction (Castillo & Cano, 2004).

However, in another theory of motivation known as equity theory, it states that motivation is affected by workers’ perception of how fairly they are being treated, with employees evaluating their inputs/outcomes by comparing them with the inputs/outcomes of others (Castillo & Cano, 2004; Luthans & Doh, 2009). If the ratio of inputs to outcomes is similar to the inputs and outcomes of others, equity exists. Inequity exists when the ratio of inputs to outcomes is unequal to the inputs and outcomes of others (Castillo & Cano, 2004; Luthans & Doh, 2009).

Job satisfaction is then associated with the perception of equity, while perceptions of inequity will result in dissatisfaction with this belief having a negative effect on job performance (Castillo & Cano, 2004; Luthans & Doh, 2009). The common factors shared by the different theories of motivation are the implication of a need for effective motivation in order to make employees satisfied with their jobs. Castillo and Cano (2004) examining in an earlier study on 148 faculty members reported that all of the job motivator factors identified by Herzberg (1959) were moderately or substantially related to overall job satisfaction.

Such findings shed light on how organisations can enhance productivity by considering provision of motivators such as recognition or improving on such motivators so as to heighten job satisfaction. In order to attain optimal profits, it is necessary to ascertain the link between motivation and job satisfaction through extensive foraging for substantial evidence. Most importantly, the present study will illustrate that existence of motivators to propel employees to reach for organisational goals has a favourable impact on labour productivity via enhancement of job satisfaction.

Leadership Style and Job Satisfaction In an organisation, the performance of staff is not only affected by motivation and job satisfaction but it is also affected by the leadership style adopted by the organisation. Leadership is defined as a process through which others are influenced to channel their efforts in the direction of attaining their goals (Luthans & Doh, 2009). Organizational leadership sets the tone in the effectiveness of organizations, as well as plays a vital role in job satisfaction.

Positive interactions among organisational leaders and members give rise to mutual respect, trust, and the ability to generate a sense of hope for the future- a much needed ingredient for job satisfaction to blossom from such relationships (Ackfeldt& Coote, 2005; Farh, Podsakoff, & Organ, 1990). Moreover, there is research that shows the existence of the relationship between leadership style and job satisfaction. The National Business Research Institute (2007), examining factors of job satisfaction, surveyed more than 15,000 employees, largely white collar, from all levels of participating organizations in the United States.

Leadership is identified as the prominent factor contributing to job satisfaction, a phenomenon evident in organizations. There is a relationship between managers’ leadership styles and employees’ job satisfaction, illustrated in a sample of 814 employees of a national hospital. According to Rad and Yarmohammadian (2006), a strong correlation between leadership behaviours and job satisfaction prevails, citing that employee job satisfaction depends upon the style of leadership of managers.

It was realised that a trend emerged from studying the sample group; a participative leadership style of managers dominates where this is a style of leadership in which subordinates are led through a reliance on task-oriented and people-oriented approaches. In Luthans and Doh (2009) findings, participative leaders adopt a non-authoritative tone, empowering employees, together with consulting with them, delegating responsibilities, and enabling mutual decision-making. As well, another study on the influence of leadership style on job satisfaction included 220 individuals coming from diverse industries like manufacturing, education, and overnment. Research findings showed a consistency with the earlier sample study, denoting that task and relational leadership style were positively associated with subordinate job satisfaction (Madlock, 2008). In all, it is essential to bear in mind that participative approach to leadership comprising task and relational behaviours may not be the best “one style fits all” style of management due to the vast differences among organization’s cultures, leaving one to engage in other styles of leadership where appropriate. (Yarmohammadian, 2006).

Among other things, participative leadership is more popular in technologically advanced nations and may increasingly abound as countries mature economically (Luthans & Doh, 2009). Therefore, it is vital to further justify through the current study if job satisfaction increases via participative leadership style. If such a relationship is confirmed, it is assumed that job satisfaction shares a positive association with productivity; participative leadership by managers could potentially boost employee productivity. The Current Study

The present study examined the relationship between job satisfaction and productivity where respondents are seventy-three employees working in 2 local and 2 foreign banks based in Singapore. The intent is to affirm if employees’ level of work motivation and managerial leadership style gives rise to varying levels of job satisfaction. The participants in the study were Relationship Managers recruited from the sales departments of the local banks, namely United Overseas Bank (UOB) and Post Office Savings Bank (POSB), as well as from the foreign banks Standard Chartered and Citibank N.

A. The scope of work required by the employees across the different organizations was similar, with the Relationship Managers being responsible for revenue generation by selling financial products. These organizations were selected for the present study to ascertain whether job satisfaction relates to employee economic performance in terms of labour productivity. In the banking sales sector, where productivity is measured in terms of financial value of net sales per employee, this provides a pecific measure of the construct and permit correlational analysis with job satisfaction scores, precisely the reason for the choice of the banking sales sector being the main subject of this present research. Three instruments assessing work motivation, leadership style of managers, and job satisfaction were given to the participants. Participants could respond freely to the survey questions according to their own perceptions. Every participant’s labour productivity figures were provided by the respective managers of the four sales departments.

Lastly, the Method furnished additional details regarding the assessment instruments. Hypotheses It was anticipated that labour productivity would be positively associated with job satisfaction. It was also predicted that both work motivation and employees’ perceived use by managers of participative leadership would be positively related to job satisfaction. Method Participants One Hundred working adults, out of which 50 were females and 50 were males, aged from 21 to 40 (M= 30. 9 years, SD= 5. 37) constitute the respondents for this study.

These respondents, each having worked in these banks from 1 to 10 years (M= 5. 41, SD= 2. 58), were chosen from the sales acquisition departments within the main branches of 2 local banks and 2 foreign banks based in Singapore. Materials The tools required for the purposes of the present study come in three different assessments. Firstly, using The Leadership Style Questionnaire by Northouse (2001) measures task and relational leadership style to collate a general leadership profile representative of the participative approach to leadership.

According to Anderson, Madlock & Hoffman, 2006 (cited in Madlock 2008), this instrument has reported scale reliabilities ranging from 0. 92 to 0. 95, and comprises 20 items measuring task and relational leadership styles on a 5-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree). The second instrument, adapted from the Work Motivation Behavior Scale of the Akinboye’s 2001 Executive Behavior Battery, is a 15-item questionnaire incorporating a 4-point Likert scale (1= strongly agree to 4= strongly disagree).

The third item measuring job satisfaction was rated by the 8-item Abridged Job in General scale (Russell, Spitzmtiller, Lin, Stanton, Smith & Ironson 2004, cited in Madlock 2008) that was based on a 5-point Likert scale response (1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree). The Abridged Job in General scale was reportedly said to have a reliability of 0. 87 (Russell et al. 2004, cited in Madlock 2008). Attached in Appendix 1, 2, and 3 respectively is a copy of the Leadership Style Questionnaire, the Work Motivation Instrument, and the Abridged Job in General scale.

Apart from these data obtained from the research instruments, branch department mangers provided the labour productivity of each employee based on the financial value of the nets sales revenue per month per employee for the past 12 months. Procedure A telephone discussion with each of the four banks’ main branch’s sales acquisition departments’ managers on the possibility of conducting a study investigating the links between leadership style, employee motivation, and job satisfaction which in turn predicts productivity was done.

After consenting to the terms of the research, the researcher scheduled a half hour for the employees of each of the four banks at a time convenient to them. Meanwhile, delivery of the informed consent form and instructions for the three assessments, packed in an envelope, was arranged to each participant. All participants were given an explanation regarding the nature of the research, including clearing any doubts they might have, pertaining to the research. Sealed envelopes containing the questionnaires completed and handed by the participants to the respective manager would be collected from the latter in a week’s time.

On the same day of collection, the month-end financial net sales figures of each employee for the duration of the past 12 months were obtained from the managers in order to compute monthly mean sales revenue figures as an index of labour productivity for each participant Results A computation of statistics for each assessment tool was done. The mean of job satisfaction was 23. 88 (N= 100, SD= 2. 46), the mean work motivation score was 38. 76 (N= 100, SD= 3. 94), while the mean score of employees’ perception of leadership style was 83. 98 (N= 100, SD= 6. 10).

Monthly financial net sales figures for the past 12 months of each participant were to yield mean monthly sales revenue figures after which the mean of the averaged monthly sales revenue figures of all participants was found to be 14,265. 62 (N= 100, SD= 2,653. 47). Simple regression regressed productivity on job satisfaction. Results show that job satisfaction was positively associated with productivity, accounting for 20. 04% of the variance in productivity (R= 0. 66, p; . 001). Through multiple regression analysis, it was found that motivation and perceived leadership style affected the varying levels in job satisfaction scores.

Work motivation and perceived leadership style were both positively correlated with job satisfaction, accounting for 19. 5% (R= 0. 66, p; . 001) and 16. 26% (R= 0. 24, p; . 001) of the variance in job satisfaction respectively. Discussion The present study, conducted on a pool of white collar professionals, looked into the relationship between labour productivity and job satisfaction, as well as examined whether job satisfaction was associated with work motivation and employees’ perceptions of managerial leadership style.

Results tabulated from the survey which was measured utilizing self, peers or supervisor assessment indicate that job satisfaction was moderately correlated with labour productivity, a finding that lends support to the body of research suggesting that greater job satisfaction is indicative of higher work performance (Argyle, 1989; Saari & Judge, 2004; Shahu & Gole, 2008).

However, even when the economic aspect of performance, or more specifically, of labour productivity was examined, average job satisfaction still indicates to be correlated significantly with performance, as consistent with Patterson M, 2004 study of 42 manufacturing companies indicating that company mean overall job satisfaction was significantly associated with and predictive of economic performance.

However, even with the result that accounts for such relationship between work productivity and job satisfaction, it is difficult to infer that job satisfaction is the direct cause to that outcome. As it is widely known that correlation does not equate to causation, it cannot be concluded with certainty that satisfied employees evidence greater productivity as a consequence of their being satisfied with their jobs, as the reverse could be true that productivity actually accounts for job satisfaction or a third variable could influence the outcome of the relationship between both.

As for the third variable there is some evidence to suggest that redesigning jobs to enhance job features such as task identity, task significance, skill variety, autonomy, and feedback may increase job satisfaction (Argyle, 1989), as it has been proposed that such features provide job satisfaction (Hackman & Oldham, 1980, cited in Argyle, 1989). What can be extrapolated from the findings of the current study is that job satisfaction makes up a proportion of the variance in employee productivity.

This implies that a focus on improving employees’ level of satisfaction with their jobs may elevate labour productivity figures. Motivation and Job Satisfaction The findings obtained from the present study suggest that work motivation is positively associated with job satisfaction. Most research has indicated moderate to substantial correlations between Herzberg’s (1959) job motivator factors and overall job satisfaction (Castillo & Cano, 2004) which is no surprise that there is a positive correlation between both.

If motivators such as recognition, achievement, nature of the work, advancement and responsibility determine job satisfaction as purported by Herzberg (1959), then motivating employees via a focus on improving such aspects of a job may serve to make individuals more satisfied with their jobs. Castillo and Cano (2004) found that amongst the job motivator factors that were associated with job satisfaction amongst college faculty members, recognition best explained the variance among faculty members’ overall level of job satisfaction.

Interestingly, Herzberg’s (1959) assumption that hygiene factors relate to or determine dissatisfaction was supported, as it was found that the factor of working conditions was the least motivating aspect of faculty members’ jobs, implying that employees were least satisfied with the context in which their job was performed (Castillo & Cano, 2004).

Management may thus need to seek out creative methods to motivate workers by providing opportunities for advancement, achievement, and through the cultivation of a sense of responsibility and autonomy as individuals are motivated to excel because of intrinsic needs such as achievement, recognition, self-development, and meaning derived from performing work. More importantly, what Castillo and Cano’s (2004) findings suggest is that work should provide recognition through acts of notice or praise by colleagues, superiors, and management to increase job satisfaction.

In the studies that have reported relationships between job satisfaction and work performance, it has been noted by Argyle (1989) that the correlations are greater for employees in supervisory or professional jobs. Also, job satisfaction predicts performance, with the relationship being even stronger for professional jobs could be due to the possibility that in such jobs, job performance is less contingent on external pressures such as task speed or wage incentives and more on motivation (Argyle, 1989).

To the degree therefore that work performance or productivity depends upon employees’ level of job satisfaction, motivation at work holds an indispensable role particularly with respect to white-collar professional jobs in terms of its potential influence on job satisfaction. To conclude if motivation directly determines job performance are well beyond the scope of the current study.

Further research is thus warranted in this area that will permit inferences about whether work motivation causes job satisfaction or work performance, or whether job satisfaction instead influences motivation. Leadership Style and Job Satisfaction In the present study, leadership style was indicated to be positively related to employee job satisfaction. This finding is of value because it supports the research findings that indicate that leadership behaviour of managers has an important influence on subordinate job satisfaction (Madlock, 2008).

It appears from the current findings that as the perceived use by employees of a participative style of leadership in which task-centered and people-centered approaches are combined to lead subordinates, employees are more satisfied with their jobs. Such a finding is of direct relevance to organizations because the present research has also indicated a link between employee job satisfaction and work productivity in such a manner that increased levels of job satisfaction are associated with increased labour productivity.

Thus, the extension of the current research by investigating the link between employees’ perceived leadership style of managers and job satisfaction provides organizations with a further area of focus to potentially maximize job satisfaction and thus to enhance performance of employees. Conclusion The organizational goal of helping employees find satisfaction in their work should be one of paramount importance, as it may be to the mutual benefit of the employer and employee. The present study suggests that employees tend to perform more productively when they are satisfied with their jobs.

In order to capitalize on employee job satisfaction to potentially increase performance of employees, ways of maximizing job satisfaction may encompass managing workers by selecting a participative style of leadership, as well as by motivating employees by ensuring that relevant intrinsic needs such as recognition are fulfilled though appropriate restructuring of the job. Such endeavours may then be advantageous for organizations in terms of productivity gains in the likelihood that job satisfaction is improved upon. Appendix 1 LEADERSHIP STYLE AND WORKPLACE QUESTIONNAIRE

Directions: Think about how often your immediate supervisor engages in the described behaviour. For each item, select the number that best represents the behaviour that your immediate supervisor is most likely to exhibit. 1 Strongly disagree2Disagree 3Neutral 4Agree 5Strongly agree My immediate supervisor… 1. Tells group members what they are supposed to do. 1 2 3 4 5 2. Acts friendly with members of the group. 1 2 3 4 5 3. Sets standards of performance for group members. 1 2 3 4 5 4. Helps others feel comfortable in the group. 1 2 3 4 5 5.

Makes suggestions on how to solve problems. 1 2 3 4 5 6. Responds favorably to suggestions made by others. 1 2 3 4 5 7. Makes his or her perspective clear to others. 1 2 3 4 5 8. Treats others fairly. 1 2 3 4 5 9. Develops a plan of action for the group. 1 2 3 4 5 10. Behaves in a predictable manner toward group members. 1 2 3 4 5 11. Defines role responsibilities for each group member. 1 2 3 4 5 12. Communicates actively with group members. 1 2 3 4 5 13. Clarifies his or her own role within the group. 1 2 3 4 5 14.

Shows concern for the personal well-being of others. 1 2 3 4 5 15. Provides a plan for how the work is to be done. 1 2 3 4 5 16. Shows flexibility in making decisions. 1 2 3 4 5 17. Provides criteria for what is expected of the group. 1 2 3 4 5 18. Discloses thoughts and feelings to group members. 1 2 3 4 5 19. Encourages group members to do quality work. 1 2 3 4 5 20. Helps group members get along. 1 2 3 4 5 Appendix 2 HOW MOTIVATED ARE YOU IN DOING YOUR JOB The following questions ask you how motivated you are in completing your job.

Please indicate your response based on the following scale. (1 Strongly Agree to 4 Strongly Disagree) 1. You always put in your best effort in the things you do. 1 2 3 4 2. You exceed what you are suppose to accomplished 1 2 3 4 3. Your environment affects your mood in performing your task 1 2 3 4 4. You have a group of helpful colleagues that make your work pleasant 1 2 3 4 5. Your pay is low so you perform at the minimum. 1 2 3 4 6. You work just to satisfy your basic needs 1 2 3 4 7. To have career advancement is important to you. 1 2 3 4 8.

If you are lowly paid but given recognition for you work, you feel good. 1 2 3 4 9. You feel you are part of the organisation. 1 2 3 4 10. Do you feel enthusiastic about your current job. 1 2 3 4 11. Do you feel enthusiastic if you are given a new job scope 1 2 3 4 12. Are you looking forward to achieve the organisation goal. 1 2 3 4 13. You feel discourage when you are asked to perform a new task 1 2 3 4 14. You feel that you are important to the organisation 1 2 3 4 15. Overall, you feel the organisation plans for your future. 1 2 3 4

Appendix 3 HOW SATISFIED ARE YOU WITH YOUR JOB QUESTIONNAIRE The following questions ask you about how you feel about your job at work everyday and how satisfied are you. Please indicate your agreement or disagreement on the following statements by indicating your appropriate response based on the following scale. 1 Strongly disagree2Disagree 3Neutral 4Agree 5Strongly agree 1. At this very moment, I am very enthusiastic about my work. 1 2 3 4 5 2. Right now, I feel fairly satisfied with my present job. 1 2 3 4 5 3. At present, each moment at work seems like it will never end. 1 2 3 4 5 4.

At this moment, I am finding enjoyment in my work. 1 2 3 4 5 5. Right now, I consider my job rather unpleasant. 1 2 3 4 5 6. My job gives me a sense of achievement. 1 2 3 4 5 7. The amount of support and guidance I receive from my supervisor. 1 2 3 4 5 8. The overall quality of the supervision I receive in my work. 1 2 3 4 5 References FACTORS EXPLAINING JOB SATISFACTION AMONG FACULTY Jaime X. Castillo, Extension Specialist New Mexico State University Jamie Cano, Associate Professor The Ohio State University Journal of Agricultural Education 1) Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job atisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed. ), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1304). Chicago: Rand McNally. 2) Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational Citizenship Behavior – The Good Soldier Syndrome. (1st ed. ). Lexington, Massachusetts/Toronto: D. C. Heath and Company. 3) Herzberg, F. , Mausner, B. and Snyderman, B. B. (1959), The Motivation to Work. New York: Wiley. 4) Fred Luthans and Jonathan P. Doh, (2009), ‘International Management, Culture, Strategy, and Behavior 7th edition’, Mcgraw Hill, New York 5) http://www. nbrii. com/Employee_Surveys/Satisfaction. html 6) Dailey, R.

C. and Kirk, D. J. (1992), “Distributive and procedural justice as antecedents of job satisfaction and intent to turnover”, Human Relations, Vol. 45, pp. 305-17. 7) West, M. and Patterson, M. (1998), “Profitable personnel”, People Management, Vol. 4, pp. 28-31. 8) Grant, L. (1998), “Happy workers, high returns”, Fortune, p. 81. 9) Hian Chye Koh, El’fred H Y Boo feb 2001. The link between organizational ethics and job satisfaction: A study of managers in Singapore, Vol. 29, Iss. 4; p. 309 10) Ackfeldt, A. , & Coote, L. V. (2005). A study of organizational citizenship behaviors in a retail setting.

Journal of Business Research, 58(2), 151-159 11) Farh, J. , Podsakoff, P. M. & Organ, D. W. (1990). Accounting for organizational citizenship behavior: Leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction. Journal of Management, 16(4), 705-721. http://proquest. umi. com. eproxy. ucd. ie/pqdweb? index=5&did=1674096061&SrchMode=1&sid=3&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1277568831&clientId=13279 12) Ali Mohammad Mosadegh Rad, Mohammad Hossein Yarmohammadian, (2006) “A study of relationship between managers’ leadership style and employees’ job satisfaction”, Leadership in Health Services, Vol. 9 Iss: 2, pp. 11 – 28 13) Paul E Madlock. The Journal of Business Communication. Urbana: Jan 2008. Vol. 45, Iss. 1; p. 61 Fishing for the right people Hugh Greenway, Tim Runacre. Training Journal. Ely: Mar 2008. pg. 41, 4 pgs Burney, L. and S. K. Widener. 2007. Strategic performance measurement systems, job- relevant information, and managerial behavioral responses – Role stress and performance. Behavioral Research In Accounting (19): 43-69. Shadare Oluseyi . A, Hammed, T. Ayo 2009 “Influence of Work Motivation,