[27] Klein HJ, Noe RA, Wang C. Motivation to learn and course outcomes: The impact of delivery mode, learning goal orientation and perceived barriers and enablers. Personnel Psychology. 2006;**59**(3):665-702. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00050.x

[28] Macey WH, Schneider B. The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and organizational Psychology. 2008;**1**(1):3-30. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.0002.x

[29] Holton EF III. Holton's evaluation model: New evidence and construct elaborations. Advances in Developing Human Resources. 2005;**7**(1):37-54. DOI: 10.1177/1523422304272080

[30] Piskurich GM. Rapid instructional design. 2000. [Online] Available: http://media.wiley.com/product\_data/ excerpt/10/07879472/0787947210.pdf

[31] Baldwin TT, Ford JK. Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology. 1988;**41**(1):63-105. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744- 6570.1988.tb00632.x

[32] Schmidt SW. The relationship between satisfaction with workplace training and overall job satisfaction. Human Resource Development Quarterly. 2007;**18**(4):481-498. DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.1216

[33] Kim JH, Lee C. Implications of near and far transfer of training on structured on-the-job training.

**41**

*Job Training Satisfaction, Job Satisfaction, and Job Performance*

[42] Bhatti MA, Kaur S. The role of individual and training design factors on training transfer. Journal of European Industrial Training. 2010;**34**(7):656- 672. DOI: 10.1108/03090591011070770

[43] Lim DH, Johnson SD. Trainee perceptions of factors that influence learning transfer. International

Development. 2002;**6**(1):36-48. DOI:

training with transfer design. Journal of Workplace Learning. 2017;**29**(4):268- 285. DOI: 10.1108/JWL-08-2016-0079

[45] Knowles M. The Adult Learner. 4th ed. Houston: Golf Publishing; 1990

[46] Eseryel D. Approaches to evaluation

of training: Theory & practice. Educational Technology and Society.

[47] Saks AM, Burke LA. An investigation into the relationship between training evaluation and the transfer of training. International Journal of Training and Development.

2012;**16**(2):118-127. DOI:

10.1111/j.1468-2419.2011.00397.x

[48] Kraiger K, Ford JK, Salas E. Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1993;**78**(2):311-328. DOI:

10.1037/0021-9<IP_ADDRESS>1

2002

[49] Noe RA. Employee Training and Development. New York: McGraw-Hill;

[50] Wang GG, Wilcox D. Training evaluation: Knowing more than is practiced. Advances in Developing Human Resources. 2006;**8**(4):528-539. DOI: 10.1177/1523422306293007

2002;**5**(2):93-98

[44] Chauhan R, Ghosh P, Rai A, Kapoor S. Improving transfer of

Journal of Training and

10.1111/1468-2419.00148

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89117*

Advances in Developing Human Resources. 2001;**3**(4):442-451. DOI:

10.1177/15234220122238508

[34] Jacobs RL, McGiffin TD. A human performance system using a structured on-the-job training approach. Performance & Instruction.

1987;**26**(5):8-11. DOI: 10.1002/

learner-centered teaching: An inductive approach. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly. 2012;**75**(4):392-403. DOI:

10.1177/1080569912459752

2013;**25**(3):324-332

[35] Smart KL, Witt C, Scott JP. Toward

[36] Abdelmalak M, Trespalacios J. Using a learner-centered approach to develop an educational technology course. International Journal of Teaching & Learning in Higher Education.

[37] Kahl DH Jr, Venette S. To lecture or let go: A comparative analysis of student speech outlines from teacher-centered and learner-

centered classrooms. Communication Teacher. 2010;**24**(3):178-186. DOI: 10.1080/17404622.2010.490232

[38] Schroeder SJ. Infusing learnercentered strategies into the classroom. Occupational Therapy in Health Care. 2012;**26**(4):218-223. DOI: 10.3109/07380577.2012.725880

[39] Webber KL. The use of learnercentered assessment in US colleges and universities. Research in Higher Education. 2012;**53**(2):201-228. DOI:

[40] Shor I. When Students Have Power: Negotiating Authority in a Critical Pedagogy. Chicago: The University of

10.1007/s11162-011-9245-0

Chicago Press; 1996. 257p

[41] Weimer M. Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2002. 258p

pfi.4160260505

*Job Training Satisfaction, Job Satisfaction, and Job Performance DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89117*

Advances in Developing Human Resources. 2001;**3**(4):442-451. DOI: 10.1177/15234220122238508

*Career Development and Job Satisfaction*

[19] Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E, Tannenbaum SI, Mathieu JE. Toward theoretically based principles of training effectiveness: A model and initial empirical investigation. Military Psychology. 1995;**7**(3):141-164. DOI:

10.1207/s15327876mp0703\_1

DOI: 10.1002/ev.20099

JWL-05-2016-0038

8327.2002.tb00259.x

2000;**85**(5):678-707

[22] Facteau JD, Dobbins GH,

[20] Altschuld JW, Watkins R. A primer on needs assessment: More than 40 years of research and practice. New Directions for Evaluation. 2014;**144**:5-8.

[21] Kodwani AD. Decoding training effectiveness: The role of organisational factors. Journal of Workplace Learning. 2017;**29**(3):200-216. DOI: 10.1108/

Russell JEA, Ladd RT, Kudisch JD. The influence of general perceptions of the training environment on pretraining motivation and perceived training transfer. Journal of Management. 1995;**21**(1):1-25. DOI: 10.1016/0149-2063(95)90031-4

[23] Kontoghiorghes C. Predicting motivation to learn and motivation to transfer learning back to the job in a service organization: A new systemic model for training effectiveness. Performance Improvement Quarterly. 2002;**15**(3):114-129. DOI: 10.1111/j.1937-

[24] Colquitt JA, LePine J, Noe RA. Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology.

[25] Noe RA. Trainees' attributes and attitudes: Neglected influences on

[18] Alvarez K, Salas E, Garofano CM. An integrated model of training evaluation and effectiveness. Human Resource Development Review. 2004;**3**(4):385-416. DOI: 10.1177/1534484304270820

training effectiveness. Academy of Management Review. 1986;**11**(4):736- 749. DOI: 10.5465/amr.1986.4283922

[26] Mathieu JM, Martineau JW, Tannenbaum SI. Individual and

[27] Klein HJ, Noe RA, Wang C. Motivation to learn and course

[28] Macey WH, Schneider B. The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and organizational Psychology. 2008;**1**(1):3-30. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.0002.x

[29] Holton EF III. Holton's evaluation model: New evidence and construct elaborations. Advances in Developing Human Resources. 2005;**7**(1):37-54. DOI: 10.1177/1523422304272080

[30] Piskurich GM. Rapid instructional design. 2000. [Online] Available: http://media.wiley.com/product\_data/ excerpt/10/07879472/0787947210.pdf

[31] Baldwin TT, Ford JK. Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology. 1988;**41**(1):63-105. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-

[32] Schmidt SW. The relationship between satisfaction with workplace training and overall job satisfaction. Human Resource Development Quarterly. 2007;**18**(4):481-498. DOI:

[33] Kim JH, Lee C. Implications of near and far transfer of training on structured on-the-job training.

6570.1988.tb00632.x

10.1002/hrdq.1216

6570.1993.tb00870.x

situational influences on the development of self-efficacy: Implications for training effectiveness. Personnel Psychology. 1993;**46**(1):125-147. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-

outcomes: The impact of delivery mode, learning goal orientation and perceived barriers and enablers. Personnel Psychology. 2006;**59**(3):665-702. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00050.x

**40**

[34] Jacobs RL, McGiffin TD. A human performance system using a structured on-the-job training approach. Performance & Instruction. 1987;**26**(5):8-11. DOI: 10.1002/ pfi.4160260505

[35] Smart KL, Witt C, Scott JP. Toward learner-centered teaching: An inductive approach. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly. 2012;**75**(4):392-403. DOI: 10.1177/1080569912459752

[36] Abdelmalak M, Trespalacios J. Using a learner-centered approach to develop an educational technology course. International Journal of Teaching & Learning in Higher Education. 2013;**25**(3):324-332

[37] Kahl DH Jr, Venette S. To lecture or let go: A comparative analysis of student speech outlines from teacher-centered and learnercentered classrooms. Communication Teacher. 2010;**24**(3):178-186. DOI: 10.1080/17404622.2010.490232

[38] Schroeder SJ. Infusing learnercentered strategies into the classroom. Occupational Therapy in Health Care. 2012;**26**(4):218-223. DOI: 10.3109/07380577.2012.725880

[39] Webber KL. The use of learnercentered assessment in US colleges and universities. Research in Higher Education. 2012;**53**(2):201-228. DOI: 10.1007/s11162-011-9245-0

[40] Shor I. When Students Have Power: Negotiating Authority in a Critical Pedagogy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 1996. 257p

[41] Weimer M. Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2002. 258p

[42] Bhatti MA, Kaur S. The role of individual and training design factors on training transfer. Journal of European Industrial Training. 2010;**34**(7):656- 672. DOI: 10.1108/03090591011070770

[43] Lim DH, Johnson SD. Trainee perceptions of factors that influence learning transfer. International Journal of Training and Development. 2002;**6**(1):36-48. DOI: 10.1111/1468-2419.00148

[44] Chauhan R, Ghosh P, Rai A, Kapoor S. Improving transfer of training with transfer design. Journal of Workplace Learning. 2017;**29**(4):268- 285. DOI: 10.1108/JWL-08-2016-0079

[45] Knowles M. The Adult Learner. 4th ed. Houston: Golf Publishing; 1990

[46] Eseryel D. Approaches to evaluation of training: Theory & practice. Educational Technology and Society. 2002;**5**(2):93-98

[47] Saks AM, Burke LA. An investigation into the relationship between training evaluation and the transfer of training. International Journal of Training and Development. 2012;**16**(2):118-127. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2419.2011.00397.x

[48] Kraiger K, Ford JK, Salas E. Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1993;**78**(2):311-328. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9<IP_ADDRESS>1

[49] Noe RA. Employee Training and Development. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2002

[50] Wang GG, Wilcox D. Training evaluation: Knowing more than is practiced. Advances in Developing Human Resources. 2006;**8**(4):528-539. DOI: 10.1177/1523422306293007

[51] Scriven M. Evaluation Thesaurus. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications; 1991. 319p

[52] Scriven M. Types of evaluation and types of evaluators. American Journal of Evaluation. 1996;**17**(2):151-161. DOI: 10.1177/109821409601700207

[53] Campbell JP, Campbell RJ. Associates. Productivity in Organizations: New Perspectives from Industrial and Organizational Psychology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1988. 451p

[54] Bowers CA, Hitt JM II, Hoeft RM, Dunn S. Applying training evaluation models to the clinical setting. Military Psychology. 2003;**15**(1):17-24. DOI: 10.1207/S15327876MP1501\_02

[55] Praslova L. Adaptation of Kirkpatrick's four level model of training criteria to assessment of learning outcomes and program evaluation in higher education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability. 2010;**22**(3):215-225. DOI: 10.1007/s11092-010-9098-7

[56] Alliger GM, Tannenbaum SI, Bennett W, Traver H, Shotland A. A meta-analysis of the relations among training criteria. Personnel Psychology. 1997;**50**:341-358. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744- 6570.1997.tb00911.x

[57] Arthur W Jr, Bennett W, Edens PS, Bell ST. Effectiveness of training in organizations: A meta-analysis of design and evaluation features. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2003;**88**(2):234- 245. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9<IP_ADDRESS>

[58] Landy FJ, Conte JM. Work in the 21st Century: An Introduction to Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 2nd ed. Malden: Blackwell Publishing; 2007 628p

[59] Landers RN, Callan RC. Training evaluation in virtual worlds: Development of a model. Journal of

Virtual Worlds Research. 2012;**5**(3):1-20. DOI: 10.4101/jvwr.v5i3.6335

[60] Gist ME. The influence of training method on self-efficacy and idea generation among managers. Personnel Psychology. 1989;**42**(4):787-805. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1989.tb00675.x

[61] Torkzadeh G, Van Dyke TP. Effects of training on internet self-efficacy and computer user attitudes. Computers in Human Behavior. 2002;**18**(5):479-494. DOI: 10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00010-9

[62] Combs G, Luthans F. Diversity training: Analysis of the impact of selfefficacy. Human Resource Development Quarterly. 2007;**18**(1):91-120. DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.1193

[63] Huang WR, Jacobs RL. A comparison of the influences of different training approaches on trainees' perceptions of self-efficacy to achieve training outcomes among bankers in Taiwan. International Journal of Engineering and Industrial Management. 2012;**4**:35-57

[64] Huang WR, Jao YJ. Comparison of the influences of structured on-thejob training and classroom training approaches on trainees' motivation to learn. Human Resource Development International. 2015;**19**(2):116-134. DOI: 10.1080/13678868.2015.1096636

[65] Agho AO, Mueller CW, Price JL. Determinants of employee job satisfaction: An empirical test of a causal model. Human Relations. 1993;**46**:1007-1027. DOI: 10.1177/001872679304600806

[66] Top M, Gider O. Interaction of organizational commitment and job satisfaction of nurses and medical secretaries in Turkey. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 2013;**24**(3):667-683. DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2012.680600

**43**

*Job Training Satisfaction, Job Satisfaction, and Job Performance*

Organizational Behavior. 6th ed. Harlow: Pearson; 2011. 672 p

[77] Baas M, De Dreu CKW, Nijstad BA. Creative production by angry people peaks early on, decreases over time, and is relatively unstructured. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2011;**47**(6):1107- 1115. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.05.009

[76] Judge TA, Thoresen CJ, Bono JE, Patton GK. The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin. 2001;**127**:376-407. DOI: 10.1037/0033-29<IP_ADDRESS>6

[78] Brief AP, Weiss HM. Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual Review of Psychology.

2002;**53**:279-307. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.

[79] Isen AM, Baron RA. Positive affect as a factor in organizational behavior. In: Cummings LL, Starr BM, editors. Research in Organizational Behavior. Vol. 13. Greenwich: JAI Press; 1991.

[80] Hackett RD, Bycio P, Hausdorf PA. Further assessments of Meyer and Allen's (1991) three-component model of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1994;**79**(1):15- 23. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9<IP_ADDRESS>

[81] Williams LJ, Hazer JT. Antecedents and consequences of satisfaction and commitment in turnover models: A re-analysis using latent variable structural equation methods. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1986;**71**(2):219- 231. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9<IP_ADDRESS>

[82] Konovsky MA, Cropanzano R. Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a predictor of employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1991;**76**:698-707.

DOI: 10.1037/0021-9<IP_ADDRESS>8

psych.53.100901.135156

pp. 1-53

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89117*

Satisfaction in the Public Sector. Rowman

[70] Choo S, Bowley C. Using training

satisfaction within franchising. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. 2007;**14**(2):339-352. DOI:

and development to affect job

10.1108/14626000710746745

[71] Dormann C, Zapf D. Job satisfaction: A meta-analysis of stabilities. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2001;**22**:483-504. DOI:

[72] Judge TA, Heller D, Mount MK. Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2002;**87**(3):530- 541. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9<IP_ADDRESS>0

[73] Rowden RW, Conine CT Jr. The impact of workplace learning on job satisfaction in small US commercial banks. Journal of Workplace Learning. 2005;**17**:215-230. DOI: 10.1108/13665620510597176

[74] Akomolafe MJ, Ogunmakin AQ. Job satisfaction among secondary school teachers: Emotional intelligence, occupational stress and self-efficacy as predictors. Journal of Educational and Social Research. 2014;**4**(3):487-498. DOI: 10.5901/jesr.2014.v4n3p487

[75] George JM, Jones GR. Understanding and Managing

[67] Locke EA. The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In: Dunnette MD, editor. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Vol. 1. 1976.

[68] Hopkins AH. Work and Job

& Allanheld: Totowa; 1983. 146p

[69] Akehurst G, Comeche J, Galindo MA. Job satisfaction and commitment in the entrepreneurial SME. Small Business Economics. 2009;**32**(3):277-289. DOI: 10.1007/

s11187-008-9116-z

10.1002/job.98

pp. 1297-1343

*Job Training Satisfaction, Job Satisfaction, and Job Performance DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89117*

[67] Locke EA. The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In: Dunnette MD, editor. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Vol. 1. 1976. pp. 1297-1343

*Career Development and Job Satisfaction*

Publications; 1991. 319p

10.1177/109821409601700207

[53] Campbell JP, Campbell RJ. Associates. Productivity in Organizations: New Perspectives from Industrial and Organizational Psychology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass;

1988. 451p

[51] Scriven M. Evaluation Thesaurus. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Virtual Worlds Research. 2012;**5**(3):1-20.

[60] Gist ME. The influence of training method on self-efficacy and idea generation among managers. Personnel Psychology. 1989;**42**(4):787-805. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1989.tb00675.x

[61] Torkzadeh G, Van Dyke TP. Effects of training on internet self-efficacy and computer user attitudes. Computers in Human Behavior. 2002;**18**(5):479-494. DOI: 10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00010-9

[62] Combs G, Luthans F. Diversity training: Analysis of the impact of selfefficacy. Human Resource Development Quarterly. 2007;**18**(1):91-120. DOI:

[63] Huang WR, Jacobs RL. A comparison of the influences of different training approaches on trainees' perceptions of self-efficacy to achieve training outcomes among bankers in Taiwan. International Journal of Engineering and Industrial

Management. 2012;**4**:35-57

[64] Huang WR, Jao YJ. Comparison of the influences of structured on-thejob training and classroom training approaches on trainees' motivation to learn. Human Resource Development International. 2015;**19**(2):116-134. DOI:

10.1080/13678868.2015.1096636

Determinants of employee job satisfaction: An empirical test of a causal model. Human Relations. 1993;**46**:1007-1027. DOI: 10.1177/001872679304600806

[65] Agho AO, Mueller CW, Price JL.

[66] Top M, Gider O. Interaction of organizational commitment and job satisfaction of nurses and medical secretaries in Turkey. The International

Management. 2013;**24**(3):667-683. DOI:

Journal of Human Resource

10.1080/09585192.2012.680600

10.1002/hrdq.1193

DOI: 10.4101/jvwr.v5i3.6335

[52] Scriven M. Types of evaluation and types of evaluators. American Journal of Evaluation. 1996;**17**(2):151-161. DOI:

[54] Bowers CA, Hitt JM II, Hoeft RM, Dunn S. Applying training evaluation models to the clinical setting. Military Psychology. 2003;**15**(1):17-24. DOI: 10.1207/S15327876MP1501\_02

[55] Praslova L. Adaptation of Kirkpatrick's four level model of training criteria to assessment of learning outcomes and program evaluation in higher education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability. 2010;**22**(3):215-225.

DOI: 10.1007/s11092-010-9098-7

[56] Alliger GM, Tannenbaum SI, Bennett W, Traver H, Shotland A. A meta-analysis of the relations among training criteria. Personnel Psychology. 1997;**50**:341-358. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-

[57] Arthur W Jr, Bennett W, Edens PS, Bell ST. Effectiveness of training in organizations: A meta-analysis of design and evaluation features. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2003;**88**(2):234- 245. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9<IP_ADDRESS>

[58] Landy FJ, Conte JM. Work in the 21st Century: An Introduction to Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 2nd ed. Malden: Blackwell

[59] Landers RN, Callan RC. Training

Publishing; 2007 628p

evaluation in virtual worlds: Development of a model. Journal of

6570.1997.tb00911.x

**42**

[68] Hopkins AH. Work and Job Satisfaction in the Public Sector. Rowman & Allanheld: Totowa; 1983. 146p

[69] Akehurst G, Comeche J, Galindo MA. Job satisfaction and commitment in the entrepreneurial SME. Small Business Economics. 2009;**32**(3):277-289. DOI: 10.1007/ s11187-008-9116-z

[70] Choo S, Bowley C. Using training and development to affect job satisfaction within franchising. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. 2007;**14**(2):339-352. DOI: 10.1108/14626000710746745

[71] Dormann C, Zapf D. Job satisfaction: A meta-analysis of stabilities. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2001;**22**:483-504. DOI: 10.1002/job.98

[72] Judge TA, Heller D, Mount MK. Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2002;**87**(3):530- 541. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9<IP_ADDRESS>0

[73] Rowden RW, Conine CT Jr. The impact of workplace learning on job satisfaction in small US commercial banks. Journal of Workplace Learning. 2005;**17**:215-230. DOI: 10.1108/13665620510597176

[74] Akomolafe MJ, Ogunmakin AQ. Job satisfaction among secondary school teachers: Emotional intelligence, occupational stress and self-efficacy as predictors. Journal of Educational and Social Research. 2014;**4**(3):487-498. DOI: 10.5901/jesr.2014.v4n3p487

[75] George JM, Jones GR. Understanding and Managing Organizational Behavior. 6th ed. Harlow: Pearson; 2011. 672 p

[76] Judge TA, Thoresen CJ, Bono JE, Patton GK. The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin. 2001;**127**:376-407. DOI: 10.1037/0033-29<IP_ADDRESS>6

[77] Baas M, De Dreu CKW, Nijstad BA. Creative production by angry people peaks early on, decreases over time, and is relatively unstructured. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2011;**47**(6):1107- 1115. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.05.009

[78] Brief AP, Weiss HM. Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual Review of Psychology. 2002;**53**:279-307. DOI: 10.1146/annurev. psych.53.100901.135156

[79] Isen AM, Baron RA. Positive affect as a factor in organizational behavior. In: Cummings LL, Starr BM, editors. Research in Organizational Behavior. Vol. 13. Greenwich: JAI Press; 1991. pp. 1-53

[80] Hackett RD, Bycio P, Hausdorf PA. Further assessments of Meyer and Allen's (1991) three-component model of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1994;**79**(1):15- 23. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9<IP_ADDRESS>

[81] Williams LJ, Hazer JT. Antecedents and consequences of satisfaction and commitment in turnover models: A re-analysis using latent variable structural equation methods. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1986;**71**(2):219- 231. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9<IP_ADDRESS>

[82] Konovsky MA, Cropanzano R. Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a predictor of employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1991;**76**:698-707. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9<IP_ADDRESS>8

[83] Tella A, Ayeni CO, Popoola SO. Work motivation, job satisfaction, and organisational commitment of library personnel in academic and research Libraries in Oyo State, Nigeria. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). 2007:118. Available from: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ libphilprac/118

[84] Awang Z, Ahmad JH. Modelling job satisfaction and work commitment among lecturers: A case of UiTM Kelantan. In: Proceedings of the Regional Conference on Statistical Sciences 2010 (RCSS'10). June 2010. pp. 241-255

[85] Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Paine JB, Bachrach DG. Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management. 2000;**26**(3):513-563. DOI: 10.1177/014920630002600307

[86] Organ DW. Issues in Organization and Management Series. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome. Lexington Books/D. C. Heath and Com: Lexington; 1988. 132p

[87] Schappe SP. The influence of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and fairness perceptions on organizational citizenship behavior. The Journal of Psychology. 1998;**132**(3):277-290. DOI: 10.1080/00223989809599167

[88] Williams LJ, Anderson SE. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management. 1991;**17**(3):601-617. DOI: 10.1177/014920639101700305

[89] Moorman RH. The influence of cognitive and affective based job satisfaction measures on the relationship between satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior. Human Relations. 1993;**46**(6):759-776. DOI: 10.1177/001872679304600604

[90] Bienstock C, DeMoranville C, Smith R. Organizational citizenship behavior and service quality. Journal of Services Marketing. 2003;**17**(4):357-378. DOI: 10.1108/08876040310482775

[91] Mak BL, Sockel H. A confirmatory factor analysis of IS employee motivation and retention. Information & Management. 2001;**38**:265-276

[92] Rust RT, Stewart GL, Miller H, Pielack D. The satisfaction and retention of frontline employees: A customer satisfaction measurement approach. International Journal of Service Industry Management. 1996;**7**(50):62-80. DOI: 10.1108/09564239610149966

[93] Robbins SP, Judge TA. Organizational Behavior. 12th ed. Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River; 2007. 759 p

[94] Lingard H. The impact of individual and job characteristics on 'burnout' among civil engineers in Australia and the implications for employee turnover. Construction Management and Economics. 2003;**21**(1):69-80. DOI: 10.1080/0144619032000065126

[95] Karatepe O, Tekinkus M. The effects of work-family conflict, emotional exhaustion, and intrinsic motivation on job outcomes of front-line employees. International Journal of Bank Marketing. 2006;**24**(3):173-193. DOI: 10.1108/02652320610659021

[96] Jones MK, Jones R, Latreille P, Sloane P. Training, job satisfaction, and workplace performance in Britain: Evidence from WERS 2004. Labour. 2009;**23**(s1):139-175. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9914.2008.00434.x

[97] Vroom VH. Work and Motivation. Oxford: Wiley; 1964. 331 p

**45**

2017;**1**(1):i-xiii

*Job Training Satisfaction, Job Satisfaction, and Job Performance*

[105] Huang WR, Roberge ME, Lan CH. Job training satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior: The mediating role of organizational commitment and job involvement. 2019.

Submitted

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89117*

[98] Clegg CW. Psychology of employee

lateness, absence, and turnover: A methodological critique and an empirical study. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1983;**68**(1):88-101. DOI:

10.1037/0021-9<IP_ADDRESS>

10.2307/2524592

10.3390/su9050834

[101] Schmidt SW. Employee demographics and job training satisfaction: The relationship between dimensions of diversity and satisfaction with job training. Human Resource Development

10.1080/13678860902982082

pp. 31-66

International. 2009;**12**(3):297-312. DOI:

[102] Siebern-Thomas F. Job quality in European labour markets. In: Bazen S, Lucifora C, Salverda W, editors. Job Quality and Employer Behaviour. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2005.

[103] Huang W, Su C. The mediating role of job satisfaction in the relationship between job training satisfaction and turnover intentions. Industrial and Commercial Training. 2016;**48**(1):42-52.

DOI: 10.1108/ICT-04-2015-0029

[104] Memon MA, Ting H, Ramayah T, Chuah F, Cheah JH. A review of the methodological misconceptions and guidelines related to the application of structural equation modeling: A Malaysian scenario. Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling.

[99] Drago R, Wooden M. The determinants of labor absence: Economic factors and workgroup norms across countries. ILR Review. 1992;**45**(4):764-778. DOI:

[100] Mansour JB, Naji A, Leclerc A. The relationship between training satisfaction and the readiness to transfer learning: The mediating role of normative commitment. Sustainability. 2017;**9**(5):1-14. DOI:

*Job Training Satisfaction, Job Satisfaction, and Job Performance DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89117*

[98] Clegg CW. Psychology of employee lateness, absence, and turnover: A methodological critique and an empirical study. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1983;**68**(1):88-101. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9<IP_ADDRESS>

*Career Development and Job Satisfaction*

[83] Tella A, Ayeni CO, Popoola SO. Work motivation, job satisfaction, and organisational commitment of library personnel in academic and research Libraries in Oyo State, Nigeria. organizational citizenship behavior. Human Relations. 1993;**46**(6):759-776. DOI: 10.1177/001872679304600604

[90] Bienstock C, DeMoranville C, Smith R. Organizational citizenship behavior and service quality. Journal of Services Marketing. 2003;**17**(4):357-378. DOI: 10.1108/08876040310482775

[91] Mak BL, Sockel H. A confirmatory

motivation and retention. Information & Management. 2001;**38**:265-276

[92] Rust RT, Stewart GL, Miller H, Pielack D. The satisfaction and retention of frontline employees: A customer satisfaction measurement approach. International Journal of Service Industry Management. 1996;**7**(50):62-80. DOI:

factor analysis of IS employee

10.1108/09564239610149966

Organizational Behavior. 12th ed. Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle

10.1080/0144619032000065126

International Journal of Bank

10.1108/02652320610659021

Oxford: Wiley; 1964. 331 p

[94] Lingard H. The impact of individual and job characteristics on 'burnout' among civil engineers in Australia and the implications for employee turnover. Construction Management and Economics. 2003;**21**(1):69-80. DOI:

[95] Karatepe O, Tekinkus M. The effects of work-family conflict, emotional exhaustion, and intrinsic motivation on job outcomes of front-line employees.

Marketing. 2006;**24**(3):173-193. DOI:

[96] Jones MK, Jones R, Latreille P, Sloane P. Training, job satisfaction, and workplace performance in Britain: Evidence from WERS 2004. Labour. 2009;**23**(s1):139-175. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9914.2008.00434.x

[97] Vroom VH. Work and Motivation.

[93] Robbins SP, Judge TA.

River; 2007. 759 p

Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). 2007:118. Available from: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/

[84] Awang Z, Ahmad JH. Modelling job satisfaction and work commitment among lecturers: A case of UiTM Kelantan. In: Proceedings of the Regional Conference on Statistical Sciences 2010 (RCSS'10). June 2010.

[85] Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Paine JB, Bachrach DG. Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of

Management. 2000;**26**(3):513-563. DOI:

[86] Organ DW. Issues in Organization and Management Series. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome. Lexington Books/D. C. Heath and Com: Lexington; 1988. 132p

10.1177/014920630002600307

[87] Schappe SP. The influence of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and fairness perceptions on organizational citizenship behavior. The Journal of Psychology. 1998;**132**(3):277-290. DOI:

10.1080/00223989809599167

10.1177/014920639101700305

[89] Moorman RH. The influence of cognitive and affective based job satisfaction measures on the relationship between satisfaction and

[88] Williams LJ, Anderson SE. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of

Management. 1991;**17**(3):601-617. DOI:

libphilprac/118

pp. 241-255

**44**

[99] Drago R, Wooden M. The determinants of labor absence: Economic factors and workgroup norms across countries. ILR Review. 1992;**45**(4):764-778. DOI: 10.2307/2524592

[100] Mansour JB, Naji A, Leclerc A. The relationship between training satisfaction and the readiness to transfer learning: The mediating role of normative commitment. Sustainability. 2017;**9**(5):1-14. DOI: 10.3390/su9050834

[101] Schmidt SW. Employee demographics and job training satisfaction: The relationship between dimensions of diversity and satisfaction with job training. Human Resource Development International. 2009;**12**(3):297-312. DOI: 10.1080/13678860902982082

[102] Siebern-Thomas F. Job quality in European labour markets. In: Bazen S, Lucifora C, Salverda W, editors. Job Quality and Employer Behaviour. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2005. pp. 31-66

[103] Huang W, Su C. The mediating role of job satisfaction in the relationship between job training satisfaction and turnover intentions. Industrial and Commercial Training. 2016;**48**(1):42-52. DOI: 10.1108/ICT-04-2015-0029

[104] Memon MA, Ting H, Ramayah T, Chuah F, Cheah JH. A review of the methodological misconceptions and guidelines related to the application of structural equation modeling: A Malaysian scenario. Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling. 2017;**1**(1):i-xiii

[105] Huang WR, Roberge ME, Lan CH. Job training satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior: The mediating role of organizational commitment and job involvement. 2019. Submitted

**47**

**Chapter 5**

**Abstract**

**1. Introduction**

businesses to continue operating [1, 2].

Millennials?

*Josiane Fahed-Sreih*

Maintaining Positive Employee

Recruitment, selection, employee appraisal, performance management, compensation, training, and development are all human resource functions that experts are always studying and are considered at the heart of human resource management; however, employees expect more than that. They expect to have a safe work environment, they expect to be treated fairly, and they expect to grow and be recognized in their organizations. Anyone suffering from unfair treatment at work knows how demoralizing this can be and how this can poison trust and reduce employee morale and negatively impact employee relations and performance. When an abusive behavior is observed, this would trigger adverse reactions in addition to further unethical behavior, even if the abusive behavior is hitting a co-worker not the employee himself. When management and employees report a fair treatment, this means that employees are treated with respect and fairly and have demonstrated concrete actions towards fairness and respect. This chapter will highlight the millennials' behavior as related to HR and will identify how the company can keep a positive environment and positive

employee relations yet better productivity in the presence of millennials.

the workplace, generation Y, motivation, employee attitude

**Keywords:** positive employee relations, human resource development, millennials at

Millennials are also referred to as generation Y. They are born between 1980 and 2000 (or 1979 & 1994). They represent a sizable population cohort; they are the first generation to have been born into households with computers and to have grown up surrounded by digital media. They are heavy media consumers, creators of personal content on the web, and always described as the "look at me" generation. Needless to say that they are better educated. Since baby boomers are gradually phasing out of the current workforce, millennials are replacing them in order for

For this reason, it is important to understand the characteristics of this generation as well as what satisfies it on the job and what bothers it. For example, a study conducted on 148 millennials claimed that males are more satisfied on the job than are females, while females are more committed to the organization than males are [3]. Moreover, millennials who proceed to get a graduate degree are found to be more loyal to the company than those who did not earn a graduate degree [2] (**Table 1**).

Relations: Does It Apply to

#### **Chapter 5**

## Maintaining Positive Employee Relations: Does It Apply to Millennials?

*Josiane Fahed-Sreih*

#### **Abstract**

Recruitment, selection, employee appraisal, performance management, compensation, training, and development are all human resource functions that experts are always studying and are considered at the heart of human resource management; however, employees expect more than that. They expect to have a safe work environment, they expect to be treated fairly, and they expect to grow and be recognized in their organizations. Anyone suffering from unfair treatment at work knows how demoralizing this can be and how this can poison trust and reduce employee morale and negatively impact employee relations and performance. When an abusive behavior is observed, this would trigger adverse reactions in addition to further unethical behavior, even if the abusive behavior is hitting a co-worker not the employee himself. When management and employees report a fair treatment, this means that employees are treated with respect and fairly and have demonstrated concrete actions towards fairness and respect. This chapter will highlight the millennials' behavior as related to HR and will identify how the company can keep a positive environment and positive employee relations yet better productivity in the presence of millennials.

**Keywords:** positive employee relations, human resource development, millennials at the workplace, generation Y, motivation, employee attitude

#### **1. Introduction**

Millennials are also referred to as generation Y. They are born between 1980 and 2000 (or 1979 & 1994). They represent a sizable population cohort; they are the first generation to have been born into households with computers and to have grown up surrounded by digital media. They are heavy media consumers, creators of personal content on the web, and always described as the "look at me" generation. Needless to say that they are better educated. Since baby boomers are gradually phasing out of the current workforce, millennials are replacing them in order for businesses to continue operating [1, 2].

For this reason, it is important to understand the characteristics of this generation as well as what satisfies it on the job and what bothers it. For example, a study conducted on 148 millennials claimed that males are more satisfied on the job than are females, while females are more committed to the organization than males are [3]. Moreover, millennials who proceed to get a graduate degree are found to be more loyal to the company than those who did not earn a graduate degree [2] (**Table 1**).

**Table 1.**

*Differences between generations (Positive and negative traits).*

#### **2. How are millennials influencing organizations?**

Millennials are influencing the organization with their individualistic traits. They have a positive self-esteem and assertiveness. They also have negative narcissism. For millennials, these increased self-esteem and assertiveness support their belief in the right of individuals to succeed and contribute in the workplace regardless of their background (e.g., the number of years they have spent performing a certain job) and in their right to be treated as an individual entity on the job and not as a part of a larger group. Nevertheless, these characteristics might also be the reason behind their quick exasperation and lack of determination. When independence begins to influence the degree of an individual's narcissistic traits, this could lead the individual to feel entitled, thus fueling their incessant need to gain instant recognition and attention.

Millennials are also risk averse and as such have difficulty dealing with ambiguity and nuance; they often require a clear path to success with clearly defined rubrics and well-defined expectations and constant feedback from their supervisors. According to [4, 5], there are several factors that influence millennials on the job, which in turn drive millennials to influence the organization. Such factors could be the social identities of the employees, which affect the organization in different ways depending on the way individuals understand and comprehend these identities [5, 6].

Millennials and older generation of workers have differences in values which is affecting millennials' acceptance. When millennials communicate and act according to their backgrounds and values, others' assessments of them may reflect expectancy violations. Only when the new member is deemed valuable to the workgroup and organization do others reciprocate the relationship with commitment. Coworkers begin to ask for the new member's opinions, delegate significant tasks to the new member, and develop meaningful working relationships with the new member.

**49**

*Maintaining Positive Employee Relations: Does It Apply to Millennials?*

Sacrificed on behalf of the firm Work is to support the lifestyle they desire

Senior workers' believe that millennial newcomers should have to "pay their

**balance play with work**

Building a career is not a primary motivator

**Interest in flexible career paths that will allow them to**

Millennials strongly prefer smaller establishments. Millennials seem to be rejecting the luxury offerings of large establishments, seeing instead the bureaucratic and impersonal environment as unappealing. Regardless of establishment size, co-worker support is a critical part of the work environment for millennials.

According to Pew survey, 75% of millennials are members of an online social network. 62% of millennials, more than any other group, connect to the Internet using a laptop or handheld device. 83% keep their cell phones next to them 24 h a

Millennials' comfort with new media technologies suggests that they bring to the workplace potentially beneficial characteristics related to the use of communication and information technologies (CITs), such as the Web and instant messaging. Moreover, millennials are of the generation best known for its technological capabilities [7, 8]. They are able to use several technological devices simultaneously and multitask efficiently. Millennials are also known as the .com generation, which explains why they are so tech savvy and efficient when using technological tools [9].

Millennials have a tendency to behave in a bad manner in organizations, they always make demands instead of requests, they are over confident, and have a tendency to talk instead of listen, and they prefer the text based communication to the face-to-face communication. They are multitasking, knowing they are always plugged in, and for them assuming a certain behavior or action is always okay.

According to one Pew study (2007), 64% of millennials say that getting rich is the most important goal in life for their generation, and another 17% cite it as their generation's second most important goal. They actively seek leadership opportuni-

ties where they can communicate altruistic values as they become leaders.

But boomers are different than millennials; the table shows the difference

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92798*

Career is an essential component of their

Wait their turn for promotion **Resistance and lack of commitment**

identities

**perception**

**Table 2.**

**Boomers Millennials**

dues" as they did when they were young workers.

**3.1 The relationship of millennials to technology**

day; they are always in touch if they need or want to be.

**3.3 What satisfies the millennials in their job?**

**3. Millennials preference for smaller organizations**

between those generations (**Table 2**).

*Differences between boomers and millennials.*

**3.2 Millennials' bad habits**

*Maintaining Positive Employee Relations: Does It Apply to Millennials? DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92798*

#### **Table 2.**

*Career Development and Job Satisfaction*

• Value loyalty • Committed to

• Dress formally • Do not appreciate

**Baby boomers (1946–1964)**

harmony

feedback • Dress Formally

• Self-centered with a sense of entitlement

• Hardworking • Hardworking • Entrepreneurial • Tech savvy • Respectful • Idealistic • Flexible • Appreciative of

> • Comfortable with technology

• Workaholics • Lazy • Not loyal to

• Self-motivated • Skeptical and cynical • Demand immediate

• Desire work-life balance and flexible schedule

• Question authority

figures

**Gen Xers (1965–1980) Millennials (1981–2000)**

• Self-reliant • Skilled in multitasking

diversity

spans

organization

the workplace • Expect to have many employers and multiple

careers

• Very short attention

feedback and recognition

• Integrates technology in

• Work dress is whatever feels comfortable • Lack basic literacy fundamentals

**Traditionalists (1925–1945)**

• Conformers who resist to change

• Disciplined and pragmatic

• Work and family lives never coincide

**Table 1.**

**2. How are millennials influencing organizations?**

*Differences between generations (Positive and negative traits).*

the way individuals understand and comprehend these identities [5, 6].

Millennials and older generation of workers have differences in values which is affecting millennials' acceptance. When millennials communicate and act according to their backgrounds and values, others' assessments of them may reflect expectancy violations. Only when the new member is deemed valuable to the workgroup and organization do others reciprocate the relationship with commitment. Coworkers begin to ask for the new member's opinions, delegate significant tasks to the new member, and develop meaningful working relationships with the

Millennials are influencing the organization with their individualistic traits. They have a positive self-esteem and assertiveness. They also have negative narcissism. For millennials, these increased self-esteem and assertiveness support their belief in the right of individuals to succeed and contribute in the workplace regardless of their background (e.g., the number of years they have spent performing a certain job) and in their right to be treated as an individual entity on the job and not as a part of a larger group. Nevertheless, these characteristics might also be the reason behind their quick exasperation and lack of determination. When independence begins to influence the degree of an individual's narcissistic traits, this could lead the individual to feel entitled, thus fueling their incessant need to gain instant recognition and attention. Millennials are also risk averse and as such have difficulty dealing with ambiguity and nuance; they often require a clear path to success with clearly defined rubrics and well-defined expectations and constant feedback from their supervisors. According to [4, 5], there are several factors that influence millennials on the job, which in turn drive millennials to influence the organization. Such factors could be the social identities of the employees, which affect the organization in different ways depending on

**48**

new member.

*Differences between boomers and millennials.*

Senior workers' believe that millennial newcomers should have to "pay their dues" as they did when they were young workers.

But boomers are different than millennials; the table shows the difference between those generations (**Table 2**).

#### **3. Millennials preference for smaller organizations**

Millennials strongly prefer smaller establishments. Millennials seem to be rejecting the luxury offerings of large establishments, seeing instead the bureaucratic and impersonal environment as unappealing. Regardless of establishment size, co-worker support is a critical part of the work environment for millennials.

#### **3.1 The relationship of millennials to technology**

According to Pew survey, 75% of millennials are members of an online social network. 62% of millennials, more than any other group, connect to the Internet using a laptop or handheld device. 83% keep their cell phones next to them 24 h a day; they are always in touch if they need or want to be.

Millennials' comfort with new media technologies suggests that they bring to the workplace potentially beneficial characteristics related to the use of communication and information technologies (CITs), such as the Web and instant messaging.

Moreover, millennials are of the generation best known for its technological capabilities [7, 8]. They are able to use several technological devices simultaneously and multitask efficiently. Millennials are also known as the .com generation, which explains why they are so tech savvy and efficient when using technological tools [9].

#### **3.2 Millennials' bad habits**

Millennials have a tendency to behave in a bad manner in organizations, they always make demands instead of requests, they are over confident, and have a tendency to talk instead of listen, and they prefer the text based communication to the face-to-face communication. They are multitasking, knowing they are always plugged in, and for them assuming a certain behavior or action is always okay.

#### **3.3 What satisfies the millennials in their job?**

According to one Pew study (2007), 64% of millennials say that getting rich is the most important goal in life for their generation, and another 17% cite it as their generation's second most important goal. They actively seek leadership opportunities where they can communicate altruistic values as they become leaders.

Millennials' parents were extremely concerned with their children's image and also valued their children's opinions as knowledgeable consumers, even involving them in grown-up purchases (from cars to family vacations).

Millennials have high expectations on personal achievement. They expect to find work that is well paying and meaningful, and even to become famous, according to the popular literature.

Millennials do not see money as their only source of happiness. Like generation X workers, they feel rewarded by work arrangements that offer them more flexibility and new technology. They want to make a difference in the world. If the right job is not available, many are volunteering for organizations such as the Peace Corps or AmeriCorps. Some millennials seem to be satisfied by volunteering or even working in jobs that do not have a high salary or wage, so long that they are able to maintain their living standards, by living with their guardians or parents or by being dependent on their parents to cover for their necessities.

#### **4. Relationship of millennials to their supervisors**

Millennials view strong relationships with supervisors to be foundational for negotiating their roles initially, as well as for their long-term satisfaction in the organization.

For millennials to achieve higher job satisfaction, an open communication environment is favored.

Millennials would share information, convey bad news, evaluate job performance regularly, create a supportive climate, solicit input, and make appropriate disclosures.

Millennials are unlikely to accept an organizational policy that information is communicated on a "need-to know basis." Millennial employees disagree with their supervisors when it comes to the communication of information. While supervisors might refer to tell employees only the information they feel employees must know in order to complete a task, millennial employees on the other hand prefer to be included in the decision-making process or at least fully informed of how the process occurred. Furthermore, supervisors tend to feel more comfortable discussing information with other supervisors than with their immediate subordinates. In addition, supervisors usually also stress on giving their subordinates instructions that relate to the task without focusing much on the sociological and emotional aspect of communicating the information.

In addition, according to [10, 11], challenges might arise in the organization due to differences between generations or cohorts, and differences in the ways these generations prefer to be managed. If these preferences are not given the right amount of attention, they might grow to become large enough to be able to hinder organizational success. Furthermore, one of the leading reasons that drive employees to quit an organization is the poor management of the supervisor or the supervisor's management that is not compatible with the millennial employees [12].

Moreover, Ref. [13] states that supervisors belonging to the baby boomers and generation X generations need to take into consideration the differences between them and employees belonging to the millennials' generation. Moreover, they should actively attempt to create an environment that fits millennials, challenges them, and motivates them in order to produce the best quality of work and the best results [13].

**51**

and quit.

*Maintaining Positive Employee Relations: Does It Apply to Millennials?*

The way to manage millennials should be different from managing older genera-

1.Make teamwork part of the company structure—Everyone working together

2.Take advantage of their electronic literacy—Experience and knowledge can help expand communication both internally and externally for your firm.

3.Embrace diversity and flexibility—Millennials are willing to stick with companies that have diverse management teams and flexible work environments.

4.Focus on results—Relax the rules to have millennials as hard workers who get

5.Allow telecommuting or working remotely—To have more success attracting

According to [14], millennials are primarily looking for six things on the job from their supervisors. First, they work better with leaders not supervisors. Second, they want to be challenged to do better. Third, they appreciate being able to work in groups. Fourth, they want to enjoy the work they are doing. Fifth, they want to be

57% of millennial workers say it is not very likely or not likely at all that they will stay with their current employers for the remainder of their working life. 62% of generation X workers will never leave their current employer. 84% of baby boomers expect to remain with their current employer for the rest of their working lives. Based on this information, it is crucial for employers to understand what motivates the millennial generation if they hope to retain these valuable employees.

Baby boomers often advise millennials to persist and be patient—the rewards for their efforts, money, status, and respect will come. However, given the individualistic characteristics of millennials, such as their self-esteem, their sureness, and their self-absorption, together with their aversion towards risk and their incapability of managing vagueness, millennials may not be ready to deal with the reality of the

The capabilities that enabled generations such as baby boomers to endure and prosper at work, such as being able to negotiate their part, being able to adapt to circumstances that are not ideal, and being able to persist in the face of the uncertain tests which they might encounter, are not the forte of the next generations such as the millennials, which might explain their readiness to leave a job at any time

Furthermore, Ref. [16] claims that there are different reasons as to why employ-

ees leave their job, and these reasons vary based on the country. In the United States, the five most common reasons for a millennial to quit his/her job are negligible pay increases, lack of opportunities to advance, too much overtime required,

no room for teamwork, and an inflexible supervisor [16].

respected, and finally, sixth, they want to have flexible options [15].

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92798*

tions, for that to succeed, managers should:

**5. Managing millennials**

with defined roles.

and retaining millennials.

**6. Why are millennials leaving?**

workplace and its severity in certain cases.

results

### **5. Managing millennials**

*Career Development and Job Satisfaction*

the popular literature.

organization.

disclosures.

information.

employees [12].

results [13].

environment is favored.

Millennials' parents were extremely concerned with their children's image and also valued their children's opinions as knowledgeable consumers, even involving

Millennials have high expectations on personal achievement. They expect to find work that is well paying and meaningful, and even to become famous, according to

Millennials do not see money as their only source of happiness. Like generation X workers, they feel rewarded by work arrangements that offer them more flexibility and new technology. They want to make a difference in the world. If the right job is not available, many are volunteering for organizations such as the Peace Corps or AmeriCorps. Some millennials seem to be satisfied by volunteering or even working in jobs that do not have a high salary or wage, so long that they are able to maintain their living standards, by living with their guardians or parents or by being depen-

Millennials view strong relationships with supervisors to be foundational for negotiating their roles initially, as well as for their long-term satisfaction in the

For millennials to achieve higher job satisfaction, an open communication

Millennials would share information, convey bad news, evaluate job performance regularly, create a supportive climate, solicit input, and make appropriate

Millennials are unlikely to accept an organizational policy that information is communicated on a "need-to know basis." Millennial employees disagree with their supervisors when it comes to the communication of information. While supervisors might refer to tell employees only the information they feel employees must know in order to complete a task, millennial employees on the other hand prefer to be included in the decision-making process or at least fully informed of how the process occurred. Furthermore, supervisors tend to feel more comfortable discussing information with other supervisors than with their immediate subordinates. In addition, supervisors usually also stress on giving their subordinates instructions that relate to the task without focusing much on the sociological and emotional aspect of communicating the

In addition, according to [10, 11], challenges might arise in the organization due to differences between generations or cohorts, and differences in the ways these generations prefer to be managed. If these preferences are not given the right amount of attention, they might grow to become large enough to be able to hinder organizational success. Furthermore, one of the leading reasons that drive employees to quit an organization is the poor management of the supervisor or the supervisor's management that is not compatible with the millennial

Moreover, Ref. [13] states that supervisors belonging to the baby boomers and generation X generations need to take into consideration the differences between them and employees belonging to the millennials' generation. Moreover, they should actively attempt to create an environment that fits millennials, challenges them, and motivates them in order to produce the best quality of work and the best

them in grown-up purchases (from cars to family vacations).

dent on their parents to cover for their necessities.

**4. Relationship of millennials to their supervisors**

**50**

The way to manage millennials should be different from managing older generations, for that to succeed, managers should:

According to [14], millennials are primarily looking for six things on the job from their supervisors. First, they work better with leaders not supervisors. Second, they want to be challenged to do better. Third, they appreciate being able to work in groups. Fourth, they want to enjoy the work they are doing. Fifth, they want to be respected, and finally, sixth, they want to have flexible options [15].

#### **6. Why are millennials leaving?**

57% of millennial workers say it is not very likely or not likely at all that they will stay with their current employers for the remainder of their working life. 62% of generation X workers will never leave their current employer. 84% of baby boomers expect to remain with their current employer for the rest of their working lives.

Based on this information, it is crucial for employers to understand what motivates the millennial generation if they hope to retain these valuable employees.

Baby boomers often advise millennials to persist and be patient—the rewards for their efforts, money, status, and respect will come. However, given the individualistic characteristics of millennials, such as their self-esteem, their sureness, and their self-absorption, together with their aversion towards risk and their incapability of managing vagueness, millennials may not be ready to deal with the reality of the workplace and its severity in certain cases.

The capabilities that enabled generations such as baby boomers to endure and prosper at work, such as being able to negotiate their part, being able to adapt to circumstances that are not ideal, and being able to persist in the face of the uncertain tests which they might encounter, are not the forte of the next generations such as the millennials, which might explain their readiness to leave a job at any time and quit.

Furthermore, Ref. [16] claims that there are different reasons as to why employees leave their job, and these reasons vary based on the country. In the United States, the five most common reasons for a millennial to quit his/her job are negligible pay increases, lack of opportunities to advance, too much overtime required, no room for teamwork, and an inflexible supervisor [16].

#### **7. How to retain millennials?**

Given the costs of turnover, employers have gone to great and costly lengths to attract and retain the millennials. To do so, businesses practices and industry standards must be examined. Giving millennials a bigger paycheck, or even a higher position with an additional increase in pay, may be the key to attract them; however, considering pay is of lesser importance to them with respect to other factors, using it as an incentive might not be sufficient to retain them.

Since having flexible working hours, known as flextime, as well as time for leisure, such as paid vacations or paid days off, are known to be important incentives for millennials, many employers are offering these options in hopes of appealing to millennials and retaining them. Corporate surveys, such as the one conducted by Deloitte in 2009, as well as academic studies, such as the one conducted by [17], show that millennials greatly appreciate having the freedom to complete their tasks in whichever manner they desire, so long as the job is done.

There is no one reason for millennials to leave a job. When millennials perceive a certain unfairness, whether it is because of practices enforced by the employer, or standards brought about at the industry level, or common practices derived from the labor market, they are most likely to regard the situation as unreasonable and unsurmountable, which would cause them to quit. Through such behaviors, millennials seem to be sending a message that they do not accept the norms that were set by the preceding generations, specifically the ones agreed upon by the baby boomers, relating to considering the extended hours of work as a necessity in order to advance in one's career and show commitment to one's organization.

Considering how much millennials value the equilibrium between the time they spend at work and the time they spend doing leisurely activities more than the previous generations did, disturbances that are the result of asymmetrical schedules annoy millennials because they render them unable to control these disruptions or maneuver around them, meaning that the employee will be more likely to indulge in absenteeism or behaviors that are counterproductive. The supervisor or manager will in turn notice this.

Moreover, Ref. [18] claims that knowing or understanding the needs and wants of employees helps in retaining them. He mentions several ways that are effective in order to retain millennials in an organization, such as providing them with more benefits and a flexible schedule, an option to choose, better resources, and opportunities for training and development [19].

**53**

*Maintaining Positive Employee Relations: Does It Apply to Millennials?*

business units and provide them with intranet means that they could pace to their own comfort to help them establish relations with other workers

their job done when they have tackled it in the best and most rapid way. This way they can optimize on their time and

off that is considered paid

Win the employee over. However, be careful while doing that as the line between "boss as advocate" and "boss as

results and let them figure out the means to achieve them. This might be their chance to come up with a more efficient process. To extract their best performance, link it to company goals and objectives, as well as hold them responsible for their mistakes and appreciate their achievement. Imposing on them one way to do things may drive them to

things to do as well as the potential to interact with the clients. Furthermore including them in projects where they can interact with upper level

useful opportunities where millennials get to discuss their career paths. Moreover, regular evaluations and revisions will also shorten the feedback loop and provide employees with performance evaluations

timeframe short enough for them to envision. Reward small successes along the way

friend" is thin

Millennials want connections, checkpoints, and mentoring

"…when we (Baby Boomers) were younger, you had a piano teacher who expected you to practice your piano and work hard at it, and the parents expected it. Now, parents say, Have fun, learn the piano, and practice a little bit," says WSJ columnist, Jeffrey Zaslow. Millennials were not brought up to think of the next step, their main focus was always on the

Millennials view their jobs as "something

Millennials primarily remain in their job due to their loyalty towards their boss or supervisor. However, discontent with their employer or manager is also the number one reason why they leave. Millennials appreciate a close relationship with a caring supervisor

Millennials were raised and taught how to solve their problems on their own, with technology at their side, linking them to the rest of the world. For this reason, they do not cope well when given orders and hate being told what to do without explanations of the purpose behind the task. Despite being impatient, they have a thirst for learning and acquiring new skills. Millennials consider themselves able to go with the best offer on the table. Furthermore, the support of their parents allows them the luxury of only choosing what they please

in terms of job acceptance

norms

They are great multitaskers with 10 times the speed and technical knowledge of their older siblings. Although they have their own way of thinking, they do like to work as part of a team. They also value making an impact and challenging the

Millennial employees feel that they earn and deserve a promotion quickly, and their performance evaluations and constant feedback reinforce this notion

They set short-term goals and are resistant to paying their dues

to do between the weekends"

current task

The onboarding process Expose employees to multiple

Ethics concerning work Millennials only consider

effort

Being motivated Reward employees with time

Management Inform them of the required

leave

employees

Work assignment Provide millennials with several

Feedback on performance Coaching sessions may be

Reducing turnover Create career paths with a

Relationships with the upper managers

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92798*

#### **8. How to fix the workplace for millennials?**

*Career Development and Job Satisfaction*

**7. How to retain millennials?**

will in turn notice this.

Opportunities to learn and benefit from training

nities for training and development [19].

**8. How to fix the workplace for millennials?**

Environment of the work Give employees a schedule that

Recruitment Highlight the methods in which

society

**Category How to handle this Reason**

is flexible and a comfortable workplace. Generate occasions to interact socially, such as gettogethers and outdoor activities

Reimburse employees on tuition fees as well as train them

the organization gives back to

Millennials give friendships and standard of living greater value than work. They value marriage, children,

Baby boomer parents brought up their children to believe that they key to success is a good education

A big percentage of millennials claim that contributing to society is one of

and family above work

their top priorities

it as an incentive might not be sufficient to retain them.

in whichever manner they desire, so long as the job is done.

to advance in one's career and show commitment to one's organization.

Given the costs of turnover, employers have gone to great and costly lengths to attract and retain the millennials. To do so, businesses practices and industry standards must be examined. Giving millennials a bigger paycheck, or even a higher position with an additional increase in pay, may be the key to attract them; however, considering pay is of lesser importance to them with respect to other factors, using

Since having flexible working hours, known as flextime, as well as time for leisure, such as paid vacations or paid days off, are known to be important incentives for millennials, many employers are offering these options in hopes of appealing to millennials and retaining them. Corporate surveys, such as the one conducted by Deloitte in 2009, as well as academic studies, such as the one conducted by [17], show that millennials greatly appreciate having the freedom to complete their tasks

There is no one reason for millennials to leave a job. When millennials perceive a certain unfairness, whether it is because of practices enforced by the employer, or standards brought about at the industry level, or common practices derived from the labor market, they are most likely to regard the situation as unreasonable and unsurmountable, which would cause them to quit. Through such behaviors, millennials seem to be sending a message that they do not accept the norms that were set by the preceding generations, specifically the ones agreed upon by the baby boomers, relating to considering the extended hours of work as a necessity in order

Considering how much millennials value the equilibrium between the time they

Moreover, Ref. [18] claims that knowing or understanding the needs and wants of employees helps in retaining them. He mentions several ways that are effective in order to retain millennials in an organization, such as providing them with more benefits and a flexible schedule, an option to choose, better resources, and opportu-

spend at work and the time they spend doing leisurely activities more than the previous generations did, disturbances that are the result of asymmetrical schedules annoy millennials because they render them unable to control these disruptions or maneuver around them, meaning that the employee will be more likely to indulge in absenteeism or behaviors that are counterproductive. The supervisor or manager

**52**

#### *Career Development and Job Satisfaction*

It is becoming more and more difficult to satisfy, motivate, and retain millennials in the workplace. In addition to the explained behavior of millennials that is different from boomers, some employees are subject to bullying and victimization, which makes some employees singled out and mistreated. This is a serious problem.

For example, one survey of 1000 employees in the United States concluded that about 455 said that they had worked for abusive bosses. The US government said most would agree that bullying involves three things:

	- a.**It could be social:** Victimizing the person by spreading rumors, trying to leave people out on purpose, trying to break out friendships
	- b.**It could be verbal:** Through teasing and name-calling
	- c.**It could be physical**: Through hitting, punching, or shoving
	- d.**It could be cyberbullying:** Through using the Internet or using mobile phones or other digital technologies to harm others. Through the social media

There are more people who seem to be more harmed by bullying and are more likely to be the victims. Those who are submissive victims are more anxious, cautious, quiet, and sensitive. And there are more proactive victims who show aggressiveness in behavior and others who are victims with low self-determination who leave it to others to make decisions for them. High performers in organizations can create more envious people around them and suffer from victimization. Building teams and creating cohesiveness within the team through training and social gatherings and friendly interteam competition can help reduce the envy and sometimes heal off such envy and reduce victimization.

Beyond fairness, maintaining positive employee relations requires the establishment of communication programs, which would allow management to recognize the problems, allow employees to voice their concerns, and express their opinions and related issues.

Employees always feel better when the organization has communication programs put in place. Many employers though use communication programs to bolster their employee relations efforts. On the assumptions that employees would feel better when they are in the knows, they would appreciate their employers much better when kept in the loop. Encouraging an open door policy and using the webpage and the Internet to keep employees knowledgeable about the company policies and procedures and about the events taking place in the company are all positive to keep employees aware of what is going on. Keeping employees informed boosts the communication programs and improve communication in the company.

**55**

*Maintaining Positive Employee Relations: Does It Apply to Millennials?*

The communication from bottom up is also very healthy in order to keep management knowledgeable about what is happening in the company and what is bothering employees. In order to maintain positive employee relations and in order to short-circuit inequitable treatment, companies are using communication programs such as suggestion boxes to allow employees to voice their opinions, or they host employees to focus groups and get their feedback. They are also connecting to employees via messaging or creating web-based hot lines. Exit interviews are also a way to allow employees to voice their honest opinion while providing another opportunity for employees to sample the quality of their employee relations with their supervisors as well as their peers and to test the internal environment of the organization. Managers might also use, in addition to open doors policies, "management walking around" to informally get employees feedback on how are

Similarly, employers use climate surveys and use attitude and morale surveys to support employee relation efforts. They use the surveys to measure the employees' attitude towards a variety of organizational issues, such as safety, role clarity, leadership, fairness, pay, and whether they can simply improve employee relations. So conducting climate surveys helps management identify the psychological environment, in terms of things like concerns for employee well-being, supervisory behavior, flexibility, appreciation, ethics, empowerment, political behaviors, and

Many employers use online surveys such as "know your company" survey, in order to get results whether employees are proud to work in their companies, or surveys to assess how satisfied they are with their companies, with their jobs and with their supervisors, and whether the job leads to recognition and respect. Google for instance conducts a "Googlegeist" survey which focuses on the willingness to

Providing opportunities for a two-way communication improves employee relations, especially employee recognition and award programs help achieve satisfaction. Knowing that all those survey and programs need planning, 75% of companies have employee recognition program, and 5% are planning to have them and to implement them soon. When planning for such programs, one needs to develop the adequate criteria in order to motivate employees to work towards them and in order to have a rational process for actually rewarding employees and awarding recogni-

Another way to encourage involvement for millennials in the workplace is to use social media and photo sharing in order to encourage involvement. One survey found that just over half employers use social media tools to communicate with employees and to help develop a sense of community. In addition with millennials, one can use problem-solving teams and quality circles and later engage employees in self-managed teams. Another way to improve employee relations for millennials

In conclusion, companies should develop well-planned communication programs and can make use of social media in order to engage their millennials in the

is to use suggestion systems, which can produce significant savings.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92798*

things going.

rewards.

leave the company.

tion awards.

work place.

#### *Maintaining Positive Employee Relations: Does It Apply to Millennials? DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92798*

*Career Development and Job Satisfaction*

defending themselves.

can take many forms:

media

and related issues.

heal off such envy and reduce victimization.

they intend to harm others.

most would agree that bullying involves three things:

problem.

It is becoming more and more difficult to satisfy, motivate, and retain millennials in the workplace. In addition to the explained behavior of millennials that is different from boomers, some employees are subject to bullying and victimization, which makes some employees singled out and mistreated. This is a serious

For example, one survey of 1000 employees in the United States concluded that about 455 said that they had worked for abusive bosses. The US government said

1.**Imbalance of power**. This includes people who use bullying to control or harm others, while those who are bullied will have a hard time accepting others and

2.**The intent to cause harm**. Those who are bullying are not doing it accidentally;

a.**It could be social:** Victimizing the person by spreading rumors, trying to

d.**It could be cyberbullying:** Through using the Internet or using mobile phones or other digital technologies to harm others. Through the social

There are more people who seem to be more harmed by bullying and are more likely to be the victims. Those who are submissive victims are more anxious, cautious, quiet, and sensitive. And there are more proactive victims who show aggressiveness in behavior and others who are victims with low self-determination who leave it to others to make decisions for them. High performers in organizations can create more envious people around them and suffer from victimization. Building teams and creating cohesiveness within the team through training and social gatherings and friendly interteam competition can help reduce the envy and sometimes

Beyond fairness, maintaining positive employee relations requires the establishment of communication programs, which would allow management to recognize the problems, allow employees to voice their concerns, and express their opinions

Employees always feel better when the organization has communication programs put in place. Many employers though use communication programs to bolster their employee relations efforts. On the assumptions that employees would feel better when they are in the knows, they would appreciate their employers much better when kept in the loop. Encouraging an open door policy and using the webpage and the Internet to keep employees knowledgeable about the company policies and procedures and about the events taking place in the company are all positive to keep employees aware of what is going on. Keeping employees informed boosts the com-

munication programs and improve communication in the company.

3.**The effect of repetition.** Those who engage in bullying intend to harm and hence keep on repeating their behavior over and over again, and this bullying

leave people out on purpose, trying to break out friendships

c.**It could be physical**: Through hitting, punching, or shoving

b.**It could be verbal:** Through teasing and name-calling

**54**

The communication from bottom up is also very healthy in order to keep management knowledgeable about what is happening in the company and what is bothering employees. In order to maintain positive employee relations and in order to short-circuit inequitable treatment, companies are using communication programs such as suggestion boxes to allow employees to voice their opinions, or they host employees to focus groups and get their feedback. They are also connecting to employees via messaging or creating web-based hot lines. Exit interviews are also a way to allow employees to voice their honest opinion while providing another opportunity for employees to sample the quality of their employee relations with their supervisors as well as their peers and to test the internal environment of the organization. Managers might also use, in addition to open doors policies, "management walking around" to informally get employees feedback on how are things going.

Similarly, employers use climate surveys and use attitude and morale surveys to support employee relation efforts. They use the surveys to measure the employees' attitude towards a variety of organizational issues, such as safety, role clarity, leadership, fairness, pay, and whether they can simply improve employee relations. So conducting climate surveys helps management identify the psychological environment, in terms of things like concerns for employee well-being, supervisory behavior, flexibility, appreciation, ethics, empowerment, political behaviors, and rewards.

Many employers use online surveys such as "know your company" survey, in order to get results whether employees are proud to work in their companies, or surveys to assess how satisfied they are with their companies, with their jobs and with their supervisors, and whether the job leads to recognition and respect. Google for instance conducts a "Googlegeist" survey which focuses on the willingness to leave the company.

Providing opportunities for a two-way communication improves employee relations, especially employee recognition and award programs help achieve satisfaction. Knowing that all those survey and programs need planning, 75% of companies have employee recognition program, and 5% are planning to have them and to implement them soon. When planning for such programs, one needs to develop the adequate criteria in order to motivate employees to work towards them and in order to have a rational process for actually rewarding employees and awarding recognition awards.

Another way to encourage involvement for millennials in the workplace is to use social media and photo sharing in order to encourage involvement. One survey found that just over half employers use social media tools to communicate with employees and to help develop a sense of community. In addition with millennials, one can use problem-solving teams and quality circles and later engage employees in self-managed teams. Another way to improve employee relations for millennials is to use suggestion systems, which can produce significant savings.

In conclusion, companies should develop well-planned communication programs and can make use of social media in order to engage their millennials in the work place.

*Career Development and Job Satisfaction*

### **Author details**

Josiane Fahed-Sreih Department of Management Studies, Institute of Family and Entrepreneurial Business, Lebanese American University, Byblos, Lebanon

\*Address all correspondence to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
© 2020 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

**57**

*Maintaining Positive Employee Relations: Does It Apply to Millennials?*

[9] Farrell L, Hurt AC. Training the millennial generation: Implications for organizational climate. E Journal of Organizational Learning &

[10] Alexander KM. Generation Y knowledge workers' experience of work motivation: A grounded theory study [Doctoral dissertation]. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Capella University; 2014

[11] Curtis BJ. Supervisor Behavior: Its Role in the Working Relationship and Retention of Millennial Nurses. 2015

[12] Girard MJ, Lapides J, Roe CM. The Fifth Discipline: A Systems Learning Model for Building High-Performing Learning Organizations. Handbook of Human Performance Technology: Principles, Practices and Potential.

Rice P. Maximizing the human capital of millennials through supervisors using performance management. International Journal of Management,

[14] Raines C. Managing Millennials. Connecting Generations: The

[15] Gupta P, Goyal P. Gen Y attributes— Antecedents to teaching pedagogy.

[16] Goforth A. Why millennials quit their jobs. Benefits Selling. Breaking

[18] Tulgan B. How to retain millennials. Accounting Today. 2016;**30**(5):37

[17] Twenge JM. A review of the empirical evidence on generational differences in work attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology.

Leadership. 2014;**12**(1)

2006. pp. 592-618

2017;**20**(1):1-9

News. 2015

2010;**25**(2):201-210

Sourcebook, 16. 2002

Vision. 2018;**22**(1):78-87

[13] Bartz D, Thompson K,

Business, and Administration.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92798*

[1] Azalea A, Omar F, Mastor K. The role of individual differences in job satisfaction among Indonesians and Malaysians. European Journal of Social

Sciences. 2009;**10**(4):496-511

Management. 2012;**7**(24):88

[3] Bott J, Faulk D, Guntupalli A, Devaraj S, Holmes M. An examination of generational differences and media exposure. The Journal of Applied Management and

Entrepreneurship. 2011;**16**(4):78-100

generational differences. Leadership and Organization Development Journal.

[5] Campione WA. The influence of supervisor race, gender, age, and cohort on millennials' job satisfaction. Journal of Business Diversity. 2014;**14**(1)

[6] Bodenhausen GB. Diversity in the person, diversity in the group: Challenges of identity complexity for social perception and social interaction. European Journal of Social Psychology.

[7] Eastman JK, Iyer R, Liao-Troth S, Williams DF, Griffin M. The role of involvement on millennials' mobile technology behaviors: The moderating

impact of status consumption, innovation, and opinion leadership. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice. 2014;**22**(4):455-470

[8] Gibson LA, Sodeman WA.

and practice. Organization

Millennials and technology: Addressing the communication gap in education

Development Journal. 2014;**32**(4):63-75

[4] Arsenault PM. Validating

2004;**25**(1/2):124-141

2010;**40**:1-16

Khanfar NM, Kaifi MM. A multigenerational workforce: Managing and understanding millennials. International Journal of Business and

[2] Kaifi BA, Nafei WA,

**References**

*Maintaining Positive Employee Relations: Does It Apply to Millennials? DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92798*

#### **References**

*Career Development and Job Satisfaction*

**56**

**Author details**

Josiane Fahed-Sreih

Department of Management Studies, Institute of Family and Entrepreneurial

© 2020 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

Business, Lebanese American University, Byblos, Lebanon

\*Address all correspondence to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
provided the original work is properly cited.

[1] Azalea A, Omar F, Mastor K. The role of individual differences in job satisfaction among Indonesians and Malaysians. European Journal of Social Sciences. 2009;**10**(4):496-511

[2] Kaifi BA, Nafei WA, Khanfar NM, Kaifi MM. A multigenerational workforce: Managing and understanding millennials. International Journal of Business and Management. 2012;**7**(24):88

[3] Bott J, Faulk D, Guntupalli A, Devaraj S, Holmes M. An examination of generational differences and media exposure. The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship. 2011;**16**(4):78-100

[4] Arsenault PM. Validating generational differences. Leadership and Organization Development Journal. 2004;**25**(1/2):124-141

[5] Campione WA. The influence of supervisor race, gender, age, and cohort on millennials' job satisfaction. Journal of Business Diversity. 2014;**14**(1)

[6] Bodenhausen GB. Diversity in the person, diversity in the group: Challenges of identity complexity for social perception and social interaction. European Journal of Social Psychology. 2010;**40**:1-16

[7] Eastman JK, Iyer R, Liao-Troth S, Williams DF, Griffin M. The role of involvement on millennials' mobile technology behaviors: The moderating impact of status consumption, innovation, and opinion leadership. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice. 2014;**22**(4):455-470

[8] Gibson LA, Sodeman WA. Millennials and technology: Addressing the communication gap in education and practice. Organization Development Journal. 2014;**32**(4):63-75

[9] Farrell L, Hurt AC. Training the millennial generation: Implications for organizational climate. E Journal of Organizational Learning & Leadership. 2014;**12**(1)

[10] Alexander KM. Generation Y knowledge workers' experience of work motivation: A grounded theory study [Doctoral dissertation]. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Capella University; 2014

[11] Curtis BJ. Supervisor Behavior: Its Role in the Working Relationship and Retention of Millennial Nurses. 2015

[12] Girard MJ, Lapides J, Roe CM. The Fifth Discipline: A Systems Learning Model for Building High-Performing Learning Organizations. Handbook of Human Performance Technology: Principles, Practices and Potential. 2006. pp. 592-618

[13] Bartz D, Thompson K, Rice P. Maximizing the human capital of millennials through supervisors using performance management. International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration. 2017;**20**(1):1-9

[14] Raines C. Managing Millennials. Connecting Generations: The Sourcebook, 16. 2002

[15] Gupta P, Goyal P. Gen Y attributes— Antecedents to teaching pedagogy. Vision. 2018;**22**(1):78-87

[16] Goforth A. Why millennials quit their jobs. Benefits Selling. Breaking News. 2015

[17] Twenge JM. A review of the empirical evidence on generational differences in work attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology. 2010;**25**(2):201-210

[18] Tulgan B. How to retain millennials. Accounting Today. 2016;**30**(5):37

#### *Career Development and Job Satisfaction*

[19] Jayasundera JMA, Jayakody JASK, Jayawardana AKL. Perceived organizational support and turnover intention of Generation Y employees: The role of leader-member exchange. Sri Lankan Journal of Management. 2016;**21**(2):1-35

**Chapter 6**

**Abstract**

ordered probit

**1. Introduction**

**59**

**JEL codes:** J28, J31, J44, J81

Contract, Gender, and Job

*Monsoï Kenneth Colombiano Kponou*

show that nonwage benefits improve worker satisfaction.

**Keywords:** satisfaction, employment, employment contract, gender,

[7–9]. This approach is described as objective in the literature.

Satisfaction: Evidence from Benin

This study analyzes the effects of job contract and salary on job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is measured using a subjective approach. As a result, workers themselves have reported their satisfaction levels. The study thus pursues two objectives: (i) to evaluate the effect of the job contract on satisfaction and (ii) to test the existence of a differentiated satisfaction according to gender. Using the data from the School-to-Work Transition Survey (SWTS) database conducted in Benin, we carried out econometric analyses based on the estimation of an ordered probit and a simple probit. Our results confirm the validity of our two hypotheses and also

Job quality is increasingly analyzed in the economic literature and is closely linked to that of job satisfaction. This question goes beyond the neoclassical model in which wages are the only variable that gives satisfaction to the worker. In other words, the economic agent participates in the labor market because the salary provides utility and the latter increases as the salary increases. Indeed, several studies have shown that a worker's satisfaction does not depend only on his salary [1–5]. These authors have shown, for example, that nonmonetary factors such as holidays with pay, vocational training, and union membership are also factors that contribute to the job quality and thus may influence the worker's level of satisfaction. Several measurement approaches are used to analyze job quality. Basically, these methods can be classified into two groups. The first group offers a subjective analysis where workers are made evaluators of their job quality levels. This method uses the levels of satisfaction that workers report as an indicator of job quality. It is therefore possible to directly analyze workers' responses to questions about the degree of importance given to safety, wages, personal fulfillment, or work schedules [6]. The second group relies on the use of data to construct job quality indices

Work is a particular good that has attributes that provide different benefits to the worker. These attributes are the type of work contract, hours of work, salary, and extra-salary benefits. A standard employment relationship is governed by contract. But in the context of developing countries where the informal sector is an important part of economic activities, the employment contract is often nonexistent

#### **Chapter 6**

*Career Development and Job Satisfaction*

Jayawardana AKL. Perceived

2016;**21**(2):1-35

[19] Jayasundera JMA, Jayakody JASK,

organizational support and turnover intention of Generation Y employees: The role of leader-member exchange. Sri Lankan Journal of Management.

**58**

### Contract, Gender, and Job Satisfaction: Evidence from Benin

*Monsoï Kenneth Colombiano Kponou*

#### **Abstract**

This study analyzes the effects of job contract and salary on job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is measured using a subjective approach. As a result, workers themselves have reported their satisfaction levels. The study thus pursues two objectives: (i) to evaluate the effect of the job contract on satisfaction and (ii) to test the existence of a differentiated satisfaction according to gender. Using the data from the School-to-Work Transition Survey (SWTS) database conducted in Benin, we carried out econometric analyses based on the estimation of an ordered probit and a simple probit. Our results confirm the validity of our two hypotheses and also show that nonwage benefits improve worker satisfaction.

**Keywords:** satisfaction, employment, employment contract, gender, ordered probit **JEL codes:** J28, J31, J44, J81

#### **1. Introduction**

Job quality is increasingly analyzed in the economic literature and is closely linked to that of job satisfaction. This question goes beyond the neoclassical model in which wages are the only variable that gives satisfaction to the worker. In other words, the economic agent participates in the labor market because the salary provides utility and the latter increases as the salary increases. Indeed, several studies have shown that a worker's satisfaction does not depend only on his salary [1–5]. These authors have shown, for example, that nonmonetary factors such as holidays with pay, vocational training, and union membership are also factors that contribute to the job quality and thus may influence the worker's level of satisfaction. Several measurement approaches are used to analyze job quality. Basically, these methods can be classified into two groups. The first group offers a subjective analysis where workers are made evaluators of their job quality levels. This method uses the levels of satisfaction that workers report as an indicator of job quality. It is therefore possible to directly analyze workers' responses to questions about the degree of importance given to safety, wages, personal fulfillment, or work schedules [6]. The second group relies on the use of data to construct job quality indices [7–9]. This approach is described as objective in the literature.

Work is a particular good that has attributes that provide different benefits to the worker. These attributes are the type of work contract, hours of work, salary, and extra-salary benefits. A standard employment relationship is governed by contract. But in the context of developing countries where the informal sector is an important part of economic activities, the employment contract is often nonexistent most of the time. And yet, the majority of benefits and job arrangements are governed by the employment contract. It is therefore of great importance in job satisfaction. Job satisfaction can vary significantly according to some characteristics of the worker such as sex. By the way, several studies have concluded that women are generally more satisfied than men [10–13]. For Lévy-Garboua et al. [14], satisfaction expresses an experienced preference of current employment against available job alternatives. Clark [15] suggests that women in general have fewer requirements than men, which explains their higher level of job satisfaction.

where U (z) is a standard neoclassical utility function defined in the feature space (C-space). The budget constraint px ≤ k is defined on the property space (G-space). The system of equations z = Φx represents the transformation between C-space and G-space where the matrix Φ describes the consumption technology of the economy. Consumer choices can be either studied in the space of goods (as in

To construct a model that analyzes the relationship between the characteristics of a job and the number of hours of work chosen by the individual, we consider N + 1 goods, that is to say x = (L1, L2, ..., Ln, ...., LN, C). C represents the consumption of good, and each of the other N goods, Ln, represents a specific amount of time used in the consumption of these respective goods. As a result, each Ln is called activity in the following, and the total amount of time used for these activities is normalized to unity. It is further assumed that each activity provides K characteristics, while the consumption of good has a single characteristic. Consumption technology Φ is a format matrix (K + 1) \* (N + 1). The labor supply produces any of the K activity-related characteristics, but none of these produces the characteristics of consumption. Consequently, each element of the matrix Φ, denoted φkn ≥ 0, determines the quantity of characteristics k provided by the use of a unit of time for the activity n. There are therefore several activities that provide different combinations of features. The approach developed here is based on two activities: the work activity providing a remuneration, a certain amount of selected characteristics; and a residual activity possibly including leisure, volunteering that produce the same selected quantity of characteristics. From the perspective of an empirical analysis of the couple's labor supply, we interpret C as the consumption of the family in the following, and we denote L1, L2, and (1-L1) and (1-L2) as the times of each spouse in the work activity and in the residual activity. The vector x

x ¼ ð Þ L1, 1 � L1, L2, 1 � L2, C (2)

CA (3)

CA (4)

By limiting the theoretical analysis to a characteristic of work by spouse and normalizing some coefficients to the unit, the consumption technology Φ is finally

> *φ*<sup>1</sup> 1000 0 0 *φ*<sup>2</sup> 1 0 0 0001

The parameters φ\_i (i = 1, 2) measure the productivity of the work with respect to the residual activity. Since (1-L1) is the combination of several distinct activities, we assume that φi ˂ 1 (i = 1, 2). This indicates that there is at least one activity that is more productive to achieve this characteristic. Using Eq. (3), the second constraint

> *φ*1*L*<sup>1</sup> þ ð Þ 1 � *L*<sup>1</sup> *φ*2*L*<sup>2</sup> þ ð Þ 1 � *L*<sup>2</sup>

*U z*ð Þ¼ *α*<sup>1</sup> ln ð Þþ *z*<sup>1</sup> *α*<sup>2</sup> ln ð Þþ *z*<sup>2</sup> ð Þ 1 � *α*<sup>1</sup> � *α*<sup>2</sup> ln ð Þ *z*<sup>3</sup> (5)

1

*C*

0

B@

We start from a Cobb-Douglas utility function. Here is the problem:

1

0

B@

*z* ¼ Φ*X*<sup>0</sup> ¼

traditional analysis) or in the space of the characteristics of goods.

*Contract, Gender, and Job Satisfaction: Evidence from Benin*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90358*

can be written as follows:

of the following form:

of Eq. (1) can be finally written as follows:

subject to*C* ¼ *w*1*L*<sup>1</sup> þ *w*2*L*<sup>2</sup> þ *R*<sup>1</sup> þ *R*<sup>2</sup>

*z* ¼ Φ*X*<sup>0</sup>

**61**

This study takes a labor analysis approach that goes beyond the neoclassical framework because it is based on the assumption that only salary does not provide satisfaction. In this sense, this study examines the effect of the employment contract on job satisfaction on the one hand and the effect of gender on job satisfaction on the other hand. The rest of the study is organized in four sections. The second section presents the review of the literature, the third presents the methodology, the fourth presents the results and the discussions, and the last concludes the study.

#### **2. Literature review**

We summarize the literature with emphasis on three important aspects: (i) the role of nonwage aspects in the labor supply, (ii) the relationship between work contract and satisfaction, and (iii) the link between heterogeneity of preferences and job satisfaction.

#### **2.1 Beyond the neoclassical model**

The salary is no longer the only element of satisfaction of the worker. The unemployed say they are less happy than the workers, but this difference in satisfaction is not only explainable by wages. Beyond wages, there are other attributes that provide usefulness and satisfaction to workers.

#### *2.1.1 The Kunze and Suppa labor supply model: the role of nonwage aspects*

The model begins with the Lancaster Demand Features approach [16]. The idea of Lancaster [17] is that it is not the goods that produce utility to the consumer but the characteristics that the goods possess (see, e.g., the works of [18]). The good can have more than one characteristic, and the same characteristics can be obtained from more than one good. It is assumed that the characteristics are objective and measurable, for example, a meal provides (i) a certain amount of calorie, (ii) a nutritional composition, and (iii) esthetic characteristics. The technical relationship that transforms goods into their characteristics is called consumer technology. Utility or preference is supposed to classify characteristics, while all goods are only classified indirectly using the characteristics they possess. Formally, Lancaster's consumer program is as follows:

$$\mathbf{Max} \,\mathbf{U} \,\mathbf{(z)}\tag{1}$$

$$\mathbf{z}$$

$$\begin{aligned} \text{subject to} &: \mathbf{px} \le \mathbf{k} \\ \text{with } &: \mathbf{z} = \Phi \mathbf{x} \\ &\mathbf{z}, \mathbf{x} \ge \mathbf{0} \end{aligned}$$

*Contract, Gender, and Job Satisfaction: Evidence from Benin DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90358*

most of the time. And yet, the majority of benefits and job arrangements are governed by the employment contract. It is therefore of great importance in job satisfaction. Job satisfaction can vary significantly according to some characteristics of the worker such as sex. By the way, several studies have concluded that women are generally more satisfied than men [10–13]. For Lévy-Garboua et al. [14], satisfaction expresses an experienced preference of current employment against available job alternatives. Clark [15] suggests that women in general have fewer requirements than men, which explains their higher level of job satisfaction. This study takes a labor analysis approach that goes beyond the neoclassical framework because it is based on the assumption that only salary does not provide satisfaction. In this sense, this study examines the effect of the employment contract on job satisfaction on the one hand and the effect of gender on job satisfaction on the other hand. The rest of the study is organized in four sections. The second section presents the review of the literature, the third presents the methodology, the fourth presents the results and the discussions, and the last concludes the study.

We summarize the literature with emphasis on three important aspects: (i) the role of nonwage aspects in the labor supply, (ii) the relationship between work contract and satisfaction, and (iii) the link between heterogeneity of preferences

The salary is no longer the only element of satisfaction of the worker. The unemployed say they are less happy than the workers, but this difference in satisfaction is not only explainable by wages. Beyond wages, there are other attributes

The model begins with the Lancaster Demand Features approach [16]. The idea of Lancaster [17] is that it is not the goods that produce utility to the consumer but the characteristics that the goods possess (see, e.g., the works of [18]). The good can have more than one characteristic, and the same characteristics can be obtained from more than one good. It is assumed that the characteristics are objective and measurable, for example, a meal provides (i) a certain amount of calorie, (ii) a nutritional composition, and (iii) esthetic characteristics. The technical relationship that transforms goods into their characteristics is called consumer technology. Utility or preference is supposed to classify characteristics, while all goods are only classified indirectly using the characteristics they possess. Formally, Lancaster's

> z subject to : px≤ k with : z ¼ Φx z, x≥0

Max U zð Þ (1)

*2.1.1 The Kunze and Suppa labor supply model: the role of nonwage aspects*

**2. Literature review**

and job satisfaction.

**2.1 Beyond the neoclassical model**

*Career Development and Job Satisfaction*

consumer program is as follows:

**60**

that provide usefulness and satisfaction to workers.

where U (z) is a standard neoclassical utility function defined in the feature space (C-space). The budget constraint px ≤ k is defined on the property space (G-space). The system of equations z = Φx represents the transformation between C-space and G-space where the matrix Φ describes the consumption technology of the economy. Consumer choices can be either studied in the space of goods (as in traditional analysis) or in the space of the characteristics of goods.

To construct a model that analyzes the relationship between the characteristics of a job and the number of hours of work chosen by the individual, we consider N + 1 goods, that is to say x = (L1, L2, ..., Ln, ...., LN, C). C represents the consumption of good, and each of the other N goods, Ln, represents a specific amount of time used in the consumption of these respective goods. As a result, each Ln is called activity in the following, and the total amount of time used for these activities is normalized to unity. It is further assumed that each activity provides K characteristics, while the consumption of good has a single characteristic. Consumption technology Φ is a format matrix (K + 1) \* (N + 1). The labor supply produces any of the K activity-related characteristics, but none of these produces the characteristics of consumption. Consequently, each element of the matrix Φ, denoted φkn ≥ 0, determines the quantity of characteristics k provided by the use of a unit of time for the activity n. There are therefore several activities that provide different combinations of features. The approach developed here is based on two activities: the work activity providing a remuneration, a certain amount of selected characteristics; and a residual activity possibly including leisure, volunteering that produce the same selected quantity of characteristics. From the perspective of an empirical analysis of the couple's labor supply, we interpret C as the consumption of the family in the following, and we denote L1, L2, and (1-L1) and (1-L2) as the times of each spouse in the work activity and in the residual activity. The vector x can be written as follows:

$$\mathbf{x} = (\mathbf{L}\_1, \mathbf{1} - \mathbf{L}\_1, \mathbf{L}\_2, \mathbf{1} - \mathbf{L}\_2, \mathbf{C}) \tag{2}$$

By limiting the theoretical analysis to a characteristic of work by spouse and normalizing some coefficients to the unit, the consumption technology Φ is finally of the following form:

$$
\begin{pmatrix}
\rho\_1 \ \mathbf{1} \ \mathbf{0} \ \mathbf{0} \ \mathbf{0} \\
\mathbf{0} \ \mathbf{0} \ \rho\_2 \ \mathbf{1} \ \mathbf{0} \\
\mathbf{0} \ \mathbf{0} \ \mathbf{0} \ \mathbf{0} \ \mathbf{1}
\end{pmatrix}
\tag{3}
$$

The parameters φ\_i (i = 1, 2) measure the productivity of the work with respect to the residual activity. Since (1-L1) is the combination of several distinct activities, we assume that φi ˂ 1 (i = 1, 2). This indicates that there is at least one activity that is more productive to achieve this characteristic. Using Eq. (3), the second constraint of Eq. (1) can be finally written as follows:

$$z = \Phi X' = \begin{pmatrix} \rho\_1 L\_1 + (1 - L\_1) \\ \rho\_2 L\_2 + (1 - L\_2) \\ C \end{pmatrix} \tag{4}$$

We start from a Cobb-Douglas utility function. Here is the problem:

$$U(\mathbf{z}) = a\_1 \ln \left(\mathbf{z}\_1\right) + a\_2 \ln \left(\mathbf{z}\_2\right) + \left(\mathbf{1} - a\_1 - a\_2\right) \ln \left(\mathbf{z}\_3\right) \tag{5}$$

subject to*C* ¼ *w*1*L*<sup>1</sup> þ *w*2*L*<sup>2</sup> þ *R*<sup>1</sup> þ *R*<sup>2</sup> *z* ¼ Φ*X*<sup>0</sup>

where x and Φ are not given the previous equations. Ri (i = 1, 2) is the nonwage exogenous income of the individual. This income alone is not important, but what is it is the sum R = R1 + R2. The utility function is increasing in φ<sup>i</sup> (i = 1, 2) which means that *U*<sup>φ</sup><sup>i</sup> *0*. The implication is that an improvement in quality translates into an increase in the utility level of the individual. Solving the problem gives:

$$L\_i^\* = \frac{\mathbf{1} - a\_i}{\mathbf{1} - \rho\_i} - \frac{a\_i}{w\_i} \left\{ \frac{w\_j}{\mathbf{1} - \rho\_j} + R \right\} \tag{6}$$

The first is that women do not evaluate the same aspects of employment. The second is that women see themselves more in the role of housework rather than worker. This means that when they work outside the home, they feel extra satisfaction. According to Clark [15], the difference in job satisfaction is due to the fact that women generally have fewer requirements than men and therefore may have

This study uses data from the School-to-Work Transition Survey (SWTS) database. The survey collected data on the Beninese labor market, focusing on the age group 15–29 in 2012. The survey is representative of the target population at

This study adopted two measures of job satisfaction. The first is the level of overall job satisfaction reported by the workers themselves, and the second is the satisfaction of the same workers in relation to their employment contract.

The job satisfaction variable is multinomial and has four modalities. These terms range from "very dissatisfied" to "very satisfied" to "somewhat dissatisfied" and "somewhat satisfied." A level of satisfaction reported can be considered as the achievement of a certain random variable having a probability distribution. In this

where y\* is a latent variable indicating the unobservable level of job satisfaction. X is a matrix of sociodemographic variables, β a parameter vector, and μ the error term. This equation cannot be estimated unless we have a categorical variable whose terms are ordered randomly. Let y be this categorical variable with a set of threshold points Zi. The conditional probability of any observation can be expressed

Pr y <sup>¼</sup> <sup>i</sup>*=*<sup>x</sup> <sup>¼</sup> Pr Zi ð Þ � <sup>1</sup><sup>≤</sup> <sup>x</sup><sup>β</sup> ˂ Zi

where i is in this case the level of job satisfaction reported on a scale of 1–4:

Pr y <sup>¼</sup> <sup>i</sup>*=*<sup>x</sup> <sup>¼</sup> Pr Zi ð Þ � <sup>1</sup> � <sup>x</sup>β<sup>≤</sup> <sup>μ</sup> ˂ Zi � <sup>x</sup><sup>β</sup> ¼ Prð Þ μ ˂ Zi–xβ –Prð Þ μ≤ Zi � 1–xβ

The probability that an employee will choose a level of satisfaction i given the explanatory variables (x) is the difference between the cumulative distribution function of the normal law evaluated at the point of i (Zi) minus the vector of

where Φ (.) is the standard cumulative distribution function.

y ∗ ¼ xβ þ μ (7)

<sup>¼</sup> Pr Zi � <sup>1</sup><sup>≤</sup> <sup>y</sup> <sup>∗</sup> <sup>þ</sup> <sup>μ</sup> ˂ Zi (8)

¼ Φ μð Þ ˂ Zi–xβ –Φ μð Þ ≤Zi � 1–xβ (9)

sense, we can model the level of satisfaction as Kifle and Kler [27] did:

to postpone a higher level of satisfaction than men.

*Contract, Gender, and Job Satisfaction: Evidence from Benin*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90358*

*3.1.1 Equation of the overall level of job satisfaction*

**3. Methodology**

the national level.

as follows:

**63**

**3.1 Models of job satisfaction**

with i = 1, 2; j = 1, 2 et i 6¼ j.

Note that the labor supply function *L*<sup>∗</sup> *<sup>i</sup>* is decreasing with respect to the level of nonwage income R and also in relation to the income level of spouse *wj*. On the other hand, this function is increasing with respect to the level of income φ<sup>i</sup> of the individual and in relation to the level of quality of work. The main implication of this discrete choice model is that it shows the importance of the nonpecuniary aspects of employment. This is because the elasticities of the labor supply are significantly different, given the characteristics of the work. This model can then be used as a basis to show that the worker's satisfaction goes beyond the only salary aspect.

#### **2.2 Hours, contract, and job satisfaction**

There are several studies in the empirical literature that show that work hours have a negative effect on the job satisfaction level [12, 13, 15]. These studies, after controlling for work income bias, obtain negative effect of working hours on the job satisfaction level. This result can be explained by the fact that the work is in fact a disutility and that it is desired only for the benefits it provides. Dawson and Veliziotis [19] found that fixed-term workers report a lower level of subjective well-being than workers with indeterminate employment contracts. The explanation of these authors is that workers who have permanent work contracts have their state of well-being decreased mainly through their increased feeling of insecurity at work.

This result is in line with that found by Zanden [20]. The idea is that the longer people work in a job, the more they feel more secure and therefore postpone a higher level of well-being. It is in this sense that Chadi and Hetschko [21] examined the role of flexicurity with a view to compensating for job security for workers with temporary employment contracts. Green and Heywood [22] showed that while part-time work is an important negative determinant of job satisfaction from a safety at work perspective, it can be a positive contributor to other dimensions of job satisfaction. In a study of developing countries, Bóo et al. [23] showed that women's job satisfaction level is not related to the partial nature of employment. On the other hand, their results indicate that part-time jobs have a negative effect on the level of job satisfaction of men. This indicates that men have a stronger preference for permanent jobs compared to women.

#### **2.3 Heterogeneity of preferences and job satisfaction**

Women have jobs that are, in general, less attractive than those available to men. Better still, women are less empowered and more supervised and have little access to career development opportunities relative to men [24, 25]. However, women have a better attitude and appreciation of their jobs than men [12, 13, 26]. According to Hodson [10], there are two possible explanations for this paradox.

The first is that women do not evaluate the same aspects of employment. The second is that women see themselves more in the role of housework rather than worker. This means that when they work outside the home, they feel extra satisfaction. According to Clark [15], the difference in job satisfaction is due to the fact that women generally have fewer requirements than men and therefore may have to postpone a higher level of satisfaction than men.

#### **3. Methodology**

where x and Φ are not given the previous equations. Ri (i = 1, 2) is the nonwage exogenous income of the individual. This income alone is not important, but what is it is the sum R = R1 + R2. The utility function is increasing in φ<sup>i</sup> (i = 1, 2) which means that *U*<sup>φ</sup><sup>i</sup> *0*. The implication is that an improvement in quality translates into

an increase in the utility level of the individual. Solving the problem gives:

� *αi wi*

nonwage income R and also in relation to the income level of spouse *wj*. On the other hand, this function is increasing with respect to the level of income φ<sup>i</sup> of the individual and in relation to the level of quality of work. The main implication of this discrete choice model is that it shows the importance of the nonpecuniary aspects of employment. This is because the elasticities of the labor supply are significantly different, given the characteristics of the work. This model can then be used as a basis to show that the worker's satisfaction goes beyond the only salary

There are several studies in the empirical literature that show that work hours have a negative effect on the job satisfaction level [12, 13, 15]. These studies, after controlling for work income bias, obtain negative effect of working hours on the job satisfaction level. This result can be explained by the fact that the work is in fact a disutility and that it is desired only for the benefits it provides. Dawson and Veliziotis [19] found that fixed-term workers report a lower level of subjective well-being than workers with indeterminate employment contracts. The explanation of these authors is that workers who have permanent work contracts have their state of well-being decreased mainly through their increased feeling of insecurity

This result is in line with that found by Zanden [20]. The idea is that the longer

Women have jobs that are, in general, less attractive than those available to men. Better still, women are less empowered and more supervised and have little access to career development opportunities relative to men [24, 25]. However, women have a better attitude and appreciation of their jobs than men [12, 13, 26]. According to Hodson [10], there are two possible explanations for this paradox.

people work in a job, the more they feel more secure and therefore postpone a higher level of well-being. It is in this sense that Chadi and Hetschko [21] examined the role of flexicurity with a view to compensating for job security for workers with temporary employment contracts. Green and Heywood [22] showed that while part-time work is an important negative determinant of job satisfaction from a safety at work perspective, it can be a positive contributor to other dimensions of job satisfaction. In a study of developing countries, Bóo et al. [23] showed that women's job satisfaction level is not related to the partial nature of employment. On the other hand, their results indicate that part-time jobs have a negative effect on the level of job satisfaction of men. This indicates that men have a stronger prefer-

*wj* 1 � *φ<sup>j</sup>*

þ *R* ( )

*<sup>i</sup>* is decreasing with respect to the level of

(6)

*L*∗

with i = 1, 2; j = 1, 2 et i 6¼ j.

*Career Development and Job Satisfaction*

aspect.

at work.

**62**

Note that the labor supply function *L*<sup>∗</sup>

**2.2 Hours, contract, and job satisfaction**

ence for permanent jobs compared to women.

**2.3 Heterogeneity of preferences and job satisfaction**

*<sup>i</sup>* <sup>¼</sup> <sup>1</sup> � *<sup>α</sup><sup>i</sup>* 1 � *φ<sup>i</sup>*

> This study uses data from the School-to-Work Transition Survey (SWTS) database. The survey collected data on the Beninese labor market, focusing on the age group 15–29 in 2012. The survey is representative of the target population at the national level.

#### **3.1 Models of job satisfaction**

This study adopted two measures of job satisfaction. The first is the level of overall job satisfaction reported by the workers themselves, and the second is the satisfaction of the same workers in relation to their employment contract.

#### *3.1.1 Equation of the overall level of job satisfaction*

The job satisfaction variable is multinomial and has four modalities. These terms range from "very dissatisfied" to "very satisfied" to "somewhat dissatisfied" and "somewhat satisfied." A level of satisfaction reported can be considered as the achievement of a certain random variable having a probability distribution. In this sense, we can model the level of satisfaction as Kifle and Kler [27] did:

$$\mathbf{y}\* = \mathbf{x}\emptyset + \mu \tag{7}$$

where y\* is a latent variable indicating the unobservable level of job satisfaction. X is a matrix of sociodemographic variables, β a parameter vector, and μ the error term. This equation cannot be estimated unless we have a categorical variable whose terms are ordered randomly. Let y be this categorical variable with a set of threshold points Zi. The conditional probability of any observation can be expressed as follows:

$$\begin{aligned} \Pr\left(\mathbf{y} = \mathbf{i}/\mathbf{x}\right) &= \Pr(\mathbf{Z}\mathbf{i} - \mathbf{1} \le \mathbf{x} \mathbf{j} \le \mathbf{Z}\mathbf{i})\\ &= \Pr\left(\mathbf{Z}\mathbf{i} - \mathbf{1} \le \mathbf{y} \,\,\mathbf{x} + \boldsymbol{\mu} \le \mathbf{Z}\mathbf{i}\right) \end{aligned} \tag{8}$$

where i is in this case the level of job satisfaction reported on a scale of 1–4:

$$\Pr\left(\mathbf{y} = \mathbf{i}/\mathbf{x}\right) = \Pr(\mathbf{Zi} - \mathbf{1} - \mathbf{x}\emptyset \le \boldsymbol{\mu} \le \mathbf{Zi} - \mathbf{x}\emptyset)$$

$$= \Pr(\boldsymbol{\mu} \le \mathbf{Zi} - \mathbf{x}\emptyset) - \Pr(\boldsymbol{\mu} \le \mathbf{Zi} - \mathbf{1} - \mathbf{x}\emptyset)$$

$$= \Phi(\boldsymbol{\mu} \le \mathbf{Zi} - \mathbf{x}\emptyset) - \Phi(\boldsymbol{\mu} \le \mathbf{Zi} - \mathbf{1} - \mathbf{x}\emptyset) \tag{9}$$

where Φ (.) is the standard cumulative distribution function.

The probability that an employee will choose a level of satisfaction i given the explanatory variables (x) is the difference between the cumulative distribution function of the normal law evaluated at the point of i (Zi) minus the vector of

explanatory variables multiplied by their respective coefficients and the cumulative distribution function of the normal law evaluated in the previous point (Zi-1) minus all the explanatory variables multiplied by their respective coefficients.

It will therefore be estimated as the following equation:

$$\mathbf{y}\mathbf{i} = \mathbf{x}\mathbf{i}\mathbf{\beta} + \boldsymbol{\mu}\_{\mathrm{i}} \tag{10}$$

**(1) (2)**

0.141\*\*\* (0.048)

> 0.163 (0.424)

0.132 (0.368)

2.131\*\*\* (0.318)

—

(0.406)

(0.368)

1.030\*\* (0.402)

1.259\*\*\* (0.420)

3.134\*\*\* (0.969)

8.676\*\*\* (0.688)

2.252\*\*\* (0.528)

0.875 (0.708)

1.754\*\*\* (0.547)

2.871\*\*\* (0.670)

1.801\*\*\* (0.628)

2.599\*\*\* (0.738)

1.049\*\*\* (0.399)

0.864 (0.558)

—

**Variables Job satisfaction Job satisfaction**

12–36 months — 0.785\*

36 months and more — 0.772\*\*

(0.031)

(0.262)

(0.223)

(0.244)

(0.207)

(0.293)

(0.307)

(0.532)

(0.827)

(0.305)

(0.409)

(0.294)

(0.427)

(0.375)

(0.428)

(0.252)

(0.355)

(0.237)

**Age** 0.058\*

*Contract, Gender, and Job Satisfaction: Evidence from Benin*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90358*

**Sex** (reference: woman) 0.266

**Marital status** (married or not) 0.343

**Want to change job** 1.237\*\*\*

**Type of contract** (full time or part time) 0.378\*

Rather difficult 0.766\*\*\*

In the national average 1.133\*\*\*

Rather easy 1.258\*\*

Easy 2.483\*\*\*

Primary 0.919\*\*\*

Vocational 0.658

Secondary 0.331

Higher vocational 1.241\*\*\*

University 1.116\*\*\*

Postgraduate 0.970\*\*

Equal opportunities 0.508\*\*

More chances for women 0.103

**Want to work more** 0.207

**Observations<sup>1</sup>** 379 179

*not include in the second estimate the variable want to work more so as not to lose more degrees of freedom.*

*The number of observations has risen to 179 because of the contract duration variable which has a small number. As a result, we did*

**Discrimination (reference: more chances for men)**

*Source: Estimate from the SWTS database.*

*Determinants of the level of job satisfaction.*

*1*

**65**

**Table 1.**

**Contract duration (reference: less than 12 months)**

**Financial status (reference: difficult)**

**Education (reference: no level)**

The appropriate estimation technique to the estimation of Eq. (10) is the ordered probit, given the categorical and orderly nature of these modalities.

#### *3.1.2 Equation of satisfaction with the employment contract*