ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JOB
SATISFACTION AND EFQM BUSINESS EXCELLENCE MODEL:
AN IMPLEMENTATION ON TURKISH QUALITY AWARD
WINNERS
Dr.Ozkan Tutuncu,
ozkan.tutuncu@deu.edu.tr
Enter
Paper
Here.
Dr.Ozlem
Dogan
Enteryour
Your
PaperTitle
Title
Here.
ozlem.dogan@deu.edu.tr
Enter your Name Here.
Enter Your Name Here.
2
INTRODUCTION
• Excellence models affect performance and help
organizations achieve organizational excellence.
• Furthermore employee satisfaction is another
concern of organizational excellence.
3
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCH
• The link between employee and customer
satisfaction has been verified empirically (Dahlgaard
et al., 1998; Eskildsen and Dahlgaard, 2000).
• It has a limitation about data that was obtained by
one company.
• The paper focuses on identifying the relationship
between BEM and JS that creates satisfied
employees in business excellence process.
4
BASIC CONCEPTS
• Excellence as the outstanding practice in managing
organization and achieving results.
• Job satisfaction as pleasantness or unpleasantness
of employees while working.
5
EXCELLENCE MODEL
Five ‘Enabler’ criteria;
Leadership, policy and strategy, people management,
researches and partnerships, and process.
Four ‘Results’ criteria;
Customer satisfaction, people satisfaction, impact on
society and key performance results.
6
BUSINESS EXCELLENCE
7
JOB SATISFACTION
Job Descriptive Index
•
•
•
•
•
Work itself
Promotion
Wages
Supervision
Co-workers
8
THE MAIN PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
To determine the relationship between excellence
model and job satisfaction.
Hypothesis
• H1: There is a correlation between BEM and JS.
• H2: BEM factors are perceived more important then
JS factors.
• H3: Personel relationships are perceived more
important than material benefits among BEM applied
companies in Turkey.
9
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
•
A survey that contains JDI and EFQM Criteria are
applied to Turkish Quality Award Winners employees
in 2004.
•
A five-point Likert scale was used in this part, ranging
from ‘definitely agree’ (1) to ‘definitely disagree’ (5).
•
Five companies and institutions have won EFQM
Business Excellence Award in 2004.
10
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
• Survey is planned for all of them. However, one
company is refused to participate in this survey.
• Approximately 9000 employees work in these
organizations.
• In total, 400 questionnaires distributed by the
researchers and 371 questionnaires were returned (2
of them eliminated).
11
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The questionnare is consisted of four parts.
• The first part involved 26 likert type survey items
regarding employees’ satisfaction such as “My
colleagues are friendly”.
• The second part of the instrument included 36 items
designed to measure the level of the employees’
perception levels on EFQM Excellence model criteria
and presented statements such as “Leaders motivate,
support and recognize the organization’s people”.
12
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
• The third part was devoted to investigating the
relationship between employees’ perception level on
Business Excellence Model and Job Satisfaction (2
questions).
• The final part involved 6 questions regarding basic
demographic characteristics of the respondents such as
“How old are you?”. The survey instrument was pilot
tested among 25 employees.
13
RESEARCH FINDINGS
Number
%
SEX
Number
%
68
19,1
241
67,7
47
13,2
356
100,0
EDUCATION
Female
108
30,4
High school
Man
247
69,6
University
Total
369
100.0
AGE
Post graduate
Total
15-25
17
4,8
26-32
119
33,3
TOTAL
WORKING YEARS
33-42
133
37,3
0-2
50
33.6
43-50
62
17,4
3-5
32
21.5
51 and above
26
7,3
6-9
30
20.1
357
100,0
More than 10 years
37
24.8
149
100.0
Total
TENURE
(PRESENT JOB)
Total
Less than 1
30
8,5
1-5
75
21,4
6-10
74
21,1
11-20
47
13,4
21 and more
125
35,6
Total
351
100,0
14
RESEARCH FINDINGS
• The reliability tests have been implemented on data.
• As a result of the test, the general Cronbach alpha of
data is found to be as 0, 98.
15
Canonical Correlation Analysis Relating levels of
Dependent and Independent Set
Measures of overall Model Fit for Canonical Correlation
Canonical Function
1
2
Canonical Correlation Canonical R2
0.7305
0.2609
0.533
0.068
F Statistics Probability
16.54
2.58
.0001
.005
Multivariate tests of significance
Wilks’ lambda
Pillai’s trace
Hotelling’s trace
Roy’s ger
Value
0.434
0.601
1.217
1.144
Approx. F Statistics
16.54
13.81
19.43
36.71
Probability
.0001
.0001
.0001
.0001
16
CANONICAL RESULTS
• The table shows the canonical coefficients of JS and
BEM variables.
• Canonical Function 1 has been found significant from the
significance tests and redundancy values (p=0.0001,
F=16.54, Canonical R2 =0.53).
• Canonical Function 2 has not been taken into
consideration since it is significant but poor redundancy
percent with lower loadings (p=0.005, F=2.58, Canonical
R2 =0.068).
17
CANONICAL RESULTS
Criterion set
JS-Job Satisfaction
BEM-Business
Excellence Models
Explained Vairance
Predictor Set
Work itself
Wages
Promotion
Co-workers
Supervision
Leadership
Policy
People
Partners
Processes
Results
Canonical Function 1
Canonical Function 2
Loadings
Cross-loadings
Loadings
Cross-loadings
0.8675
0,9080
0.6337
0.6633
-0.4974
0.4190
-0.129
0.1094
%78,8
0.7421
0.2129
0.5984
0.4236
0.7451
0.8586
0.8000
0.7839
0.8270
0.8175
0.6912
%21.2
0.5421
0.1555
0.4371
0.3094
0.5443
0.6272
0.5844
0.5726
0.6041
0.5972
0.5049
-0.1293
-0.5726
-0.1661
0.0422
0.2983
0.0727
0.2063
0.0797
0.0709
0.0362
0.4165
Explained variance
Canonical Coefficient
%50.1
0.7305
%6.3
0.2609
Redundancy R2
%53.3
%6.8
-0.0338
-0.1494
-0.0434
0.0110
0.0779
0.0190
0.0539
0.0208
0.0185
0.0095
0.1087
18
CANONICAL RESULTS
• In Function 1, both dependent variables (criterion set)
have loadings exceeding 0.87.
• JS loadings 0.87
• BEM loadings 0.91
• This indicates a high correlation between JS and BEM
and supports Hypothesis 1.
19
CANONICAL RESULTS
All the independent variables loadings has positive
values.
• Leadership (0.86, BEM)
• Partners (0.83, BEM)
• Processes (0.82, BEM)
20
CANONICAL RESULTS
• Policy (0.80, BEM)
• People (0.78, BEM)
• Supervision (0.75, JS)
• Work itself (0.74, JS)
21
CANONICAL RESULTS
• Results (0.69, BEM)
• Promotion (0.60, JS)
• Co-workers (0.42, JS)
• Wages (0.21, JS)
22
CANONICAL RESULTS
• The BEM components have mostly had positive and
strongest impact on BEM and JS.
• As far as JDI components are concerned, supervision,
work itself and promotion has also positive but relatively
moderate impact on criterion set.
• It supports Hypothesis 2.
23
CANONICAL RESULTS
• Wages factor has minimum affect on BEM and JS.
• Wages loadings 0.21
• It supports Hypothesis 3.
24
CANONICAL RESULTS
• In order to validate the canonical correlation analysis,
sensitivity analysis of the independent set also has been
made.
• Independent variables like leadership, partnership and
supervision have been deleted but there have not been
significant changes at the factor loadings.
• This analysis ensures the validity of the data .
25
CONCLUSION
• The relationship between the enablers of the EFQM
criteria and the results can also be interpreted.
• The enablers of the study have more canonical loadings
compared to the results.
• Process management more important than results.
• One reason is the formulation of the results in the survey
as a whole through a questionnaire whose validity was
previously proved while the results in the EFQM Model
consist of four parts.
26
CONCLUSION
• Wages do not have an important place in this
relationship.
• Employees do not evaluate their job satisfaction in
relation with their wages in the process towards business
excellence.
• Organizational goals are more important than individual
goals for Turkish employees.
27
CONCLUSION
• Management that want to implement business
excellence model practically should also take
supervision, work itself, promotion and co-workers
variables into consideration besides BEM’ s factor.
• The strong relationship between JS and BEM shows that
organizations that implement business excellence
models should be aware of job satisfaction which has a
supporting role for the successful implementation.
28