Journal of Scientific & Industri al Research Vol. 58, February 1999, pp 96- 106

Job Satisfaction Among Indian Scientists: Some Empirical Findings From A Research Laboratory

Sunil K Dhawan

Nati onal Institute of Sc ie nce T echno logy and Developme nt St udies, Dr K S Kri shna n Marg,

N ew D e lhi 110 01 2 , Indi a

Received: II A ug ust 1998; accepted : 27 N ovem ber 1998

Thi s study was undertaken in a CS IR research institute to examine the degree of satisfaction and di ssatisfaction among research

scienti sts on issues related to their job such as : goal setting, future prospec ts, and learning opportun ities. T he results indicated

that the sample was sati sfied with work being meaningful and important and also they enj oy their scienti fic work. However,

they showed unhappiness for the factors li ke mutual support and help among colleagues and appreci ation of thei r good work.

T he study highl ights that there exi st 3 - Factor theory with regards to job sati sfact ion .

Introduction

With the ri se of such theories as "participati ve man­agement " and with increas ing recogniti on that organi za­ti onal members often have something va luable to contribute (beyond the accepted limits of their normal job duties), many organizations including those engaged in Research and Development (R&D) acti vities , are act ive ly seeking ways of getting members to partic ipate at least on those decisions which affect them I . However,

the strong hold of bureaucratic system in the mental set-up of people including scienti sts often restricts their partic ipation to anywhere near the desired level2-4

Some of the other obstac les to participate are as fol­

Iows5: -Many employees fear that ex press ing their true

feel ings about the organizati on to the management could be dangerous;

- The fairly widespread belief that disagreeing with the management will block promotion;

- The widespread convi ction that management is not interested in members' problems;

- The feeling that members are not rewarded for good ideas; and

- The conviction that seni or management does not take prompt action on problems.

These barriers to take active part in organizational functi oning, on the one hand , refl ect the value system of people and on the other hand it also highlights their level of acceptance or sati sfacti on with the exi sting system and the ir des ire to accept any major change in the given

structure . Therefore, if we wi sh to bring about any

meaningfu l change in an organization, a proper under­

standing of members' job sati sfac ti on/dissati sfacti on

should be adequately accounted fo r in the "Action Pl an". We may mention here that j ob sati sfaction has been

defined in vari ous ways by research scholars. Some

orthodox defi nitions are :"the causes of behaviours",

"factors which incite and direct an indi viduals action",

"the determinant of activity" , "an idea or concep!... .. to

explain behaviors", "processes invoked to account for

the institut ions, direc tion, intensity and persistence of

goal directed behav iours,,6 . Authors naturally vary in

the ir emphasis, but there is almost everywhere a clai m

that j ob sati sfaction is determinant of behaviour. Indeed

it is, but only some times. The concept of job sati sfaction

which we wi sh to cover here, mu st certa inl y inc lude the

possibility that a motive may be reflected in behav iour,

but it does not foll ow from thi s that a motive and a piece

of behaviour always goes together. Ei ther of them -

moti ves or behaviour can occur without the other. Eng­

land 7 has categorized thi s phenomenon into operati ve

values, intended values, adopted va lues and weak va lues

under the rubric va lue space of people. Operati ve mo­

tives are those which have a higher probability of being

translated into actual behaviour. With dec rease in the

probabi lity, the ex tent of moti ves goes down to intended,

adopted and weak stages8.

\

DHAWAN: JOB SATISFACTION AMONG INDIAN SCIENTISTS 97

The Study

The present paper is based on a larger research pro­gram undertaken by our institute on "Scientific Culture

and Laboratory Functioning: Case of An R&D Organi­zation" . The R&D organisation under consideration is

the Council of Scientific and Industri al Research (CSIR) which has in its fold forty research laboratories working on different di sciplines of Science and Technology (S&T).

Our effort in this paper is pure ly analytical and ex­ploratory. We have not deve loped any hypothesi s re­garding the linkages between job satisfaction and say

performance or any related issues. Our focus is on the

following relationships/issues: - Degree of satisfaction of the scientists with various

aspects of their job such as goal setting, future in the laboratory, influence in the organization, and learning

opportunities. - Degree of dissatisfaction of the scientists on the

factors listed above. - Relationships of the background of the scientists

with the factors of job satisfaction. - Relationships of the background of the scientists

with the factors of job dissatisfaction . - Determining critical factors that contribute to the

variation in overall job satisfaction of the scientists. - Determining critical factors that contribute to the

variation in overall job dissati sfaction of the scientists .

Literature Review

From the time McGregor9 applied Maslows' 10 need­

hierarchy theory to the field of management, consider­

able research has explored the relation of human needs

to job attitudes and work motivation. Some ofthe studies have utilized need-hierarchy theories to understand job satisfaction of employees working in different set­uplO,II, some have used other job satisfaction theo­ries 12,13, and some have been atheoretic in their points

of departure. The primary reason that this concept has been so

appealing is that it has substantial heuristic uti Iity for

delineating dimensions of environment that would be expected, a priori, to lead to positive versus negative work related outcomes. Aspects of the environment likely to allow job satisfaction are predicted to yield

positive outcomes, whereas those likely to thwart job satisfaction are predicted to yield negative outcomes.

Although the concept of satisfaction with job related needs has had relatively wide acceptance as a way of organizing research on job attitudes and work motiva­tion, it has also been strongly criticized by some re­searchers involved in science writing. For example, Salancik and Pfeffer l4 called for abandoning the con­cept because researchers using it have been vague in their definition and imprecise in their specification of the role.

When the definitions of either job satisfaction or the environmental dimensions are imprecise, prediction will be correspondingly inexact, leading either to no relations between the environmental dimensions and work related outcomes or alternatively, to vague, tauto­logical relations. However, we argue that , because of the heuristic value of the concept, its inexact application in past studies does not mean that the concept should be abandoned, but rather that its definitions and operations should be specified more precisely so that they can be tested more directly .

The term job satisfaction has most commonly been used to refer to a person 's conscious wants, desires, or motives from his job. Viewed in this way authors have used job satisfaction and need satisfaction interchange­ably. We are also agreeing to these interchangeab le phenomenon. Needs are treated as individual difference variables, with the strength of a person's desires being assessed and then used to predict work related outcomes either directly 15, or in interaction with characteristics of h . b . b · 16 t e JO or JO envIronment .

Hackman and Lawler l6, who were attempting to clar­ify why enriched jobs had been found to influence)ob attitudes for some employees but not for others I ., 18,

proposed that workers differ in the strength of the ir desire for higher order need satisfaction and that there should be a strong positive relation between enriched jobs and job attitudes for those with a strong desire for higher -order needs but not for those with a weak desire. In that and similar studies, job/need satisfaction was not measured but assumed. In other words, it was assumed that the positive work outcomes resulting from enriched jobs was a function of higher order job/need satisfaction.

Some authors have used job satisfaction in terms of need satisfaction. Let us see how we can use this termi­nology 'needs' as seen in as essential nutriments. The definition of needs in terms of people's wants and de­sires that differ in strength is problematic. However, when one considers that individuals' want and desires may actually be harmful or counter productive 19, it

98 J SCI INO RES VOL 58 FEBRUARY 1999

seems illogical to use the term "human need" to describe something that has hannful consequences for people.

Accordingly, an alternative view defines needs in

tenns of the nutriments (whether physiological or psy­chological) that are essential for survival, growth, and integrity of an individual20. Thi s view of needs assumes that these are innate rather than learned, and it provides a basis for verifying empirically whether something is

II d21 22 If' . f . . h .. actua y a nee ' . Its satls actIon IS s own empIrI-cally to be associated with peoples' growth and health, it is a need; if its satisfaction is not associated with such

outcomes, it is merely a desire. Deci and Ryan23 have proposed that individuals have

three innate psychological needs: that need for "compe­tence" which concerns succeeding at challen!ing tasks and being able to attain desired outcomes24,2 ; the need

for "self-determination", which concerns experiencing choice and feeling like the initiator of one's own ac-. 26 27 d d f " I d " I ' h tIOns ' ; an nee or re ate ness , w llC concerns

establishing a sense of mutual respect and reliance with others21 ,28.

Looking at some of the earlier studies on factors contributing to job satisfaction, we find that Herzberg et al. 29 identified six factors as having emerged in several prev ious studies of job satisfaction. These are: general satisfaction and morale, attitude towards immediate head, attitude towards satisfaction of aspirations, atti­tude towards the organisation and its policies, satisfac­

tion with intrinsic aspects of the job and satisfaction with conditions of the present job. In hi s own study on engi-

30 neers and accountants Herzberg found two sets of factors , one leading to job satisfaction (the motivator) and second leading to job dissatisfaction (the hygiene factors). Five factors stand out as strong determinants of job satisfaction:-achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility and advancement. The major dissati sfiers were: company policies and administration, supervi­sion , salary, interpersonal relations and working condi­tions. He advocated that the first cluster of factors relates to what the person does and the other to the situation in

which he does it. Vroom31 has suggested that a set of seven attitudes

as factors of job satisfaction might exist: attitude to­wards the organisation and its management, promo­tional opportunities, job content, supervision, financial rewards, working conditions, and co- workers. He advo­cated that the psychological theorists have assumed that individuals' compare the level of reward which they receive with that which they expected to receive. Posi-

tive discrepancies, in which the attained level of reward exceeds what was expected, have been predicated to produce job satisfaction, whereas negative discrepan­cies, in which the attained level of reward is less than what was expected, have been predicted to produce job dissatisfaction.

In more critical work of the previous studies on job satisfaction ~rior to their development of its measures, Smith, et al. 2 concluded that, "the factors which seem

to emerge most consistently in the studies related to job satisfaction are: pay and material rewards, the work

itself, sUfervision, the other workers on th e job. Newson3 has highlighted that to increase productivity of the employees managers must know what factors motivate them. He advocated the use of the Expectancy theory which can improve motivat ion if nine aspects are met: capacity, confidence, challenge , c riteria, credibil­ity, consistency, compensation, cost, and communica­tion . These aspects should be properly exercised for

better results from the members of an organisation. Coming to Indian situation, Parthasarathy34 makes a

perceptive observation regarding the changes that fol­lowed independence which affected most organisations. He comments "the fear of authority and control is fast disappearing". Several other studies on motivation have revealed that employees look for many other incentives in the job, other than material rewards. Dhawan and Roy35, however, while using a factor analysis on about

60 scientists found that the most important factors of job satisfaction for this group of scientists are : Comfort, challenge, pay, relations with co-workers and resources.

Thus the pay packet does appear even in case of edu­cated and profess ional employees. Narain36, Sinha37, Moule and Ganguli 38, Ganguly39 and Menon40 argued that the management is normally unable to appraise the skill s and experience of their employees. Further, they perceive that the ir jobs do not allow them sufficient freedom to take decisions. Menon and Shamanna 41 have

indicated that the inter - personal relationships that prevail within an organisation are influenced by the nature of the work flow in that organisation. Other studies on sociotechnical system can affect interper­sonal factors such as cooperation, communication, and influence in a work situation 42. Interpersonal relation­

ships can affect productivity and this can modify the satisfaction an employee derives from his job. A report published in The Statesman, August 15, 1990 highlights that personality clashes are the root causes of conflicts in Indian scientific establishments and "personal factors

).

J

DHAWAN: JOB SATISFACTION AMONG INDIAN SCIENTISTS 99

rather than technical concerns" dominate decision mak­ing in science.

The studies related to job satisfaction indicate that there was not a great deal of empirical agreements as to what are the basic ingredients of job satisfaction. This is particularly true for the developing countries including India. While some work has been done for industrial, service and allied sectors, relatively few researchers have considered R&D institutions for their analysis.

This assumes significance as there are certain distinct characteristics of R&D institutions that make them dif­ferent from business and service organizations. Thus, faced with the absence of reliable job satisfaction studies for the scientific community, we are compelled to take up our own analysis, may be for a single research labo­ratory which will open gates for other researchers to consider scientists as their subject of analysis.

Methodology

The study was conducted in a research laboratory of CSIR. A questionnaire containing forty questions was used to collect the information from the scientists. These questions represented twelve factors of job satisfaction : work enjoyment, potential skills and abilities, work meaningful and important, work related variety, mutual support and help, learning opportunities, goal setting, autonomy and challenge, appreciation, future prospects, influence in the organisation, and overall job satisfac­tion . Each question was on a 5-point scale with one indicating the presence of that item "to a very little extent" and five indicating presence "to a very great extent". The respondents were asked to put P on that number of a question which they felt was the present level of satisfaction and for the same question they were asked to put I against that number which they consider was the ideal level of satisfaction. In this way the score I minus P gave the degree of dissatisfaction .

We contacted a sample of 95 scientists of the level of middle to high in the laboratory. The sample was chosen using systematic random sampling with every third sci­entist selected from the standard attendance list. The questionnaire was distributed to the scientists in small groups and the objectives, scope of the study and the questionnaire itself were explained to them. Two days were given to the participants to study the questionnaire and from the third day onwards each scientist was con­tacted personally . In these meetings, the emphasis was to collect reliable information and as such lot of time was spent in explaining them how to fill the question-

naire. In all, 84 scientists from this laboratory responded to the study.

Analysis

The reliability of the questionnaire was tested using split-half method and it was found to be 72 per cent reliable . After this test we calculated the mean and standard deviation of 12 factors of job satisfaction by taking P scores. Secondly, we calculated these parame­ters for I minus P score and looking at the degree of dissatisfaction we labelled them low, average and high. The background information of the scientists were re­lated to job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction scores using Pearson correlation coefficients. All those corre­lations which were significant at 5-per cent level were considered as significant. Finally, step-wise regression was used to determine which factors significantly con­tribute to overall job satisfaction and overall job dissat­isfaction.

Results and Observations

Table I presents the background information of the respondents . We find that the average age of scientists covered by us is 46.32 y. The average total service is 23.74 y and service in this particular laboratory is 19.11 y. In fact, majority of the scientists have started their career in the laboratory itself. This was indicated by the informal discussions with the scientists and also when we compared total service with the service in the laboratory , we find that for about 80 per cent scientists covered by us, the figure was same number of years . Thus, we can say that we are dealing with a group of scientists who are highly experienced and have seen the working of the laboratory for several years. They have also experienced the changes that might have occurred in the laboratory during their stay and seen ups and downs in the polices, and working, of the laboratory (in particular), and research organisation (in general) . We can say with some justification that the response ob-

Table I - Background information of respondents (N=84)

Background Data Mean , y SD

Age 46.32 7.39

Total service 23.74 10. 13

Service in the lab 19. 11 8.64

Note: SO - Standard deviation

100 J SCI IND RES VOL 58 FEBRUARY 1999

tained from this group of scientists has some value and

should be seen considered carefully by this organisation. At the same time, we should also compare these

averages along with the standard deviations. It is true that a large majority of these scientists are well aware of

the function ing of the laboratory but at the same time

there are a few younger generation scientists also in the

sample. This combination of young and old scientists

has helped us in the correlation analysis as well as in the

regression analysis. Now we move to actual findings of the analysis. Table

2 provides the mean score and standard deviation for the

twel ve factors of job satisfaction. As stated earlier, all

the questions covered are on 5-point scale. This Table

gives the average ratings of the P score. Table 2 also

indicates that scientists are satisfied to a great extent due

to following factors: work meaningful and important,

work enjoyment and overall job satisfaction. Lower

satisfaction was shown on the factors: appreciation, influence in the organization, learning opportunities,

work related variety and goal setting. For the remaining factors, the satisfaction level was midway on the 5-point

scale, i.e., the mean score was around three. Overall, if

we club the factors with low score and average score,

we find that for nine factors, out of a total of twelve

factors, the satisfaction level falls on the lower or half­

way side. On the one hand they feel that they are doing

meaningful and important work and also they are enjoy­

ing it but on the other hand they do not get desired amount of appreciations, they have little say in what

goes on in the laboratory, work related variety is poor

and learning opportunities are also limited. Further, they

feel that their future is also not very bright and the rating is just average. Despite the fact that majority of scient ists

have shown high job satisfaction, this is not reflected, in

true sense, on satisfying related factors . We may men­

tion here that in one of our earlier studies we find that the top ranked factors which the scientists want from their job is "comfort,,35. In the present analysis also, we

find that "work enjoyment" factor has received suffi­

cient amount of satisfaction. Is it that this factor which is influencing the overall satisfaction with the job? Sec­ondly, we should note that the low satisfaction does not

indicate dissatisfaction . One may not be happy with say

"pay" but at the same time one does not care for it. So the factor "pay" may be rated low on satisfaction scale but it will also be rated low on dissatisfaction scale. This becomes clear from Table 3 which presents the degree

of dissatisfaction on the twelve factors of job satisfac­tion.

Table 3 provides information regarding degree of dissatisfaction with the twelve factors of the question­naire. We find that degree of dissati sfaction is consider­ably high on the factors: Work meaningful and important, mutual support and help, learning opportuni­ties and appreciation. It was low on the factors : Work enjoyment, work related variety, and goal setting. For the remaining factors the degree of dissatisfaction was average. We find some interesting findings when we compare Table 2 with Table 3. These are illustrated SUbsequently.

Table 2 - Mean and SOon job satisfaction factor

Factors Mean SD

Work enjoyment 3.37 0 .62

Potential skills and abi liti es 2.82 0.62

Work meaningful and important 3.65 0 .5 1

Work related variety 2.68 0.86

Mutual support and hel p 3.13 0.74

Learning opportunities 2.66 0.65

Goal setting 2.68 0.7 1

Autonomy and challenge 2.89 0.56

Appreciation 2.37 0.93

Future prospects 3.02 0.50

Intluence in the organization 2.46 0.56

Overall job satisfaction 3.53 0.67

Note: Score o f I indicate low satisfaction and 5 as higb satisfac­tion on 5-point LIKERT scale

Table 3 - Level of dissatisfaction among respondents

Factors

Work enjoyment

Potential skills and abilities

Degree of dissati sfaction

Low

Average

Work meaningful and important High

Work related variety Low

Mutual support and help High

Learning opportunities High

Goal setting Low

Autonomy and Challenge Average

Appreciation High

Future prospects Average

Intluence in the organization Average

Overall job dissatisfaction Average

DHAWAN: JOB SATISFACTION AMONG INDIAN SCIENTISTS 101

Scientists show high level of satisfaction with the factor "work meaningful and important" and also show high level of dissatisfaction with this factor. Evidently, this factor directly affects the satisfaction/dissatisfac­tion of the scientists. In other words, if scientists find their work to be meaningful and important, they show happiness with the job, otherwise they feel dissatisfac­tion with the job. Secondly, the satisfaction level was low for the factor "work related variety", the same was the rating for dissatisfaction. Thus, scientists do not find much variety at their work but at the same time they do not want to carry out different kind of jobs. Thirdly, the scientists are very much concerned with the factor "mu­tual support and help". For satisfaction score, scientists were happy to some extent but they really want a major change in the system so that support and help among colleagues, among divisions and among different or­ganizations/laboratories are improved to a large extent. In fact, in the current Science and Technology (S&T) set-up, it is very important to cooperate to a maximum extent because today's research requires multidiscipli­nary approach to S&T where different groups are re­quired to work together as a team.

Fourthly, learning opportunities were rated low on satisfaction scale and this factor is high on dissatisfac­tion rating. We can say that the scientists are not happy with the opportunities they get for better learning (this may be attending conferences, visiting libraries, getting equipments/papers in time) and want a considerable improvement in the system for this factor. Appreciation was low on satisfaction scale and high on dissatisfaction ratings. This indicates that the factor "appreciation" has direct implication for satisfaction and dissatisfaction of scientists and this organization must consider this factor, i.e., appreciation carefully.

In Table 4, we have tried to analyse important factors that have been rated as :

(i) High Satisfaction, (ii) Low on Satisfaction, (iii) Low on Dissatisfaction, and (iv) High Dissatisfaction.

Some of the significant factors are listed below these classifications. The figure is designed to show that the classification of job satisfaction factors as 'satisfiers' and Dissatisfied' by Herzberg43 is not applicable to our sample. Although we are dealing with a case study but still it puts a question mark to Herzberg's theory. This figure highlights satisfiers, dissatisfied and those factors which have direct contribution on satisfaction/dissatis­faction feelings. Thus, it advocates 3-Factors theory . This figure is also useful for the organization in planning

various actions and changes to improve job satisfaction of the scientists. It should first take up those factors for improvements which have direct implications on both satisfaction and dissatisfaction . Secondly, it should take up the dissatisfiers and finally the satisfiers.

Table 5 presents significant correlations between job satisfaction factors and the background data of the re­spondents. We find that age is negatively related to the factors: work related variety, appreciation, and future prospects. This indicates that with increase in age, the opportunities to work on different jobs, appreciation of work, and future prospects go down . One positive cor­relation was also found between age and autonomy and challenge. This correlation indicates that with increase in age the autonomy and challenge at work also goes up.

Table 4 - Satisfaction and dissatisfaction factors

High satisfaction Low on dissatisfaction

Work meaningful and Important Work enjoyment

Work enjoyment Variety

Low on satisfaction

Work variety

Learning opportunities

Goal setting

Appreciation/recognition

Influence in the organization

Goal setting

High dissatisfaction

Work meaningful and important

Mutual support and help

Learning opportunities

Appreciation/recognition

Table 5 - Significant correlations: job satisfaction vs background

data (N=84)

Factors

Work enjoyment

Potential skills and abilities

Work meaningful and important

Work related variety

Lcarning opportunities

Goal setting

Autonomy and chall enge

Appreciation

Future prospects

Ovcrall job satisfaction

Age

(-)

(+)

(-)

(-)

Note: Significant at 5 per cent level

Total service

(- )

(- )

(+)

(+)

(-)

(-)

Servi ce in lab

(-)

(-)

(-)

(+)

(-)

(- )

102 J SCI IND RES VOL 58 FEBRUARY 1999

How they respond to these changing demands is impor­

tant to understand . Table 2 indicates that sc ientists of this laboratory are sati sfied 'to some extent ' with thi s factor and at the same time they do not wish a major change or improvement in what is happen ing in the organization. In one of our earlier studies regarding va lue system of Indian scientists, we find that Indian scientists glace low value to change, challenge, and autonomy 4. This group of sc ienti sts is no exception. Although the ir job demands higher degree of autonomy and challenge, they are not prepared for thi s change.

Further, from Table 2, we will analyse the back­ground data regarding tota l service and service in thi s particular laboratory together. Thi s is mainl y because a

majority of scienti sts in our sample has started the career in the laboratory itse lf. Negative correlations are found between total service and service in the laboratory with the fac tors 'work meaningful and important ', and 'future prospects' . Thus, with an increase in total service and service in the laboratory the satisfaction with the impor­tance of work and chance of better future goes down. The second correlation, in fact, raises a fundamental

question about the career path being adopted in thi s research organisation. On the one hand scientists are sticking to the organisation and are moving to other laboratories to a I ittle extent and on the other hand they perceive that continuing in thi s organisation has very limited scope of going up the ladder. Thi s re lationship, we feel should be seen in the context of employment si tuation prevailing in our country. We would like to mention here that this research organisation conducts examination to recruit Junior Research Fellows. Our discussions with about 700 such scholars indicated that after the fe llowship, i.e., after doing research and com­pleting their Ph D, they are faced with the problem of getting suitable jobs. Perhaps this factor has forced scientists to continue in the laboratory despite dim future

prospects. For total service we have two more negati ve correla­

tions. These are the factor with 'work re lated variety' and 'appreciations'. This we have already dealt with while explaining correlations with age. At the same time we have found two positive correlations . These are between ' total service' and the factors 'goal setting' and 'autonomy and challenge'. We look at the relationship with goal setting. With increase in total service sati sfac­tion with setting goal also goes up. We feel that this goal setting may mean setting of one's own goal and has little to do with ei ther laboratory or organisational goals. We

should highlight here that influence in the organisation has not figured in Table 2 and Table I has also shown that they have limited sati sfaction with thi s factor. As such opportunities to influence organizations goals should be limited.

Last column, i.e., service in the laboratory also high­lights some extra signi ficant correlat ions. Negative cor­relations are found between 'service in the laboratory' and the factors 'work enjoyment', 'potential skill s and abilities' and 'overall j ob sati sfaction' . In the li ght of our earlier di scuss ions such negati ve corre lati ons are under­standable except for the last re lationship with the factor : overall job satisfaction. Thus, as pred icted and dis­cussed by us, with increase in service in the laboratory the degree of sati sfaction goes down. A lthough other tables did not re fl ect thi s finding clearly, but Table 5 confirmed this finding . Finally, one positive correlation is found between service in the laboratory and the factor ' learning opportunities'. Thi s indicates that with in­crease in service in the laboratory learning opportunities also go up. This finding is in contradiction with what we have said earlier. Perhaps, the opportuniti es to learn are res tricted to senior scientists only .

We may mention hare that we have found severa l significant correl ations between background data of the respondents and the factors of j ob sat isfac tion . This supports our earlier statement that there is a greater need to study job satisfaction of Indian scienti sts . The re la­tionship that emerged in Table 5 becomes more c lear when we measure step-w ise regress ion by taking overall job satisfaction as dependent variable and other eleven factors as independent variables.

Table 6 provides significant correlations between background data of the respondents and twelve factors of job dissatisfaction (i.e., by taking I minus P score) .

Table 6 - Significant correlati ons: job di ssati sfaction vs background data (N=84)

Factors Age

Work meaningful and (+) Important

Learning opportunities

Goal setting

Autonomy and challenge

Future prospects

Overall job satisfaction

(-)

Note: Significant at 5 per cent level

Tot al Service in service lab

(+)

(-)

(-)

(+)

(+) (+)

(+)

\.

DHAWAN: JOB SATISFACTION AMONG INDIAN SCIENTISTS 103

We find maximum number of significant correlations

with 'service in the laboratory. The age of the respondent

is negatively related to the factor 'goal setting' indicat­

ing that with increase in age, the degree of dissatisfaction

with goal setting goes down . We have earlier seen that senior scientists do get opportunities to set, at least their

own goals. Hence, they do not wish to improve this

contribution any further. Age is positively related to the factor 'future prospects'. Thus, with increase in age the

degree of dissatisfaction with future prospects also goes

lip. We have dealt with this relationship earl ier also. The factors 'work meaningful and important' and 'future

prospects' are positively related to total service and

service in the laboratory. Dissatisfaction level goes high

for these factors with an increase in total service and

service in the laboratory . Service in the laboratory is positively related to over­

all job dissatisfaction . Thus with increase in service in

the laboratory the scientists perception about various

aspects of job provides high degree of dissatisfaction.

We will find factors contributing to this dissatisfaction

when we carry out step-wise regression. Table 7 provides results of step-wise regression for

the job satisfaction score (P-score). The first important

factor for job satisfaction for our sample of scientists is 'work meaningful and important. This indicates that for

happier work life, the scienti sts should be provided with

that kind of work which they consider as meaningful and important. This factor alone explains 33 per cent of the

variation in the job satisfaction of the respondents . Sec­ond factor that enters into the regression is 'potential

skills and abilities'. Thus the scientists feel that what­

ever skills and abilities they possess must be utilized to an optimum level. This factor increases the per cent of

variation to 48 per cent. Finally, the third significant

factor contributing to job satisfaction is ' work enjoy­ment' . This factor increase the accounting for variation to 59 per cent. We can tentatively say that to increase job satisfaction of the scientists of this research labora­tory the management should consider the three factors li sted in Table 7.

Table 8 provides results of step-wise regression

when we take job dissatisfaction (I minus P score) as the

dependent variable and other factors as independent variables. Four factors enters into the regression analy­sis. The first factor is 'potential ski ll s and abilities'. This

factor explain 31 per cent of the variation in the depend­ent variables. Second factor that enters is 'learning op­portunities'. This is followed by 'future prospects' and

Table 7 - Job satisfaction and its rel ated factors: results of regression analysis

Factors Multiple R-square Per cent of R vari ation

explained

I Work meaningful and 0.58 0.33 33 important

2 Potential skills and abilities 0.69 0.48 48

3 Work enjoyment 0.77 0.59 59

Note: Significant at 5 per cent level

Table 8 - Job dissati sfaction and its related factors: results of regression analysis

Factors Multiple R-square Per cent of R vari ation

explained

I Potential skills and abi liti es 0.55 0.31 31

2 Learning opportunities 0.68 0.47 47

3 Future prospects 0.73 0.54 54

4 Intluence in the 0.79 0.63 63 organization

Note: Significant at 5 per cent level

'influences in the organization'. Overall, these four vari­ables explain 63 per cent of the variation in the job

dissatisfaction score. Thus, to improve dissatisfaction among scientists, this research laboratory shou ld tackle with the four factors listed in Table 8.

Looking at satisfier and dissatisfier as depicted in Table 7 and Table 8 we find that only one factor, i.e ., 'potential skills and abilities' is common in both the regressions. As stated earlier, this is a factor which has direct implications on scientists satisfaction/di ssatisfac­tion and this factor shou ld be dealt wi th first in the action plan of this organisation. Second attempt should be on factors contributing to dissatisfier and lastly they should take up satisfier factors . Thus, we advocate a 3-Factor Action Plan for this organisation .

Concluding Remarks

The field of motivation, job satisfact ion, and, in gen­eral, organizational behaviour in India, and possibly in the Third World as a whole, has not been notably so­cially responsive. Studies on these areas abounds in replications of Western research 45, notably of the Two­factor theory43, hierarchy of needs46, needs satisfaction

d I 47 h' . . 48 .. I I' mo e s , ac levement motIvatIon , motlvat\ona c 1-

104 J SCI IND RES VOL 58 FEBRUARY 1999

mate49, authoritarian-participative leadership50, etc . There has been far less emphasis on how such staples of Third World realities as poverty, scarcity, social strati­fication, kinship orientation, traditionalism, political in­terference, corruption, and state regulations affect micro-level and macro- level studies on organizational behaviour51 . Even if we assu me that such theories have some limited applications in the Third World countries, we should note that these theories have been developed by taking samples from industrial, service, and allied sectors. Scienti sts working in research laboratories have found very limited attention while studying various aspects of organizational behavioural issues. There has been a considerable reporting that we should create scientific temper, ethics, culture, team spirit, etc ., but in reality we have rarely tried to examine what are the significant factors and forces which affect these con­cepts and theories.

We, in this paper, have tried to examine job satisfac­tion and job dissatisfaction of scientists working in a research laboratory. We agree that one should not go in for generalizations on the basis of this analysis, but if researchers start thinking about organizational issues among scientific community and start exploring it, we feel that this paper has achieved its objectives.

To begin with our results indicates that majority of scientists have score of 3 to various questions of job satisfaction (each question is on 5-point scale), which is the middle path . Hence ' we can tentatively say that Indi an Scientists follow "normal distribution" as far as their satisfaction with various aspects of job are con­cerned . In other words, majority perceive average satis­faction. We should also relate thi s finding with the observation that the scientists do not change their jobs frequently . In fact, in our sample, majority of the scien­tists have started their career in the laboratory itself. This in fact, is the peculiar socioeconomic condition and the unemployment problem that prevail s in India does not allow the scientists to change job even if they feel that their future is not bright, as they have no influence in the organization, etc. This i one of the major reasons why we find that scientists rate 'comfort' as highly desired need35 and give low importance to challenge, change, force44.

Yet another finding from our study is that satisfiers and dissatisfiers are not KWO distinct identities as advo­cated by Herzberg30. Our results indicate that there are some common factors which appear in both satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Therefore, we feel that, at least, for

our sample there exists 3-Factors Theory ; with di stinct elements in satisfaction, distinct elements in job di ssat­isfaction, and thirdly, common factors . However, the 3-Factor Theory should be examined more carefully and cautiously.

We also find that there exist several s ignificant cor­relations between background data of the scientists and the degree of job satisfaction/di ssatisfaction. Thi s with increase in age or service in the laboratory the extent of happiness with job also changes. This is the major reason why we are advocating that the concept of j ob satisfaction community also. There are quite a good number of correlations with negative sign. These factors are those for which this organization must take proper action .

The results of regress ion analysis suggest three fac­tors contributing to job satisfaction and four factors contributing to job dissatisfaction . The percentages of variation explained by these factors are 59 and 63 per cent, respectively . Evidently, there are some other im­portant factors that are not covered by us which contrib­ute to job satisfaction/dissatisfaction.

Overall, we assume that this paper does provide a guidelines for further studies that should be carried out by taking scientists as unit of their analysi s. S&T is that backbone for the development of any nation, more so for the developing countries. Human element is key to its success. Thus, we propose more and more case studies should be undertaken for scientific community so as to have our own conceptual framework and theo­ries suitable for India.

Acknowledgment

The author thanks Shri I P Singh for his efforts in data entry, data analysis and typing of this article.

References

Presthus R, Weberian versus Welfare Bureaucracy in Tradi­tional Society, Adl11inis Sci Quart, 6(2) (1961) pp 61-87.

2 Crozier M, The Bureaucratic Phenomenon, (Tavistock, Lon­don) 1964.

3 De N R, Organizational Energy: A DiagnostIc Exercise, Ecoll Pol Week, August, New Delhi, 29 August 1981.

4 Dhawan S K, Research and Development, in Training and Development: A Sectoral Analysis, edited by Mohnot (Indian Society for Training and Development, New Delhi) 1985.

5 Hamner W C. Organizational Shock (John Wiley & Sons, UK) 1980.

DHAWAN: JOB SATISFACTION AMONG INDIAN SCIENTISTS 105

6

7

8

9

Katz D & Khan R L, The Social Psychology oJOrganizations, (lohn Wiley & Sons, NY) 1966.

England G W, The Manag er and His Vailles (Mass Ballinger Publishing Co, Cambridge) 1975.

Dhawan S K, Perception of Indi an Scientists on Work Climate, Value System, and Organizational Energy, R&D Manage, 21(2) (1990) pp 153-160.

McGregor D, The Hllman Side oj Entel1)rise (McGraw-Hili,

New York) 1960.

10 Maslow A H, A Theory of Human Motivation, Psycho I Rev, 50 (1943) pp 370-396.

II Alderfer C P, Existence, Relatedn ess, and Growth (Free Press, New York), 1972.

12 McClelland DC, Human Motivation , (Scott Foresman, Glen­view, IL) 1985.

13 Murray H A, Explorations in Personality, (Oxford University Press, New York ) 1938.

14 Salancik G R & Pfeffer 1, An Examinat ion of Need-satisfaction Models of Job Attitudes, Adlllinist Sci Quart, 22 ( 1977) 427-456.

15 McClelland DC & Burnham D H, Power is the Great Mot iva­tor, Harvard Bus Rev, 54 (1976) pp 100-110.

16 Hackman J R & Lawler E E (III ), Employee Reactions to Job Characteri stics, J Appe Psvchol, 55 ( 1971 ) pp 259-286.

17 Blood M R & Hulin C L, Alienation, E,;vironmenta l Charac­teristics, and Worker Responses . J Appl Ps."chol, 51 ( 1967) pp 284-290.

18 Turner 1\ N & Lawrencc P R, Industrial Jobs and the Worker

(Harvard Uni versity Graduate School of Business Administra­tion of Boston, MA ) 1965.

19 Kasser T & Ryan R 1, Further Exa mining the American Dream : Differe ntial Correlates of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Goals, Persona Social Psychol BII/I. 37 ( 1996) pp 175- 1 fl.7.

20 Ryall R M (' t al. , Al l Goal s Were nOI Created Equal : An Organismic Perspective on the aturc of Goal s and Thcir Regulations, The P.I'."cholog." of' Action: Linking Motil 'ation and CognitiDn to Behavior, edited by P M Gollwitzer and J A Bargh (Gu il ford , New York ) 1996.

21 Baumeister R & Leary M R, The eed to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments As a Fundamental Human Moti va­ti on, Ps."chol /3u/l, 117 ( 1995) pp 497-529.

22 Ryan R M, Psychologica l Needs and the Facilitation of In te­grative Processes, .1 Persollal , 63 ( 1995) pp 397-427.

23 Deci E L & Ryan R M, Ill trillsic Motivmioll alld S"IFdete/'l"i ­nation ill Hlllllan Beha vior (Plenum, New York) 1985.

24 Skinner E A, Perceived COlltrol, Motivation, and Coping (Sage Publication, Thousand Oaks, CAl 1995.

25 White R W, Motivation Reconsidered: The Concept of Com­petence, Psychol Rev, 66 ( 1959) 297-333.

26 deC harms R, Personal Causation: The Internal Affective De­terminants oj Behavior (Academic Press, New York) 1968.

27 Deci E L, Intrinsic Motivation (Plenum, New York) 1975.

28 Harlow H F, The Nature of Love, Alii Psychol, 13 ( 1958) pp 673-685.

29 Herzberg F et al., Job Allitlldes: RevielV oj Research and Opinion, (Psychological Service of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh) 1957.

30 Herzberg F, Thc Motivation-hyg iene Theory, Managelllent and the Motivatioll , edited by V H Vroom and E L Deci (Penguin, UK) 1993.

31 Vroom V H, Work and Motivation (W iley, New York) 1964.

32 Smith P, et a l., The Measurelllent oj Sati.liaction in Work alld Retirem ent: A strategy Jor the Stlld" oj Allilllde.l' (Rand McNally , Chicago) 1969.

33 Newson W B, Motivate Now, Personnel, February , 1990.

34 Parthasarat hy S K, Organizational MalJise, The Hi/ /{III , Octo­ber 17, 1987.

35 Dhawan S K & Roy S, Scienti sts and their Job: A Case Study from Indi a, Prodllctivity, 33 (4) ( 1993).

36 Narai n L, Mallagerial COlllpensation alld Molivalion ill Pllillic Elllel11rises (Oxford & IBH , New Delhi , India) 1973.

37 Sinha J B P, Some Problems or Publi c Sector Organi zations, NATIONAL, New Delhi ) 1973 .

38 /I·10u le H & Ganguli T A, A Stlldv oJMallagelllenl Momle ill

Pri!'ate Sector Ulldertakillgs (Central Labour Institute, Bom­bay, India ) 1965.

39 Ganguly D N, IIII/)({ct of' Mnnagelll ellt S\'sle J)/ s OJ) Mom!l'. Pmdlleli!'il.\' allri /i /(llIslrial Relalions (Central Labou r Imti­tute, Bombay , India) 1974.

40 Menon A S, Sciclllisls alld Orgalli~a tiolls : Mallaging Pcople (C BH Publicat ion , Tri vandrulll, Indi a) 1989.

41 Menon AS & Shamann3 K, Dllerging Challengcs in Manage­lIIenl (CBH Publicati on, Triv3ndrum, India) 1990.

42 Meissner M . .lob AI/ill/des: Revie\l' of' Re.l'earch ({nd O/Iillion (Chand Ie Publi shing Co, San Francisco) 1969.

43 Herwcrg F, Work allri lhe Natllre o./Man (World, New York) 1966.

106 J SCI IND RES VOL 58 FEBRUARY 1999

44 Dhawan S K, Value System of Indian Scientists, J Sci Ind Res, 55 ( 1996) 948-954.

45 Padaki R, lob Attitudes, (Mimeo), ATIRA Ahmedabad, 1987

46 Maslow A H, Motivation and Personality (Harper & Row, New York) 1954.

47 Porter L & Lawler E, Management Allitudes and Peljormance, (Irwin Homewood, IL) 1968.

48 McClelland D C, The Achieving Society (Van Nostrand, Princeton, Nl) 1961.

49 Litwin G & Stringer R A, Motivation and Organizational Climate (Division of Research, Harvard University , Boston MA) 1968.

50 Likert R. New Pallems of Management (McG raw-Hili , New York) 1954.

51 Khandwall a P N, Organizational Behaviour Research in In­dia: A Review, Working Paper 667 (Indian Institute of Man­agement, Ahmedabad) 1987.