See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273338931

Perception of bank employees’ towards working environment of selected

Indian universal banks

Article in International Journal of Bank Marketing · February 2015

DOI: 10.1108/IJBM-10-2013-0117

CITATIONS READS

41 2,842

1 author:

Gagandeep Kaur
MCM DAV College For Women
4 PUBLICATIONS 130 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Gagandeep Kaur on 20 January 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-2323.htm

IJBM
33,1
Perception of bank employees’
towards working environment of
selected Indian universal banks
58 Gagandeep Kaur
Received 15 October 2013
Department of Commerce, MCM DAV College for Women,
Revised 10 February 2014 Chandigarh, India
3 March 2014
Accepted 4 March 2014
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the job satisfaction level of universal bank
employees in India. It focusses on identifying the factors of job satisfaction and their influence on the
overall job satisfaction of universal bank employees.
Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected from a sample of 380 bank employees using
convenience sampling technique.
Findings – The results of exploratory factor analysis reveal that eight factors, i.e. workplace
environment, supervision, cooperation from peers, work discrimination, employee acceptance, work
allocation, job security and remuneration extracted as important determinants of job satisfaction. The
results of multiple regression analysis shows that supervision, cooperation from peers, work allocation
and employee acceptance (independent variables) influences the level of job satisfaction (dependent
variable of bank employees.
Originality/value – Since liberalization, banking sector is considered to be one of the major
recruiters. People prefer bank as a career and social status. In order to further improve the satisfaction
level of bank employees, bank management should provide regular feedback to the employees about
their performance. In the absence of feedback, employees will be discouraged because they do not
know how they are doing or may believe their contribution is unacknowledged. The most important
factor effecting employee satisfaction with their job is their immediate supervisor. Many employees
dislike their supervisor though they like the work they do. To make employees happier in their
position, stay longer and the most important to ensure that customers receive better services, banks
must start improving the management skills of supervisors.
Keywords India, Banking, Perception, Employees, Job satisfaction, Regression analysis
Paper type Research paper

International Journal of Bank
Marketing
Vol. 33 No. 1, 2015
pp. 58-77
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0265-2323
DOI 10.1108/IJBM-10-2013-0117
I. Introduction
Banking scenario has changed rapidly since 1990s. The decade of 1990s has witnessed
a sea change in the way banking is done in India. Technology has made tremendous
impact in banking. “Anywhere banking” and “Anytime banking” have become a
reality. Earlier, banking was defined as a business activity of accepting and
safeguarding money owned by other individuals and entities, and then lending out
this money in order to earn a profit. After the introduction of financial reforms in India,
there is an adoption of a new financial service organization, i.e. universal banking.
This move attempted to bridge the gap between the banking and financial service
providing institutions. Universal banks includes; normal banking functions as well as
other financial services that are traditionally non-banking in character such as
investment, insurance, mortgage, securitization, etc. universal banking refers to
financial intermediaries offering a wide range of banking and financial services
under one roof. It is a one-stop super market for both wholesale and retail services.
It is a combination of commercial banking, investment banking, insurance and
various other activities.
 Examining bank employee perceptions has been a common practice among banking Working
and finance researchers over the years. The main reason for continued interest in this environment of
area of research is ever changing banking business environment throughout the world.
An employee perception is the most important issues for each and every banking
selected Indian
organization. If the employees are not satisfied with the working culture of the bank, universal banks
the business will not generate any money. For this reason, employee’s perception in the
context of universal banking environment needs to be explored. 59
The employee perception is an employee attitude that provides an important view of
the organization through the eyes of employees. It is a kind of discreet feedback that
provides a powerful tool for understanding and meeting employee needs. Employees
that are satisfied and motivated perform better. The employee perception defines in
detail employee needs and concerns for the management. Employee satisfaction is
improved when needs are met and concerns are shared openly.
Indian banks are slowly but surely moving from a regime of “large number of small
banks” to “small number of large banks.” The new era is going to be one of
consolidation around identified core competencies. Mergers and acquisitions in the
banking sector are going to be the order of the day. Successful merger of HDFC Bank
and Times Bank earlier and Stanchart and ANZ Grindlays has demonstrated that trend
toward consolidation is almost an accepted fact. Coming times may usher in large
banking institutions, if the development financial institutions opt for conversion into
commercial banking in line with the recommendation of Narasimhan (II). In India, one
of the largest financial institutions, ICICI, took the lead toward universal banking with
its reverse merger with ICICI Bank coming through a couple of years ago. Another
mega financial institution, IDBI has also adopted the same strategy, and has already
transformed itself into a universal bank. This trend may lead logically to promoting
the concept of financial super market chain, making available all types of credit and
non-fund facilities under one roof or specialized subsidiaries under one umbrella
organization. Consolidated accounting and supervisory techniques would have to
evolve and appropriate fire walls built to address the risks underlying such large
organizations and banking conglomerates (Leeladhar, 2005).
This study is designed to identify the job satisfaction level of universal bank
employees in India. It focusses on identifying the factors of job satisfaction and their
influence on the overall job satisfaction of universal bank employees. The universe of
study comprised of employees of Indian universal banks, i.e. ICICI bank, HDFC bank,
SBI and PNB. These banks are selected as the universal banks on the basis of their
annual reports and press releases in which they have characterized themselves as
universal banks. State Bank of India is the largest state-owned banking and financial
services company in India, by almost every parameter – revenue, profits, assets, market
capitalization, etc. ICICI is the second largest bank in India and the largest
private sector bank in India by market capitalization, Punjab national bank is the
second largest government-owned commercial bank in India with about 5,000 branches
across 764 cities and HDFC is best private bank by strength, soundness and growth
(capital adequacy percentage, liquidity, total assets growth and growth in advances).

II. Review of literature

Job satisfaction has been defined as a general attitude toward one’s job. It is in regard to
one’s feelings or state-of-mind regarding the nature of their work. It is a self-reported
positive state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or from one’s job experience.
Job satisfaction is the difference between the amount of rewards employees receive and
IJBM the amount they believe they should receive (Robbins, 1997). Job satisfaction and
33,1 dissatisfaction are function of the perceived relationship between what one expects and
obtains from one’s job and how much importance or value one attributes to it (Mobley
and Locke, 1970).
Different authors have different approaches toward defining job satisfaction. Some
of the most commonly cited definitions on job satisfaction are analyzed in the text that
60 follows. Hoppock defined job satisfaction as any combination of psychological,
physiological and environmental circumstances that cause a person truthfully to say
I am satisfied with my job (Hoppock, 1935). According to this approach although job
satisfaction is under the influence of many external factors, it remains something
internal that has to do with the way how the employee feels. That is job satisfaction
presents a set of factors that cause a feeling of satisfaction. Vroom in his definition on
job satisfaction focusses on the role of the employee in the workplace. Thus he defines
job satisfaction as affective orientations on the part of individuals toward work roles
which they are presently occupying (Vroom, 1964). One of the most often cited
definitions on job satisfaction is the one given by spector according to whom job
satisfaction has to do with the way how people feel about their job and its various
aspects. It has to do with the extent to which people like or dislike their job. That is why
job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction can appear in any given work situation
(Aziri, 2011).
Professor Herzberg, Mausner and Synderman in 1959, after conducting a massive
study developed “Two Factor Theory” that identifies two set of factors contributing to
job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Those are hygiene factors: salary, relation with
superior and peer, quality of technical supervision, company policy and administration,
working condition, etc.; and motivation factors: achievements, recognition, work
itself, responsibility, advancement and possibility of growth. There is a positive
correlation between the nature of the job design including task complexity, task
variety, task independence and job satisfaction (Applebum and Grigore, 1997).
However, most of the studies identified the relationship between job-related factors
and job satisfaction.
The literature on job satisfaction has attempted to establish the determinants of job
satisfaction by modeling reported job satisfaction as a function of a range of employee,
employer and other job related correlates. The most commonly used correlates include
level of pay, hours of work, demographic and human capital characteristics, work
environment and union membership. With regards to demographic and human capital
characteristics; the weight of existing evidence suggests a U-shaped relationship
between age and job satisfaction (Clark, 1996; Clark et al., 1996; Sloane and Ward, 2001)
although there is also some evidence that satisfaction increases with age (e.g. Shields
and Price, 2002).
In terms of job related characteristics, income is probably the most widely
investigated correlate. Clark (1997) and Shields and Price (2002) find that income is an
important determinant of both overall job satisfaction and satisfaction with pay. As
well as income and/or wage, hours of work has been found to impact job satisfaction.
A review of the literature in this context reveals that a number of researcher have
emphasized the importance of factors affecting job satisfaction. Job satisfaction
involves several different spheres such as satisfaction with pay, promotion
opportunities, fringe benefits, job security and the importance/challenge of the job.
(Nguyen et al., 2003). Since work is an important aspect of people’s lives and most
people spend a large part of their working lives at work, understanding the factors
involved in job satisfaction is crucial to improving employees’ performance and Working
productivity. Job satisfaction has often been linked to organizational commitment, environment of
turnover intentions and absenteeism. These variables are costly to an organization,
as they could lead to low morale, poor performance, lower productivity and higher
selected Indian
costs of hiring, retention and training (Opkara, 2004). universal banks
The employment patterns in the banking sector changed abruptly and it became
a high volatile market. The salary bands and compensation and rewards patterns 61
changed and focus became on performance and targets rather than experience and
loyalty. Hence, pay and job satisfaction became a key factor for the banking
professionals which needed attention so as to achieve the long term goals of the bank
(Islam and Saha). Studies have tested the hypothesis that income is an important
determinant of job satisfaction. (Nguyen et al., 2003). Factors such as pay, the work
itself, supervision, relationships with co-workers and opportunities for promotions
have been found to contribute to job satisfaction (Opkara, 2004).
The conceptual domain of job satisfaction is too broad, since it involves the job and
its environment characteristics. Thus, in order to manage the broadness and obtain
measures of job satisfaction two approaches have been developed: global scale and
facet scale. While the former attempts to combine an employee’s reaction to different
aspects of his job single, integrated response, the latter tries to cover each of the
principal areas separately within the general satisfaction domain. Regard to these two
approaches, several researchers offer different measurements tools for measuring job
satisfaction (Sadegh Rast, 2012). This study is focussed on facet scale and attempts to
evaluate the job satisfaction factors. Based on data analysis, workplace environment
(Zalesny et al., 1985; Ferguson and Weisman, 1986; Oldham and Fried, 1987; Sundstrom
et al., 1994; Carlopio, 1996; Leather et al., 2003; Lee and Brand, 2005; Kamal and
Sengupta, 2009; Sownya and Panchanatham, 2011; Devi and Nagini, 2013), Supervision
( Judge et al., 1997; Graen and Scandura, 1987; McIntyre and Salas, 1995; Kozlowski and
Doherty, 1989; Kamal and Sengupta, 2009; Sownya and Panchanatham, 2011; Kumari
and Pandey, 2011; Devi and Nagini, 2013), cooperation from peers (Chen, 2001; Islam
and Saha, 2001/2006; Kamal and Sengupta, 2009; Sownya and Panchanatham, 2011;
Devi and Nagini, 2013), work discrimination (Alderfer et al., 1980; Cox, 1993; Foley et al.,
2005; Tajfel and Turner, 1986; Devi and Nagini, 2013), employee acceptance
(De Forrest, 1994; Chen, 2001), work allocation (Islam and Saha, 2001; Kamal and
Sengupta, 2009), job security (Heaney et al., 1994; Kamal and Sengupta, 2009) and
remuneration (Clark et al., 1996; Levy-Garboua and Claude Montmarquette, 1997;
Neumark and Postlewaite, 1998; Sloane and Ward, 2001; Hamermesh, 2001; Shields and
Price, 2002; Sownya and Panchanatham, 2011).

Research objectives
The study attempts to evaluate the job satisfaction level of universal bank employees
in India. It focusses on identifying the factors of job satisfaction and their influence on
the overall job satisfaction of universal bank employees.

III. The methodology

The methodology employed in this study includes the procedure for data collection,
the study sample, the procedure and techniques used in the data analysis and
the study limitations. A brief description of each of these elements is presented
in this section.
IJBM Data collection
33,1 In order to analyze the employees’ perception of Indian universal banks the study was
conducted using the survey method with a sample of 380 respondents. The universe of
study comprised of employees of Indian universal banks, i.e. ICICI bank, HDFC bank,
SBI and PNB. In total, 400 questionnaires were distributed, out of which 393
questionnaires were received back. For each bank, about 95 questionnaires were
62 selected randomly, out of the total questionnaires collected. Universe of the study
covered major cities of Punjab namely Amritsar, Jalandhar, Ludhiana and Chandigarh.
The sample was selected on the basis of convenience sampling method. The
sample consists of supervisory/ managerial cadre employees. Sequence of collection is
given in Table I.

Employees profile
Table II depicts the gender, age, education, income (per month) and length of
employment. The gender wise distribution of the respondents reveals that 380
respondents, 287 (75.5 percent) are males and 93 (24.5 percent) are females.
Age wise categorization of the respondents reveal that 167 (43.95 percent)
respondents fall in the age-group of 21-30 years, 46 (12.11 percent) belong to age-group
31-40 years, 92 (24.21 percent) are in the age group of 41-50 years and 75 (19.73 percent)
belong to the age group of 50 and above.

Banks Obtained number of samples items

ICICI 100
Table I. HDFC 98
Bank wise PNB 97
composition SBI 98
of sample Total 393

Variables Categories Number of respondents %

Gender Male 287 75.5

Female 93 24.5
Age 21-30 years 167 43.95
31-40 years 46 12.11
41-50 years 92 24.21
Above 50 years 75 19.73
Education Graduate 182 47.9
Post graduate 170 44.7
Professional diploma 28 7.4
Income (per month) Upto 20,000 148 38.95
20,001-35,000 162 42.64
35,001-50,000 55 14.47
More than 50,000 15 3.94
Length of employment Upto 5 years 164 43.16
6-10 years 24 6.32
Table II.
11-20 years 32 8.42
Demographic profile
More than 20 years 160 42.10
of employees
The distribution of the respondents based on education indicates that overall, the Working
respondents are highly educated. A large number of respondents i.e. 182 (47.9 percent) environment of
are graduates. These have been followed by 170 (44.7 percent) post-graduates and 28
(7.4 percent) are professional.
selected Indian
Income wise distribution of the respondents indicates that majority of respondents, universal banks
i.e. 162 (42.64 percent) earns monthly income of 20,001-35,000. These have been
followed by 148 (38.95 percent) respondents whose monthly income is upto 20,001. 63
IV. Results
In this section factor analysis has been applied to the perception of 380 employees
regarding 28 variables statements shown in Appendix, measured on a five-point likert
scale. Factor analysis refers to a data reduction statistical technique, which has the
common objective of representing a set of variables in terms of smaller number of
hypothetical variables. It is done with the idea of simplifying complex and diverse
relationship that exist among a set of observed variables by exploring common
dimensions or factors that link together the apparently unrelated variables and
consequently provides insight into the underlying structure of the data.
For our purpose, factor analysis has been applied to determine the employee’s
satisfaction of selected universal banks in India.

Evaluating the appropriateness of factor analysis

In order to find out the appropriateness of factor analysis for the set of statements
(variables), Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s test was used. The results are
shown in Table III KMO measures the magnitude of observed correlation coefficients to
the magnitude of partial correlation coefficients. A value W0.5 is desirable (Malhotra,
2008, p. 642).
As can be seen from Table III, the KMO value is greater than 0.5 and the significance
level also came out to be 0.000 which shows that the KMO value is significant. Hence
the factor analysis is appropriate. Barlett’s test of sphericity is a test statistic used to
examine the hypothesis that the variables are uncorrelated in the population (Malhotra,
2008, p. 642). In other words, test provides the statistical probability that the correlation
matrix has significant correlation among atleast some of the variables. Table III shows
that, the value χ2 ¼ 4,893.120, df ¼ 406 is significant (p o 0.001) which further shows
the appropriateness of data for factor analysis.

Correlation matrix
A correlation matrix is a lower triangle matrix showing the simple correlations, r,
between all possible pairs of variables included in the analysis (Malhotra, 2008, p. 642).
The correlation matrix Table IV revealed substantial correlations among the variables.

Computing the number of factors and identifying the variables under each factor
To find out the factors influencing the job satisfaction of employees of the Indian
universal banks, the responses were obtained on a five-point scale ranging from 2,

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy 0.754

Bartlett’s test of sphericity Approx. χ2 4,893.120 Table III.
df 406 KMO and
Significance 0.000 Bartlett’s test
 64
33,1
IJBM

Table IV.
Correlation matrix
V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 V9 V10 V11 V12 V13 V14 V15 V16 V17 V18 V19 V20 V21 V22 V23 V24 V25 V26 V27 V28

V1 1
V2 0.227 1
V3 0.147 −0.054 1
V4 −0.022 −0.092 0.370 1
V5 −0.182* −0.164 0.441 0.357 1
V6 −0.171 −0.163 0.368* 0.323 0.530 1
V7 −0.157 0.297 −0.172 −0.020 −0.287 −0.167 1
V8 0.031 −0.070 0.465 0.364 0.602 0.506 −0.229 1
V9 −0.153 −0.084 0.210 0.100 0.269 0.287 −0.183 0.477 1
* *
V10 −0.084 0.287 −0.043 0.139 0.106 0.117 0.263 0.139 −0.083 1
V11 0.071 0.269 −0.144 −0.057 −0.090 0.006 0.338 −0.090 0.051 0.428 1
* *
V12 −0.244 0.138 −0.135 −0.033 −0.096 −0.131 0.493 −0.118 −0.044 0.190 0.159 1
V13 −0.087 0.134 −0.090 0.007 0.058 0.058 0.260 0.030 0.039 0.194 0.095 0.386 1
* * *
V14 0.188 −0.145 0.120 0.027 0.102 −0.095 −0.244 0.214 0.182 −0.084 −0.109 −0.013 0.003 1
* * *
V15 −0.127 −0.018 0.130 ) 0.136 0.312 0.235 −0.086 0.343 0.326 −0.057 −0.166 −0.006 0.020 0.060 1
* * *
V16 −0.115 −0.088 0.312 0.182 0.314 0.468 −0.263 0.438 0.454 0.123 −0.148 −0.126 −0.054 0.073 0.582 1
* * *
V17 −0.084 −0.158 0.098 0.073 0.221 0.184 −0.205 0.181 0.314 −0.116 −0.099 −0.112 −0.011 0.108 0.470 0.466 1
V18 0.001 −0.026 0.235 0.324 0.392 0.260 −0.206 0.519 0.275 0.273 −0.061 0.005 0.000 0.384 0.339 0.423 0.117* 1
* * *
V19 −0.075 −0.095 0.122 0.104 0.305 0.143 −0.315 0.429 0.467 0.086 −0.128 −0.045 −0.017 0.362 0.232 0.340 0.158 0.576 1
* *
V20 −0.176 −0.113 0.277 0.268 0.440 0.307 −0.115* 0.428 0.330 0.166 −0.020 0.058 0.157 0.284 0.340 0.284 0.111 0.695 0.514 1
* *
V21 −0.257 −0.169 0.141 0.251 0.478 0.256 −0.092 0.383 0.348 0.128 −0.040 0.056 0.125 0.256 0.278 0.258 0.153 0.590 0.448 0.651 1
V22 −0.063 −0.003 0.237 0.253 0.390 0.260 −0.139 0.462 0.313 0.163 0.049 0.044 −0.075 0.338 0.286 0.330 0.200 0.558 0.504 0.530 0.463 1
* *
V23 0.139 −0.050 0.167 0.101 0.185 0.041 −0.142 0.207 0.121 0.183 0.052 −0.177 −0.174 0.193 0.071 0.245 0.146 0.439 0.373 0.409 0.334 .435 1
*
V24 0.151 0.075 0.218 0.100 0.021 −0.051 −0.068 −0.060 0.011 0.068 0.043 −0.004 0.032 0.141 0.030 0.047 −0.099 0.112 0.019 0.007 0.056 0.001 −0.037 1
* *
V25 0.049 −0.096 0.507 0.279 0.487 0.356 −0.252 0.470 0.247 0.009 −0.130 −0.091 −0.130 0.379 0.231 0.395 0.227 0.471 0.221 0.431 0.370 0.385 0.287 0.175 1
* * *
V26 0.012 0.231 0.110 0.073 −0.019 0.002 0.334 0.047 −0.019 0.172 0.119 0.391 0.290 0.010 0.021 0.073 −0.071 −0.029 −0.027 0.021 −0.002 −0.063 −0.122 0.233* −0.012 1
* * * * *
V27 0.077 −0.104 0.466 0.429 0.333 0.338 −0.189 0.436 0.191 −0.001 0.072 −0.164 −0.129 0.165 0.263 0.362 0.188 0.365 0.124 0.355 0.114 0.378 0.150 0.111 0.515 0.028 1
* * *
V28 0.091 0.160 0.003 −0.124 −0.071 −0.097 0.189 −0.095 −0.102 0.143 0.165 0.066 0.261 0.033 0.062 −0.048 −0.023 −0.081 −0.111 0.059 −0.057 −0.015 −0.069 0.192 −0.026 0.379 −0.017 1

Note: *Significant at 5 percent

“Strongly Agree” to −2, “Strongly Disagree.” If the questions were started from Working
negative perspective, they were reversely coded (*) i.e. 2, “Strongly Disagree” to −2, environment of
“Strongly Agree” (Streiner and Norman, 1995). These items were worded negatively to
reduce the bias due to tendency of respondents to reply in affirmative during data
selected Indian
collection. In total, 28 variables (including negative items) were used to identify the universal banks
major factors influencing the satisfaction of employees of Indian universal banks.
The item scale was subjected to factor analysis using principal component method 65
with varimax rotation. The principal component analysis was conducted using the
SPSS version 15.0 statistical package. The commonly used procedure of varimax
orthogonal rotation for factors whose eigen values were greater than 1.0, was employed
in the analysis. An eigen value represents the amount of variance associated with the
factor. Entries that had loadings of 0.50 or greater and loaded clearly on only one factor
were retained. In all, eight factors (accounting for 65.203 percent of the total variance)
were extracted.
The Cronbach’s α value is found to be 0.780, which indicates that all the factors in
the study have adequate reliability. On the basis of factor analysis, the number
of factors came out to be eight in number as shown by the rotated component
matrix (Table V).

Component
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 h2

V1 0.691 0.687
V2 0.570 0.622
V3 0.739 0.660
V4 0.740 0.621
V5 0.501 0.661
V6 0.509 0.736
V7 0.661 0.714
V8 0.573 0.742
V9 0.591 0.632
V10 0.751 0.656
V11 0.741 0.582
V12 0.787 0.656
V13 0.544 0.572
V14 0.593 0.611
V15 0.777 0.685
V16 0.698 0.712
V17 0.791 0.662
V18 0.789 0.745
V19 0.720 0.719
V20 0.740 0.728
V21 0.700 0.677
V22 0.684 0.612
V23 0.624 0.622
V24 0.573 0.432
V25 0.568 0.615
V26 0.530 0.603
V27 0.685 0.610
V28 0.762 0.675 Table V.
Eigen value 6.961 2.835 2.007 1.941 1.605 1.430 1.430 1.188 19.397 Rotated component
Cumulative variance % 14.403 25.853 34.540 41.620 48.168 53.849 59.092 64.283 matrix
IJBM F1: workplace environment. This is the most important factor as it accounts for 14.403
33,1 percent of the total variable. Table V gives the composition of this factor along with
the factor labels and loadings. In total, six variables have been loaded on this factor, “
The quality of available equipment is appropriate for the work assigned” (0.789),
“I am able to control the lighting level in my workstation” (0.740), “Furniture at
workplace is flexible enough to adjust, rearrange, or reorganize” (0.720), “There is an
66 effective co-ordination among the various workstations at the work place” (0.684),
“I am able to control the lighting level in my workstation” (0.624) and “My job is useful
and makes sense” (0.593).
F2: supervision. Supervision as a factor generally influences job satisfaction (Tierney
et al., 2002; Zhang et al., 2010). This factor of job satisfaction indicates relationship of
employees with their immediate supervisors. This factor accounts for 11.489 percent of
the total variance. Table V shows five variables have been loaded on this factor.
F3: cooperation from peers. The third factor accounting for 7.989 percent of the total
variance is the “Cooperation from peers.” The variables composing this factor along
with its label are given in Table V. Three variables have loaded on this factor.
F4: work discrimination. The fourth factor accounting for 7.949 percent of the total
variance is the “Work Discrimination.” Four variables are loaded on this factor shown
in Table V, along with labels and loadings.
F5: employee acceptance. This factor accounts for 6.714 percent of the total variance.
The variables composing this factor along with its label and loadings are given
in Table V.
F6: work allocation. The fifth factor accounting for 5.942 percent of the total variance
is the “Work Allocation.” Three variables are loaded on this factor shown in Table V,
along with labels and loadings.
F7: job security. The seventh factor that has emerged from the analysis is the “Job
Security” and it accounts 5.558 percent of the total variance. In total, two variables have
loaded on this factor namely; “ People on this job often think of quitting” (0.762) and
“I am strictly monitored at work” (0.573).
F8: remuneration. The eighth factor accounting for 5.390 percent of the total
variance is the “Remuneration.” Two variables are loaded on this factor shown in Table V,
along with labels and loadings.
The impact of various factors on overall job satisfaction
To explore further, multiple regression analysis has been used. Eight factors emerged
significant from factor analysis, namely, workplace environment, supervision,
cooperation from peers, work discrimination, employee acceptance, work allocation,
job security and remuneration. And, to determine the driving forces leading to job
satisfaction the above eight factors have been taken as independent variables.
To test the set of null hypotheses a proposed multiple regression model has been
used (Table VI):
Y ¼ b0 þ b1 X1 þ b2 X 2 þ b3 X 3 þ b4 X 4 þ b5 X 5 þ b6 X 6 þ b7 X 7 þ b8 X 8

Dependent Overall job satisfaction

variable
Table VI. Independent Workplace environment, supervision, cooperation from peers, work
Model development variables discrimination, employee acceptance, work allocation, job security, remuneration
where Y is the overall job satisfaction, β0, constant, X1, the workplace environment, X2, Working
the supervision, X3, the cooperation from peers, X4, the work discrimination, X5, the environment of
employee acceptance, X6, the work allocation; X7, the job security, X8, the remuneration;
and β1 to β8 ¼ slope coefficients.
selected Indian
Dependent variable – job satisfaction: this can be defined as an emotional universal banks
reaction that “results from the perception that one’s job fulfils or allows the fulfilment of
one’s important job values, provided that it is to the degree that those values 67
are congruent with one’s needs” (Locke, 1976, p. 1307). This was operationalized
by a five-item scale adopted reflecting overall satisfaction with the job. The construct
included the following item: “all in all, Job satisfaction, I am satisfied with the work
of my job.” The item requires the respondents to indicate their agreement or
disagreements on a five-point scale ranging from (−2) strongly dissatisfied to (2)
strongly satisfied.
In order to find out the impact of the factors of job satisfaction identified above on
the overall job satisfaction, multiple regression analysis was applied with the eight
factor scores as the independent variables (workplace environment, supervision,
cooperation from peers, work discrimination, employee acceptance, work allocation,
job security and remuneration) and overall job satisfaction as the dependent
variable. The score for each factor was arrived after averaging the individual
scores of each item loaded on that factor (Comrey and Lee, 1992). There are two main
classes of calculating factors scores namely refined and non refined methods (DiStefano
et al., 2009). According to Tabachnick and Fidell (2001) non refined approach for
calculating the factors scores in generally acceptable for the most of the exploratory
research situations. Study has made use of non-refined method for calculating
factor scores.
Before applying regression analysis, it was instructive to check the existence of
multicollinearity among the explanatory independent variables before proceeding to
the results of regression analysis. Multicollinearity or collinearity is the situation where
two or more independent variables are highly correlated and can have damaging
effects on the results of multiple regression. The correlation matrix is a powerful tool
for getting a rough idea of the relationship between predictors. The suggested rule of
thumb is that, if the pair-wise or zero-order correlation coefficient between two
regressors is high say, in excess of 0.8, then multicollinearity is a serious problem
(Gujarati, 2006, p. 359). The solution is to drop that variable and thereafter run
regression analysis with rest of the variables. Another way to check the
multicollinearity is to compute the average variance inflation factor (VIF). As a rule
of thumb, if the average VIF of a variable exceeds 10 which will happen if correlation
coefficient exceeds 0.80, then that variable is said to be highly collinear (Gujarati, 2006,
p. 362). In line with the above rule of thumb, we did not find any variable in our
analysis, whose VIF value exceeds 10. Hence, data are free from the problem of
multicollinearity.
Additionally, to test the assumption of independent errors (autocorrelation), the
Durbin-Watson statistic was used. The value of this statistic between 2 or close to 2 is
considered as better and for this data the value is 1.722, which is very close to
2 (Gujarati, 2006, p. 469). Hence, the assumption has almost been accomplished.
In summation, the diagnostics indicate the model to be valid and reliable.
It was essential to check the distribution of independent and dependent variables.
Normal probability plot of regression standardized residual was tested to check the
normality of data.
IJBM Pearson’s correlation coefficient
33,1 Table VII provides results of correlation coefficient among variables. It show that the
overall employees job satisfaction (dependent variable, Y ) is significantly correlated to
workplace environment (0.261), supervision (0.528), cooperation from peers (0.285),
work discrimination (−0.086), work allocation (−0.175), employee acceptance (0.232),
job security (0.026) and remuneration (0.033) (independent variables).
68
Results of regression analysis
Y ¼ b0 þ b 2 X 2 þ b3 X 3 þ b 5 X 5 þ b 6 X 6

Y ¼ 2:169 þ 0:682 þ 0:164 þ 0:079 þ 0:158

where Y is the overall job satisfaction of bank employees, β0, the constant, X2,
supervision, X3, cooperation from peers, X5, the work allocation, and X6, the employee
acceptance.
Table VIII shows that overall regression model is significant (F ¼ 22.960; p o 0.000).
Adjusted R2 is 0.285 that means 28.5 percent of the variation in the dependent variable
is being explained by eight independent variables – workplace environment,
supervision, cooperation from peers, work discrimination, employee acceptance, work
allocation, job security and remuneration.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) assesses the overall significance of the model. As
p o 0.05 model is significant and shows that employee satisfaction factors together are
significantly related to the overall satisfaction of employees (Table IX). Table VIII
shows that thefour factors, namely, supervision, cooperation from peers, work
allocation and employee acceptance have positive impact on employees overall job
satisfaction. The coefficients of these variables are positive and significant at 5 percent
level of significance, thus rejecting H01, H02, H04 and H05. On the other side, factors
namely, workplace environment, work discrimination, job security and remuneration
are not statistically significant, thus H0, H03, H06 and H07 are accepted implying
thereby, that these factors have not been significantly influencing the employees
job satisfaction.
Factors which are statistically significant with employee job satisfaction have been
discussed here under:
F2: supervision. Supervision is positively and significantly ( p ¼ 0.000) related with
job satisfaction. The findings represent rejection of null hypothesis (H01), which depicts
that there is significant positive relationship between supervision and job satisfaction.
Supervisory issues have positive and marginally significant relation with the level of
job satisfaction (Tierney et al., 2002; Zhang et al., 2010).
F3: cooperation from peers. In reference to the regression model, cooperation from
peers has positive and significant ( p ¼ 0.018) influence on overall job satisfaction.
Employees of universal banks feel that their job satisfaction increases: colleagues at my
workplace always share information, my colleagues accept me and value my opinion as
part of a team work, colleagues are team oriented and my supervisor involves me in the
decision making process when required. This friendly and supportive environment
can only increase job satisfaction (Chen, 2001; Islam and Saha, 2001; Kamal and
Sengupta, 2009).
F5: work allocation. Work allocation is positively and significantly (p ¼ 0.044) related
to the level of job satisfaction perceived by the employees. The importance of this factor
 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Y Mean SD

F1: workplace environment 1 0.6477 0.651

F2: supervision 0.468 1 0.6057 0.603
F3: cooperation from peers 0.354 0.354 1 0.6737 0.619
F4: work discrimination 0.089 0.061 0.057 1 0.0914 0.879
F5: work allocation 0.144 −0.022 −0.114* 0.264 1 0.2053 0.995
F6: employee acceptance 0.540 0.526 0.463 0.167 0.264 1 0.5921 0.662
F7: job security −0.033 0.023 0.003 0.166 0.176 −0.115* 1 0.2882 0.847
F8: remuneration −0.121* 0.012 −0.150 −0.127* 0.132 −0.130* 0.185 1 0.5276 0.895
Y: job satisfaction 0.261 0.528 0.285 −0.086 −0.175 0.232 0.026 0.033 1 0.6105 0.812
Note: *Significant at 5 percent level
Working

Table VII.
selected Indian

69
environment of

Correlations matrix
universal banks
IJBM Unstandardized Standardized
33,1 coefficients coefficients
B SE β t-value Significance VIF

F1: workplace environment 0.037 0.067 0.030 0.561 0.575 1.516

F2: supervision 0.682 0.078 0.506 8.743 0.000** 1.775
70 F3: cooperation from peers 0.164 0.069 0.125 2.366 0.018** 1.447
F4: work discrimination −0.068 0.044 −0.073 −1.556 0.120 1.181
F5: work allocation 0.079 0.039 0.097 −2.017 0.044** 1.231
F6: employee acceptance 0.158 0.076 0.128 −2.074 0.039** 2.030
F7: job security 0.061 0.045 0.064 1.366 0.173 1.149
F8: remuneration 0.037 0.042 0.041 0.880 0.380 1.129
Intercept (constant) 2.169
Table VIII. R2 0.300
Multiple regression Adjusted R2 0.285
analysis results Note: **Significant at 5 percent level

Sources of variation Sum of square df Mean square Computed F Significance

Regression 75.158 8 9.395 19.894 0.000

Table IX. Residual 175.200 371 0.472
ANOVA results Total 250.358 379

indicates that there is fair allocation of work among employees and the work done by
employees is properly acknowledged by supervisor, which ultimately boost the level of
job satisfaction of employees (Islam and Saha, 2001).
F6: employee acceptance. Employee acceptance is positively and significantly
(p ¼ 0.039) related to the level of job satisfaction perceived by the employees.
Employees get more committed and dedicated toward their work if their efforts in
achieving the organization goals are valued. They feel their presence and importance
in the bank which ultimately affects the overall satisfaction level of employees
(De Forrest, 1994; Chen, 2001).
Considering the factors individually, supervision, cooperation from peers, work
allocation and employee acceptance are found significant toward overall job satisfaction.
Others factors workplace environment, work discrimination and job security are found to
be insignificant.
Other factors like, workplace environment, work discrimination and job security are
found to be insignificant. An improvement in significant factors may bring positive
changes in the overall satisfaction level of bank employees.

V. Conclusion
The result of factor analysis reveals that eight factors (accounting for 64.28 percent of
the total variance) namely; workplace environment, supervision, cooperation from
peers, work discrimination, work allocation, employee acceptance, job security and
remuneration were extracted.
To explore further, multiple regression analysis has been used. Eight factors
emerged significant from factor analysis, namely, workplace environment, supervision,
cooperation from peers, work discrimination, employee acceptance, work allocation, job Working
security and remuneration. And, to determine the driving forces leading to job environment of
satisfaction the above eight factors have been taken as independent variables. The
result shows that supervision, cooperation from peers, work allocation and employee
selected Indian
acceptance are found significant toward overall job satisfaction (dependent variable). universal banks
Others factors workplace environment, work discrimination and job security are found
to be insignificant. 71
Four factors are statistically significant in the model at 5 percent level of
significance. Looking at the “B” values for all the variables it can be seen that four
factors are positively related to the overall job satisfaction. Looking at the standardized
β values it can be said those in absolute terms, F2, i.e. supervision, has the maximum
effect on the overall job satisfaction of the employees, while F5, i.e. work allocation has
the least effect on employees’ satisfaction.

Suggestions
Since liberalization, banking sector is considered to be one of the major recruiters. People
prefer bank as a career and social status. In order to further improve the satisfaction level
of bank employees, bank management should provide regular feedback to the employees
about their performance. In the absence of feedback, employees will be discouraged
because they do not know how they are doing or may believe their contribution is
unacknowledged. Banks must take feedback from employees about their job, salary,
colleagues, workplace, etc. Banks are suggested to provide adequate and effective
supervision to the employees. The most important factor effecting employee satisfaction
with their job is their immediate supervisor. Many employees dislike their supervisor
though they like the work they do. To make employees happier in their position, stay
longer, and the most important to ensure that customers receive better services, banks
must start improving the management skills of supervisors.
Everyone needs to be with those who share attitudes, interests and circumstances
that resemble their own. People choose friends who accept and like them and see them
in a favorable light. Developing cooperation among peers can allow the greater good to
happen that motivates the employees. Company also must be able to avoid conflict
among peers.
Employee acceptance is positively related to the level of job satisfaction. Employees
get more committed and dedicated toward their work if their efforts in achieving the
organization goals are valued. They feel their presence and importance in the bank
which ultimately affects the overall satisfaction level of employees that ultimately
enhances profitability.
The estimated increase in overall job satisfaction with Indian universal banks for
every unit increase or decrease in these factors is given by the beta values of the
respective variables (Figure 1). Thus, if satisfaction with supervision increases by one
unit, overall satisfaction is estimated to increase by 0.506, keeping all others factors
unchanged. An improvement in these factors would bring a positive change in the
overall satisfaction level of bank employees and encourage them to give their best for
the organization.

Limitations
Research being never ending process makes ground for further researchers. Obviously,
all studies and researches have their own limitations and this study is no exception
IJBM Standardized Regression 
33,1 Values

Supervision = 0.506

Cooperation from Peers = 0.125

72 Work Allocation = 0.097
Employee Acceptance = 0.128

Supervision

Cooperation
from Peers
Overall Job
Satisfaction
Work
Allocation

Figure 1.
Proposed model for Employee
employees job Acceptance
satisfaction

as such. Despite its theoretical and practical relevance, the study does suffer from the
limitations. Because the present research is a starting point for a new direction in
studying the customer satisfaction and employee perception toward Indian universal
banks it has encountered a few limitations:
Any study based on a primary survey through a predesigned questionnaire suffers
from the basic limitation of the possibility of difference between what is recorded and
what is the truth, no matter how carefully the questionnaire has been defined and the
field investigation conducted (Singh, 1986, p. 63). For the present study also, some of
the respondents might not have stated honest responses for the purpose of maintaining
the confidentiality of their records.

References
Alderfer, C., Alderfer, A., Tucker, D. and Tucker, L. (1980), “Diagnosin race relations in
management”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 135-166.
Applebum, S.H. and Grigore, M.L. (1997), “Organizational change and job redesign in integrated
manufacturing: a macro – organizational to micro-organizational perspective”, Journal of
European Industrial Training, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 51-63.
Aziri, B. (2011), “Job satisfaction: a literature review”, Management Research and Practice, Vol. 3
No. 4, pp. 77-86.
Carlopio, J.R. (1996), “Construct validity of a physical work environment satisfaction
questionnaire”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 330-344.
Chen, Z. (2001), “Further investigation of the outcomes of loyalty to supervisor: job satisfaction Working
and intention to stay”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 16, pp. 650-660.
environment of
Clark, A., Oswald A. and Warr, P. (1996), “Is job satisfaction ushaped in age?”, Journal of selected Indian
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 69, pp. 57-81.
Clark, A.E. (1996), “Job satisfaction in Britain”, Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 32 No. 4,
universal banks
pp. 189-217.
Clark, A.E. (1997), “Job satisfaction and gender: why are women so happy at work?”, Labor 73
Economics, Vol. 4, pp. 341-372.
Comrey, A.L. and Lee, H.B. (1992), A First Course in Factor Analysis, Academic Press, University
of California, San Diego, CA.
Cox, T. (1993), Cultural Diversity in Organizations: Theory, Res. Pract., Berrett-Koehler,
San Francisco, CA.
De Forrest, M. (1994), “Thinking of a plant in Mexico”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 8
No. 1, pp. 33-40.
Devi, V.R. and Nagini, A. (2013), “An investigation of factors influencing job satisfaction of
employees in banking sector of India”, International Journal of Research in Organizational
Behavior and Human Resource Management, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 107-115.
DiStefano, C., Zhu, M. and Mindrila, D. (2009), “Understanding and using factor scores
considerations for the applied researcher”, Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation,
Vol. 14 No. 20, pp. 1-11.
Ferguson, G.S. and Weisman, G.D. (1986), “Alternative approaches to the assessment of employee
satisfaction with the office environment”, in Wineman, J.D. (Ed.), Behavioral Issues in Office
Design, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, pp. 85-108.
Foley, S, Hang-Yue, N. and Wong, A. (2005), “Perceptions of discrimination and justice: are there
gender differences in outcomes?”, Group Organ. Manage., Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 421-450.
Graen, G.B. and Scandura, T.A. (1987), “Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing”,
in Cummings, L.L. and Staw, B.M. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 9,
pp. 175-208.
Gujarati, D.N. (2006), Basic Econometrics, 4th ed., Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Ltd,
New Delhi.
Hamermesh D. (2001), “The changing distribution of job satisfaction”, Journal of Human
Resources, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 1-30
Heaney, C.A., Israel, B.A. and House, J.S. (1994), “Chronic job insecurity among automobile
workers-effects on job satisfaction and health”, Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 38,
pp. 1431-1437.
Hoppock, R. (1935), Job Satisfaction, Harper, New York, NY, p. 47.
Islam, N. and Saha, G.C. (2001/2006), “Job satisfaction of bank officers in Bangladesh”, available
at: www.journal.au.edu/abac_journal/2001/sep01/article4.doc (acceseed December 5, 2006).
Judge, T.A., Locke, E.A. and Durham, C.C. (1997), “The dispositional causes of job satisfaction:
a core evaluations approach”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19, pp. 151-188.
Kamal, R. and Sengupta, D. (2009), “A study of job satisfaction of bank officers”, Prajnan,
Vol. XXXVII No. 3, pp. 229-245.
Kozlowski and Doherty (1989), “Integration of climate and leadership, examination of neglected
issues”, Journal of Applied Phycology, Vol. 74, pp. 546-553.
Kumari, G. and Pandey, K.M. (2011), “Job satisfaction in public sector and private sector:
a comparison”, International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, Vol. 2
No. 3, pp. 222-228.
IJBM Leather, P., Beale, D. and Sullivan, L. (2003), “Noise, psychosocial stress and their interaction in
the workplace”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 213-222.
33,1
Lee, S.Y. and Brand, J.L. (2005), “Effects of control over office workspace on perceptions of the
work environment and work outcomes”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 25,
pp. 323-333.
Leeladhar, V. (2005), “Contemporary and future issues in Indian banking”, available at: www.
74 ramsbay.com/fdf/future_Indian_banking.pdf (accessed August 1, 2013).
Levy-Garboua, L. Claude Montmarquette, L.C. (1997), “Reported job satisfaction: what does it
mean?”, Cahier de Recherche 1, University of Paris.
Lockey, E.A. (1976), “The nature and causes of job satisfaction”, in Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.),
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL,
pp. 1297-1349.
McIntyre, R.M. and Salas, E. (1995), “Measuring and managing for team performance: emerging
principles from complex environments”, in Guzzo, R.A. and Salas, E. (Eds), Team
Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA,
pp. 9-45.
Malhotra, N.K. (2008), Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, 5th ed., Pearson Prentice Hall,
New Delhi.
Mobley, W.H. and Locke, E.A. (1970), “The relationship of value importance to satisfaction”,
Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 463-483.
Neumark, D. and Postlewaite, A. (1998), “Relative income concerns and the rise in married
women’s employment”, Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 70, pp. 157-183.
Nguyen, A.N., Taylor, J. and Bradley, S. (2003), “Relative pay and job satisfaction: some new
evidence”, available at: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/1382 (accessed March 5, 2012).
Oldham, G.R. and Fried, Y. (1987), “Employee reactions to workspace characteristics”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 75-80.
Opkara, J.O. (2004), “The impact of salary differential on managerial job satisfaction: a study of
the gender gap and its implications for management education and practice in a developing
economy”, The Journal of Business in Developing Nations, Vol. 8 No. 8, pp. 65-92.
Robbins, S.P. (1997), Essentials of Organizational Behavior, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Sadegh Rast, A.T. (2012), “Evaluation of employees’ job satisfaction and role of gender difference:
an empirical study at airline industry in Iran”, International Journal of Business and Social
Science, Vol. 3 No. 7, pp. 91-100.
Shields, M. and Price, S. (2002), “Racial harassment, job satisfaction and intentions to quit:
evidence from the British nursing profession”, Economica, Vol. 69, pp. 295-362.
Singh, A.K. (1986), Test Measurements and Research Methods in Behavioural Sciences,
Tata McGrawHill Publishing Company Limited, New Delhi.
Sloane, P.J. and Ward, M.E. (2001), “Cohort effects and job satisfaction of academics”, Applied
Economics Letters, Vol. 8 No. 12, pp. 787-791.
Sownya, K.R. and Panchanatham, N. (2011), “Factors influencing job satisfaction of banking
sector employees in Chennai, India”, Journal of Law and Conflict Resolution, Vol. 3 No. 5,
pp. 76-79.
Streiner, D. and Norman, G. (1995), Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their
Development and Use, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Sundstrom, E., Town, J., Rice, R., Osborn, D. and Brill, M. (1994), “Office noise, satisfaction, and
performance”, Environment & Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 195-222.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2001), Using Multivariate Statistics, 4th ed., Allyn and Bacon, Working
Needham Heights, MA.
environment of
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1986), “The social identity theory of intergroup behavior”, in Worchel, S. selected Indian
and Austin, W.G. (Eds), Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Nelson-Hall, Chicago, IL,
pp. 7-24. universal banks
Tierney, P., Bauer, T.N. and Potter, R. (2002), “Extra-role behavior among Mexican employees: the
impact of LMX, group acceptance and job attitudes”, International Journal of Selection and 75
Assessment, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 99-110.
Vroom, V.H. (1964), Work and Motivation, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, p. 99.
Zalesny, M.D., Farace, R.V. and Kurchner-Hawkins, R. (1985), “Determinants of employee work
perceptions and attitudes, perceived work environment an organizational level”,
Environment & Behavior, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 567-592.
Zhang, Y., Yao, X. and Cheong, J. (2010), “City managers’ job satisfaction and frustration: factors
and implications”, available at: http://arp.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/03/21/027507
4010392212.full.pdf (accessed March 13, 2011).

Further reading
Awamleh, R. and Fernandes, C. (2001), “The impact of core job dimensions on satisfaction and
performance: a test in an international environment”, International Business and Economics
Research Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 69-76.
Bajpai, N. and Srivastava, D. (2002), “Sectorial comparison of factors influencing job satisfaction
in Indian banking sector”, Singapore Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 89-99.
Bensto, G.J. (1994), “Universal banking”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 121-143.
Bhaskar, A.U., Bhal, K.T. and Mishra, B. (2012), “Strategic HR integration and proactive
communication during M&A: a study of Indian bank mergers”, Global Business Review,
Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 407-419.
Bhatt, R.J. (1998), “A case study of job satisfaction among employees of leading nationalized
banks of Gujarat state”, available at: www.sbaer.uca.edu/research/1998/ICSB/c003.html
(accessed March 3, 2007).
Blanchflower, D.G. and Oswald, A.G. (1999), Well-Being, Insecurity and the Decline of American
Job Satisfaction, Mimeograph, Dartmouth College and University of Warwick.
Castillo, J.X. and Cano, J. (2004), “Factors explaining job satisfaction among faculty”, Journal of
Agricultural Education, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 65-74.
Crossman, A. and Zaki, B.A. (2003), “Job satisfaction and employee performance of lebanese
banking staff”, Journal of Management Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 368-376.
Dipboye, R.L. and Collela, A. (2005), “The dilemmas of workplace discrimination”, in Dipboye, R.
and Collela, A. (Eds), The Psychological and Organizational Bases of Discrimination at
Work, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., NJ.
Dole, C. and Schroeder, R.G. (2001), “The impact of various factors on the personality, job
satisfaction and turnover intentions of professional accountants”, Managerial Auditing
Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 234-245.
Doukakis, I.P. (2002), “The role of employee development in customer relations: the case
of UK retail banks”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1,
pp. 62-76.
Durkin, M. and Bennett, H. (1999), “Employee commitment in retail banking: identifying and
exploring hidden dangers”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 124-137.
IJBM Elisa, J., Grant, V., Ellen, A., Ensher, S. and Donaldson, I. (2001), “Effects of perceived discrimination
on job satisfaction organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and
33,1 grievances”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 53-72.
Gazioglu, S. and Tansel, A. (2002), “Job satisfaction in Britain: individual and job related factors“,
avaialble at: www.erc.metu.edu.tr/menu/series03/0303.pdf (accessed 8 June 2009).
Haile, G.A. (2009), “Workplace job satisfaction in Britain: evidence from linked employer-
76 employee data”, IZA Discussion Paper No. 4101, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
papaers.cfm.abstarct_id¼1373335 (accessed March 29, 2011).
Herzberg, F., Mousner, B. and Synderman, B. (1959), The Motivation to Work, Wiley,
New York, NY.
Holden, L. (1999), “The perception gap in employee empowerment: a comparative study of banks
in Sweden and Britain”, Pacific Review, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 222-241.
Kaur, G. and Gupta, S. (2012), “Business orientation of indian consumer banking”, Global Business
Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 481-517.
Kaur, H.V. (2010), “Analysis of banks in India – a CAMEL approach”, Global Business Review,
Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 257-280.
Kumar, S. (2008), “An analysis of efficiency–profitability relationship in Indian public sector
banks”, Global Business Review, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 115-129.
Mayo, G.D., Shao, L.P. and Newsome, M. (2008), “Comparative analysis of employee job
satisfaction in the accounting profession”, Journal of Business and Economics Research,
Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 65-81.
Mirage, L. (1994), “Development of an instrument measuring valence of ethnicity and perception
of discrimination”, Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, Vol. 22 No. 1,
pp. 49-59.
Moyes, G.D., Cartes, A.C. and Lin, P. (2007), “Determinants of job satisfaction and retention of
Mexican-American accounting professional”, Journal of Business and Economics Research,
Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 77-88.
Pett, A., Marjorie, L., Nancy, R. and Sullivan, J.J. (2003), Making Sense of Factor Analysis for
Instrument Development in Health Care Research, ISBN. 0761919503, Sage Publications.
Rahman, M.I., Gurung, H.B. and Saha, S. (2009), “Where the job satisfaction of bank employees
lies: an analysis of the satisfaction factors in Dhaka city”, available at: www.papers.ssrn.
com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1349453_code668352.pdf?abstractid¼1349453&mirid¼1
(accessed January 15, 2009).
Rama Devi, V. (2006), “Job satisfaction among university teachers”, SCMS Journal of Indian
Management, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 87-94.
Sanchez, J.I. and Brock, P. (1996), “Outcomes of perceived discrimination among hispanic
employees: is diversity management a luxury or a necessity?”, Acad. Manage. J., Vol. 39
No. 3, pp. 704-719.
Scheider, B., Parkington, J.J. and Buxton, V.M. (1980), “Employees and customers perceptions of
service in banks”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 252-267.
Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M. and Hulin, C.L. (1969), The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and
Retirement, Rand-McNally, Chicago, IL.
Srivastava, D. (2004), “Sartorial comparison of factors influencing job satisfaction in Indian
banking sector”, avaialble at: www.allbusiness.com/human-resources/employee-benefits/
178139-1.html (accessed December 31, 2010).
Wanous, J.P. and Lawler, E.D. III (1972), “Measurement and meaning of job satisfaction“, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 95-105.
Appendix Working
environment of
V1 Salary given by bank is sufficient to fulfil my needs selected Indian
V2a System for allocation of salary package for different levels of job is not transparent in my bank
V3 Bank provides fair chance of promotion to each employee universal banks
V4 I am satisfied with the welfare facilities (like traveling allowance, city compensatory allowance,
house rent allowance, allowance for rural postings, loans, advances etc.) provided to the 77
employees by the bank
V5 My supervisor acknowledges good work done by me
V6 My supervisor is fair in work allocation
V7a There is lack of trustworthiness among supervisor and me
V8 My supervisor gives me valuable feedback about my performance
V9 My supervisor involves me in the decision making process when required
a
V10 Work assignments by supervisor are not fully explained
V11a My supervisor shows too little interest in the feelings of subordinates
V12a My supervisor treats me differently at work than other employees due to racial background
V13a Bank is not providing further career opportunities
V14 My job is useful and makes sense
V15 Colleagues at my workplace always share information
V16 Colleagues are team oriented
V17 My colleagues accept me and value my opinion as part of a team work
V18 Workplace layout supports the work activity, speed up task completion and encourages
interaction between the employees
V19 I am able to maintain the social contact with others around me
V20 The quality of available equipment is appropriate for the work assigned
V21 Furniture at workplace is flexible enough to adjust, rearrange, or reorganize
V22 There is an effective co-ordination among the various workstations at the work place
V23 I am able to control the lighting level in my workstation
V24a I am strictly monitored at work
V25 I feel good about working at this bank
V26a I do not feel secure about my job
V27 I would recommend my close friend to join this bank
Table AI.
V28a People on this job often think of quitting
List of variables
Notes: aThese items were worded negatively to reduce the bias due to tendency of respondents to reply statements used for
in affirmative during data collection. They were, however, reverse coded for the purpose of data analysis factor analysis

About the author

Dr Gagandeep Kaur is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Commerce, MCM DAV
College for Women, Chandigarh, India. She has a PhD Degree in banking, which she earned from
the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar. She has five published research paper to her credit
including one in international journal of repute, besides presentation at various national seminars
in India. She has four years of research experience and seven years of teaching experience. Her
research interest includes banking, finance, business ethics and marketing. Dr Gagandeep Kaur
can be contacted at: vee_gagan@yahoo.co.in

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

View publication stats