Abel Alemnew

ST.
MARY’S UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS
IMPACT OF JOB SATISFACTION ON

EMPLOYEE JOB PERFORMANCE AT
DEVELOPMENT BANK OF ETHIOPIA
By
Abel Alemnew
June 2014
ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA

By
Abel Alemnew
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO ST.MARY’S UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF

GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
JUNE 2014
ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA

ST. MARY’S UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
FACULTY OF BUSINESS

By
Abel Alemnew
APPROVED BY BOARD OF EXAMINERS
________________________ __________________
Dean, Graduate Studies
______________________________ _____________________
Advisor
______________________________ _____________________
External Examiner
______________________________ _____________________
Internal Examiner
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am so thankful to the Almighty God who has made it possible, under all circumstances, for me
to carry out this research. I am also so grateful to my supervisor Dr. Tilaye Kassahun for his
academic guidance, time; deep comments and patience that has seen me through, making this
work a success. Special thanks go out to Compliance and Risk Management Manager, Ato
Teshome Alemayehu, who allowed me to enter the office out of office hour and supported me
while carrying out my study. In addition to my friends at Development Bank of Ethiopia that
assisted me while distributing, collecting and sending back to me the questionnaires. I lastly wish
to extend my sincere gratitude toward my friends (all my group members) and all those who
have tirelessly guided and encouraged me at all times throughout my course.
Impact of Job satisfaction on employee Job performance at Development Bank of Ethiopia Page i
ABSTRACT
This research investigates the relationship and impact of job satisfaction on employee job
performance at Development Bank of Ethiopia. The study examines a total sample population of
230 employees of the bank. The data for the study was collected from primary and secondary
sources and primary data was collected using structured questionnaires from the samples. A
stratified sampling and simple random sampling techniques of probability sampling were used to
select the samples. Descriptive statistics, correlation and regression analysis were used to
analyze the study. Pay, promotional opportunities, co-workers, supervisor and work itself are
considered as variables that affect job satisfaction of employees. There were different views on
the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance. The study finding conclude that
job satisfaction have a strong positive impact on job performance. In addition, there is a
moderately positive correlation between pay, promotional opportunities, co-workers, work itself
and job performance and a strong positive correlation between supervisor and job performance.
This research adds value that it clearly shows the impact of job satisfaction on employee job
performance at Development Bank of Ethiopia. The implications of the study for bank, managers
and policy makers have been discussed.
Key terms: Job satisfaction, Job performance, Pay, Promotional opportunities, Co-
workers, Supervisor and Work itself
Impact of Job satisfaction on employee Job performance at Development Bank of Ethiopia Page ii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
 DBE Development Bank of Ethiopia
 BSC Balances Scorecard
 PRLRP Project Rehabilitation and Loan Recovery Sub Process
 ECG&SFA Export Credit Guarantee and Special Fund Administration Bureau
 CRMP Compliance and Risk Management Process
 SPDEP Strategic Planning and Development Effectiveness Process
 FAMP Finance and Accounts Management Process
Impact of Job satisfaction on employee Job performance at Development Bank of Ethiopia Page iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..............................................................................................................................................i
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................................. ii
LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................................................................vi
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................................... vii
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................1
1.1. Back ground of the study................................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Organization Background.................................................................................................................. 3
1.3. Statement of the problem................................................................................................................... 4
1.4. Research questions ............................................................................................................................ 6
1.5. Objectives of the study ...................................................................................................................... 6
1.6. Significance of the study ................................................................................................................... 7
1.7. Scope of the study ............................................................................................................................. 7
1.8. Organization of the research study .................................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ........................................................................................9
2.1 Theoretical literature review.............................................................................................................. 9
2.2 Emperical studies on job satisfaction and job performance ........................................................... 18
2.3 Conceptual frame work ................................................................................................................... 23
Impact of Job satisfaction on employee Job performance at Development Bank of Ethiopia Page iv
CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ...................................................................... 24
3.1 Research design ............................................................................................................................... 24
3.2 Source and tools of data collection.................................................................................................. 25
3.3 Sample and sampling techniques..................................................................................................... 26
3.4 Procedures of data collection........................................................................................................... 28
3.5 Methods of data analysis ................................................................................................................. 28
3.6 Model Specification ........................................................................................................................ 29
CHAPTER FOUR DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION .......................................................................... 30
4.1. Demographics of the Respondents .................................................................................................. 30
4.2. Employee Job satisfaction ............................................................................................................... 33
4.3. Employee Job performance ............................................................................................................. 47
4.4. Correlation analysis ......................................................................................................................... 55
4.5. Regression analysis ......................................................................................................................... 57
4.6. General comments on open ended questions................................................................................... 62
CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS................ 64
5.1. Summary of the findings ...................................................................................................................... 64
5.2. Conclusions.......................................................................................................................................... 68
5.2. Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 70
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................................ 72
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................................. 75
Impact of Job satisfaction on employee Job performance at Development Bank of Ethiopia Page v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1 Group Statistics for pay .................................................................................................34

Table 4.2 Independent Samples Test for pay .................................................................................35
Table 4.3 Group Statistics for promotional opportunities .............................................................36
Table 4.4 Independent Samples promotional opportunities .........................................................37
Table 4.5Group Statistics for co-workers ......................................................................................39
Table 4.6Independent Samples Test for co-workers .....................................................................39
Table 4.7 Group Statistics for supervisor ......................................................................................41
Table 4.8 Independent Samples Test for supervisor ......................................................................42
Table 4.9Group Statistics for work itself .......................................................................................44
Table 4.10Independent Samples Test for work itself ....................................................................44
Table 4.11 Job Satisfaction Level ..................................................................................................46
Table 4.12 Group Statistics for job performance determinant .......................................................49
Table 4.13 Independent Samples Test for job performance determinants.....................................50
Table 4.14 Group Statistics for job performance measurement criterion ......................................51
Table 4.15 Independent Samples Test for job performance measurement criterion .....................51
Table 4.16 Group Statistics for employee Job performance result ................................................53
Table 4.17 Independent Samples Test for employee Job performance result ...............................54
Table 4.18Correlations ...................................................................................................................55
Table 4.19skewness and Kurtosis statistics ...................................................................................57
Table 4.20 Model Summary ..........................................................................................................58
Table 4.21 Co linearity Statistics ..................................................................................................59
Table 4.22 Regression analysis ......................................................................................................59
Table 4.23 ANOVA for Regression analysis ................................................................................60
Table 4.24 Coefficients ..................................................................................................................60
Impact of Job satisfaction on employee Job performance at Development Bank of Ethiopia Page vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4.1 Gender of the respondents ...........................................................................................30

Figure 4.2 Experience of the respondents .....................................................................................30
Figure 4.3 Job positions of the respondents ..................................................................................31
Figure 4.4 Age of the respondents ................................................................................................32
Figure 4.5 Processes of the respondents ........................................................................................32
Figure 4.6 Pay 1 .............................................................................................................................33
Figure 4.7 Pay 2 .............................................................................................................................34
Figure 4.8 Promotional opportunities 1 .........................................................................................35
Figure 4.9 Promotional opportunities 2 .........................................................................................36
Figure 4.10 Co-workers 1 ..............................................................................................................38
Figure 4.11 Co-workers 2 ..............................................................................................................38
Figure 4.12 Supervisor 1 ................................................................................................................40
Figure 4.15 Work itself 1 ...............................................................................................................43
Figure 4.16 Work itself 2 ...............................................................................................................43
Figure 4.17 Central Tendency Statistics ........................................................................................45
Figure 4.18 Declarative Knowledge ..............................................................................................47
Figure 4.19 Procedural Knowledge ...............................................................................................48
Figure 4.20 Motivation ..................................................................................................................48
Figure 4.21Measurement criterion .................................................................................................50
Figure 4.22 Performance evaluation result ....................................................................................52
Figure 4.23 Performance evaluation central tendency result .........................................................53
Figure 4.24 Happiness by performance result ...............................................................................62
Figure 4.25 Respondent’s thinking ................................................................................................62
Impact of Job satisfaction on employee Job performance at Development Bank of Ethiopia Page vii
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Back ground of the study
Area of job satisfaction is mostly studied and popular subject in the literature of organizational
behavior and psychological researches. In recent years much emphasis has been also given to job
satisfaction, influences on job satisfaction and the outcomes of job satisfaction.
Organizations need to achieve its objectives, to have competitive advantage and maintain
sustainability. Employees are one of main resource and the internal stakeholders of an
organization to achieve its goals.
Many organizational behavior scholars, employees and managers agreed that job satisfaction is
important to an organization. “Job satisfaction has been linked to productivity, motivation,
absenteeism and tardiness, accidents, mental health, physical health, and general life
satisfaction” (Frank 1978, p.533).
Different studies show that there are different factors that affect job satisfaction like job itself,
company policies and practices, advancement, compensation, rewards, challenge, work group,
work status, co-workers, creativity, moral values, flexibility in enrichment, style of leadership,
marketing stand of the company, recognition, responsibility, job safety and security, social
status, supervision, variety, working conditions and the extent of transparency in communication.
Divya (2013) states that job performance is commonly used, yet poorly defined concept in
industrial and organizational psychology that deals with the work place. It most commonly refers
Impact of Job satisfaction on employee Job performance at Development Bank of Ethiopia Page 1
to whether a person performs their job well and it is an extremely important criterion that relates
to organizational outcomes and success.
Job performance is a multi-dimensional concept and the whole individual performance will
affect the organizational performance. Job satisfaction and job performance are both subjects in
organizational behavior and human resource management. The relationship between job
satisfaction and performance is still controversial. It is not known whether the relationship
between job satisfaction and job performance has been studied here in Ethiopia and particularly
in the banking industry. Thus, this study intention is to assess the impact of job satisfaction on
job performance.
Currently in Ethiopia the competiveness of the banking industry has grown much as new banks
are opened and branch expansions are extensively held by existing banks. In this competitive
working environment, the banking industry, stand on its foot, made steady progress and survives
on their employees shoulders.
In order to achieve the mission and vision, to achieve effectiveness and efficiency, to have good
quality asset and financial stability in the banking sector employees are the most vital asset. The
success of the bank to a large extent depends upon the performance of its employees.
1.2. Organization Background
Currently there are 19 banks operating in Ethiopia and of which 3 are publicly owned while the
rest 16 are privately owned banks. Development Bank of Ethiopia (DBE) is one of the
government financial institutions in the country established to support the economic
development of the country by providing project finance.
The bank has core and support processes in head office, 5 regional offices, 12 branches and 20
sub-branches. The five regional offices are central region which is found in Addis Ababa, North
Region which is found in Mekele town, North West region which is found in Bahr Dar town,
South Region which is found in Hawassa town and West region which is found in Jimma town.
According to the fourth quarter and annual report of Development Bank of Ethiopia for the
period 2012/13F.Y, as of June 30, 2013, the total manpower of the bank was 1,080 employees.
Out of the total number of employees, 627 (58%) are professional and high level supervisors,
160 (15%) are semi-professional, clerical and Administrative, 75 (7%) are technical and skilled
and the remaining 218 (20%) are manual and custodians (Fourth Quarter and Annual Report of
Development Bank of Ethiopia, 2013).
1.3. Statement of the problem
Development Bank of Ethiopia has developed its five year corporate strategic plan with the
Balanced Scorecard framework covering the period 2010/11-2014/15 and started measuring its
performance in 2010/11 fiscal year under four perspectives. One of the four perspectives is
learning and growth and under it there is improved organizational alignment objective which is
measured by employee satisfaction rate. According to annual reports of Development Bank of
Ethiopia, the plans for the employee satisfaction rate for year 2010/11, 2011/12, 2012/13,
2013/14 were NA, 77%, 80% and 90%, respectively. The actual measures for employee
satisfaction rate for the years 2010/11, 2011/12, 2012/13 were found to be 73%, 66% and 76%,
respectively. The actual and the desired plans are low and there is gap between the actual and the
desired employee satisfaction rate.
According to Zeffane et al, (2009, p237) dissatisfied employees are prone to excessive
absenteeism and turnover, while satisfied ones are more likely to be effective in handling daily
stressors, good employee relation and less likely to be absent or withdraw from their work.
According to the fourth quarter and annual report of Development Bank of Ethiopia for the
period 2012/13F.Y, the annual Balanced Scorecard performance of the Bank for the year ended
June 30, 2013 is 89.2% and this annual performance showed a declining result as compared to
preceding year which was 91.33%.
The impact of job satisfaction especially on employee job performance has to be known clearly.
A number of studies have been conducted in areas of job satisfaction. There are different views
on the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance. Some studies show that there
are no significant or weak relationship between job satisfaction and job performance (Alf &
Bassem, 2003, p.374; Petty et al, cited in Alf & Bassem, 2003, p.369; Iaffaldano & Muchinsky,
1985, p.251). While other studies show that there is a significant and strong relationship between
job satisfaction and job performance (Aftab & Idrees, 2012, p.179; Caldwell & O’Reilly, cited in
Alf & Bassem, 2003; Judge et al. 2001, p. 385)
The exact relationship between job satisfaction and job performance has to be identified. The
number of studies that have been done in Ethiopia and to the banking industry to relationship
between job satisfaction and performance is not known.
Different studies were conducted by employees of the bank in different areas like non
performing loan, employee motivation, project financing and organizational culture. The impact
of job satisfaction on the employee job performance is new and not researched subject in the
bank.
1.4. Research questions
The general research questions of the study are:-
Q.1. what is the level of job satisfaction of employees in the bank?
Q.2. what is the relationship between job satisfaction and employee job performance?
Q.3. To what extent do pay, promotion opportunities, co-workers, supervision and work itself
affect employee job performance?
1.5. Objectives of the study
The general objective of the study is to determine the impact of Job satisfaction on employee job
performance at Development Bank of Ethiopia.
The specific objectives of the study are:-
• To determine level of job satisfaction of employees that exist in the bank
• To identify the relationship between job satisfaction and employee job performance
• To identify the relationship between (pay, promotion opportunities, co-workers,
supervision and work itself) on employee job performance
• To determine the impact of (pay, promotion opportunities, co-workers, supervision and
work itself) on employee job performance
1.6. Significance of the study
This study has the following significances:
• It helps the bank (management and decision makers) to increase employee job
satisfaction
• It contributes to Human Resource Management Process and executive management of the
bank for planning and decision making by knowing the real impact of job satisfaction on
employee performance
• It helps the bank to improve employee job performance and organizational performance
at large
• It helps employees of bank and other employees to know the impact of satisfaction from
their job on their job performance
1.7. Scope of the study
This paper addresses the impact of job satisfaction on job performance of employees in
Development Bank of Ethiopia at head office work processes and regional offices.
The five regional offices are: (a) Central region which is found in Addis Ababa, (b) North
Region which is found in Mekele town, (c) North West region in Bahr Dar town, (d) South
Region in Hawassa town, and (e) West region which is found in Jimma town.
The scope of the study covers employees who are middle level supervisors, professionals,
clerical and non-clerical and include all type of gender, age group and experience. High level
supervisors (executive management members, process owners and managers) will not be
included in this study as supervision is stated as one factor that affect job satisfaction.
1.8. Organization of the research study
The research study organized into five chapters. The first chapter contains background of the
study, organization back ground, statement of the problem, research questions, objectives of the
study, significance of the study and scope of the study. Chapter 2 deals with both theoretical and
empirical literatures relevant to job satisfaction and employee job performance. Chapter 3
describes research design and methodology and includes research design, sample and sampling
techniques, source and tool of data collection and methods of data analysis. Chapter 4 includes
data analysis and interpretation. Chapter 5 includes summary of the findings, conclusions and
recommendations. In addition to the above chapters, list of reference materials and annexes are
added at the end of the paper.
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This chapter deals with review of related literature on job satisfaction, job performance and
impact of job satisfaction on job performance. This chapter contains theoretical literature
reviewed related to this research and empirical findings on impact of job satisfaction on
employee job performance.
2.1 Theoretical literature review
2.1.1 Job satisfaction
Locke (1976, p.1304) defined job satisfaction as a pleasurable or positive emotional state
resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experience. This Locke (1976) comprehensive
definition is used widely to define job satisfaction but creates a question in mind that how one’s
job is appraised.
“Job satisfaction is collection of feelings and beliefs that people have about their current jobs.
People’s levels or degrees of job satisfaction can range from extreme satisfaction to extreme
dissatisfaction. In addition to having attitudes about their jobs as a whole, people also can have
attitude about various aspects of their jobs such as the kind of work they do, their coworkers,
Supervisors, subordinates, and their pay” (George and Jones 2008, p.78). George and Jones
(2008) add belief and attitudes to various aspects or dimensions of job in addition to the
emotional state definition by Locke (1976).
According to Robbins (2009, p.301) the term job satisfaction refers to an individual’s general
attitude toward his or her job. A person with a high level of job satisfaction holds positive
attitudes toward the job, while a person who is dissatisfied with his or her job holds negative
attitudes about the job. Robbins (2009) definition contains job satisfaction as the general view of
attitude toward job.
From this definitions job satisfaction can be summarized as the emotional, feeling, belief and
behavioral segment of an attitude towards job and various aspects of job.
2.1.2 Job performance
Jex (2002, p.88) asserted that Job performance at the most general level can be defined simply as
all of the behaviors employees engage in while at work. Jex (2002) stated continually that this is
imprecise definition because employees often engage in behaviors at work that have little or
nothing to do with job specific tasks. On the other hand if job performance confined only to
behaviors associated with task performance, much productive behavior in the work place would
be excluded.
According to Cambell cited in Jex (2002, p.89) job performance represents behaviors employees
engage in while at work. Howe ever such behaviors must contribute to organizational goals in
order to be considered in the domain of job performance.
According to Porter and Lawler cited in Pushpakumari (2008, p.91) performance is defined as a
function of individual ability and skill and effort in a given situation. From Porter and Lawler
definition it can be derived that Job performance as ability, skill and effort toward job.
Pushpakumari (2008, p.91) states that in the short run employee’s skill and abilities are relatively
stable and defines performance in terms of effort extended to the job of an employee and
increased effort results in better performances.
Thus job performance is behaviors expected to organizational goal accomplishment from
employees and is a function of outcome.
2.1.3 Factors affecting of Job Satisfaction
Different literatures showed that there are different factors that affect job satisfaction. Some of
the factors are personal and some of others are organizational factors.
George and Jones (2008, p.85) stated four factors that affect the level of job satisfaction a person
experiences: personality, values, the work situation and social influence. In addition George and
Jones (2008) stated that the work situation includes the work itself, co-workers, supervisors and
subordinates, physical working condition, working hours, pay and job security. According to
George and Jones (2008) work itself is the most important factor and source of job satisfaction.
“An extensive review of the literature indicates that the more important factors conducive to job
satisfaction are mentally challenging work, equitable rewards, supportive working condition and
supportive colleagues” (Robbins, 2009, p.323). Robbins (2009) includes pay and promotion in
equitable reward facet and did not state about supervisor as factor while George and Jones
(2008), Luthans (2005) and Opkara (2004) states supervision as one factor.
According to Luthans (2005, p.212) “there are a number of factors that influence job satisfaction
and through years five dimensions have been identified to represent the most important
characteristics of job about which employees have affective responses. These factors are the
work itself, pay, promotion opportunities, supervision and coworkers”.
Opkara (2004, p.72) sated in the conceptual frame work study that personal factors such as
gender, education, experience and management level are positively related to job satisfaction and
job satisfaction is affected by work, pay, supervision, promotion, co-workers and overall.
Sowmya and Pancanatham (2001, p.78) also showed that pay and promotion, organizational
aspect, supervisor behavior, job and working condition and co-worker behavior are factors
influencing job satisfaction of banking sector employees in Chennai, India.
For this study I give much emphasis to the work related factors that determine job satisfaction
even tough other organizational and personal factors affect job satisfaction. Thus I took five
factors that influence job satisfaction which are work itself, pay, promotion opportunities,
supervision and co-workers.
2.1.4 Dimension of Job performance
According to Milkovich and Widgor (1991, p.48) some researchers have concentrated their
efforts on defining job performance in terms of outcomes; others have examined job behaviors;
still others have studied personal traits such as conscientiousness or leadership orientation as
correlates of successful performance. In addition Milkovich and Widgor (1991) stated that job
performance is made up of complex set of interacting factors, some of them attribute to the job,
some to the worker and some to the environment.
However Motowildo (2003, p.40) tied performance only to behaviors that can make a difference
to organizational goal accomplishment rather than to the result of that behavior because there are
situational constraints and opportunities which affects valued organizational results without
necessarily affecting individuals’ performance behaviors.
Murhy (1989) cited in Sulaiman, Alsafir and Ahmad (2013, p.7) strengthen Motowildo (2003)
by stating that performance definitions should focus on behaviors rather than outcomes because a
focus on outcomes could lead employee to find the easiest way to achieve the desired result,
which is likely to be detrimental to the organization because other important behaviors will not
be performed.
Campbell(1990) cited in Motowildo (2003, p.43) defined eight behavioral dimensions of
performance, which are job-specific proficiency, non-Job Specific task proficiency, written and
oral communications, demonstrating effort, maintaining personal discipline, facilitating peer and
team performance, supervision and management/administration.
From Campbell (1990) behavioral dimensions it can be derived that there are task performances
and non-task performance behaviors which result to expected organizational value.
Sonnentag, Judith and Spychala (2008, p. 428) stated that task performance covers the fulfillment
of the requirements that are part of the contract between the employer and employee and contextual
performance consists of behavior that does not directly contribute to organizational performance but
supports the organizational, social and psychological environment.
In addition Sonnentag, Judith and Spychala (2008) stated that among Campbell (1990) eight
factors five refers to task performance: job-specific proficiency, non-Job Specific task
proficiency, written and oral communication proficiency, supervision and
management/administration.
Borman and Motowidlo (1993) cited in Motowildo (2003, p.45) described five types of
contextual activities: volunteering to carry out task activities that are not formally a part of the
job; persisting with extra enthusiasm or effort when necessary to complete own task activities
successfully; helping and cooperating with others; following organizational rules and procedures
even when personally inconvenient; and endorsing, supporting, and defending organizational
objectives.
For this study task performance and contextual performance behavioral dimension of job
performance will be used as dimension of job performance.
2.1.5 Determinants of Job performance
Campbell(1990) cited in Motowildo (2003, p.50) argued that there are three determinants of job
performance: declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge and skill, and motivation.
Declarative knowledge is knowledge of facts, principles and procedures; procedural knowledge
and skill is skill in actually doing what should be done and is a combination of knowing what to
do and actually being able to do it and includes skills such as cognitive skill, physical skill, self
management skill and interpersonal skill; motivation is the combination of choice to exert effort,
choice of how much effort to exert, and choice of how long to continue to exert effort.
Motowildo (2003, p.50) also incorporate Campbell (1990) idea stating that cognitive ability is a
better predicator of task performance, whereas as personality variables such as extraversion,
agreeableness, and conscientiousness are better predictor of contextual performance. Knowledge,
skills, and work habits directly affect both task and contextual job performance.
In addition Motowildo (2003, p.52) states that empirical and theoretical reports in the
performance literature are converging on an overall model of performance that identifies
variables such as knowledge, skill, motivation, and habits as direct determinant of the expected
value of an individual’s behaviors over time or job performance.
2.1.6 Relationship between Job satisfaction and Job performance
In meta-analysis review Judge et al. (2001, p. 377) stated:
There are seven different general models to show the relationship between job
satisfaction and job performance. These are job satisfaction causes job performance, job
performance causes job satisfaction, job satisfaction and job performance are reciprocally
related, the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance is spurious, the
relationship between job satisfaction and job performance is moderated by other
variables, there is no relationship between job satisfaction and job performance and lastly
alternative conceptualizations of job satisfaction and/or job performance.
“If there is inconsequential relationship between satisfaction and performance, there is little to be
gained by testing the validity of models 1-4. On the other hand, Models 5-7 could be valid in the
context of a zero or very weak correlation between individual satisfaction and performance”
Judge et al. (2001, p. 381).
In Meta- analytic study Iffaldano and Muchinsky (1985, p. 269) demonstrated that the best
estimate of the true population correlation between satisfaction and performance is relatively low
(.17) and conclude that job satisfaction and job performance were only slightly related to each
other.
Alf & Bassem (2003, p.374) support Iffaldano and Muchinsky (1985) by stating that for the
relationship between job satisfaction and performance; the results show no significant
relationship.
However Judge et al. (2001, p. 385) meta-analysis review differs by indicating that the mean
true correlation between job satisfaction and job performance is moderate in magnitude (.30) and
distinguishable from zero.
Other researches done by Dizgah, Chegini and Bisokhan (2012, p.1735); Chen and Silvestrone
(2008, p. 577) results also showed that there is a meaningful relationship between job satisfaction
and job performance.
2.1.6.1 Impact of pay on job satisfaction and performance
According to Luthans (2005, p.213) “Money not only helps people attain their basic needs but is
also an instrumental in providing upper- level need satisfaction”.
Robbins ( 2009, p.323) also stated that when pay is seen as fair based on job demands, individual
skill level, and community pay standards, satisfaction is likely to result.
“Pay has significant impact on job satisfaction and performance especially when employees seek
pay systems that are perceived as just, unambiguous, and in line with their expectations”
(Funmilola, O., Sola, K., and Olusola, A., 2013, p. 518).
Tesema and Soeters (2006, p.92) found that compensation has significant impact on job
satisfaction and performance.
Opkara (2004, p.82) stated that lower salaries translated into decreased satisfaction; low
satisfaction translates into low morale, poor performance, and ultimately low productivity.
2.1.6.2 Impact of promotion opportunities on job satisfaction and performance
According to Robbins (2009, p.324) promotions provide opportunities for personal growth, more
responsibilities, and increased social status. Individuals who perceive that promotion decisions
are made in a fair and just manner are likely to experience satisfaction from their jobs.
Tesema and Soeters (2006, p.96) stated that compensation has significant impact on job
satisfaction and performance.
“Employee’s opportunities for promotion will exert an influence on job satisfaction and
performance” (Funmilola, O., Sola, K., and Olusola, A., 2013, p. 518).
2.1.6.3 Impact of Supervision on job satisfaction and performance
According to Luthans (2005, p.213) supervision is moderately important source of job
satisfaction. Employee centeredness and participation or influences are two dimensions of
supervisory style that affect job satisfaction.
“Quality of supervisor-subordinate relationship has significant, positive influence on the
employee’s job satisfaction and performance” (Funmilola, O., Sola, K., and Olusola, A., 2013, p.
518).
2.1.6.4 Impact of co-worker on job satisfaction and performance
According to Robbins (2009, p.325) having friendly and supportive co-workers leads to
increased job satisfaction.
Luthans (2005, p.213) also stated that friendly, cooperative coworkers or team members are a
modest source of job satisfaction to individual employees.
Khan et al. (2012, p. 2703) showed that co- workers have impact on job satisfaction and
performance.
2.1.6.5 Impact of work itself on job satisfaction and performance
Luthans (2005, p.212) stated that the content of the work itself is a major source of satisfaction.
According to Robbins (2009, p.325) employees tend to prefer jobs that give them opportunities
to use their skills and abilities and offer a variety of tasks, freedom, and feedback on how well
they are doing.
“When opportunities are given to employees to advance in their field of work, it will enhance job
satisfaction and performance” (Funmilola, Sola, and Olusola , 2013, p. 518).
2.2 Emperical studies on job satisfaction and job performance
Funmilola, Sola, and Olusola (2013) in their paper examined the impact of job satisfaction
dimensions on job performance of Small and Medium Enterprises’ employees in Ibadan
metropolis, south western Nigeria and their objective of the study was to provide empirical
evidence on how job satisfaction dimensions affect job performance in Small and Medium
Enterprises. The research hypothesis of the study had a null hypothesis stating that job
satisfaction dimensions have no significant effect on job performance.
In this study self designed close ended questionnaire with sample size of 105 employees and
simple random sampling technique was used. Both Pearson Product Moment Correlation
Coefficient and Multiple Regression Analysis were used to analysis the data.
The data analysis and result interpretation of the study state that correlations from all variables
shows job satisfaction dimensions, (pay, supervisor, promotion, work itself and work condition)
had positive relationship with job performance and jointly and independently influence job
performance with (r =0.087, 0.303, 0.552, 0.108 and 0.352 df= 100, p<.05) respectively. The
Multiple Regression Analysis result also showed that job satisfaction dimensions, (pay,
supervisor, promotion, work itself and work condition) were jointly predicators of job
performance (F (5,100) = 9.930; R2 =0.33; p <.05) and were also significantly independent
predicator of job performance implying that job satisfaction dimensions have significant effect
on job performance.
The study concluded that job satisfaction dimensions jointly and independently predict job
performance.
The empirical findings of Funmilola, Sola, and Olusola (2013) using of both correlation and
regression made the finding more reliable to know the impact of job satisfaction dimensions on
job performance. But the sample size (105) was small and did not include co-workers as job
satisfaction dimensions.
Alf & Bassem (2003) in their research paper title “ Job satisfaction and employee performance of
Lebanese banking staff” investigates the relationships between job satisfaction, individual job
facets, socio-demofigureic variables and job performance in the Lebanese commercial banking
sector.
The target population of the study was non-managerial staff in the 33 Lebanese commercial
private banks and 11 banks were selected by stratified random sampling by region with 202
sample employees. The data were collected by questionnaires having three sections, job
satisfaction based on Job Descriptive Index, self evaluation questions regarding performance and
socio-demofigureic questions. The overall job satisfaction was conducted from five job
dimensions (work, pay, promotion, supervision and co-workers)
The result of the study to know the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance
using Spearman rank order correlation test indicate that, there is no significant relationship
between job satisfaction and job performance (r = −0.01, 𝜌 = 0.90).
The study concluded that, for the relationship between job satisfaction and performance, there is
no significant relationship and bear out other researcher’s findings of Petty et al. (1984) as well
as those of Iaffaldano and Muchinsky (1985).
The empirical findings of Alf & Bassem (2003) used correlation only without regression in
which the study may not show the impact of independent variables on the dependent variable.
But the sample size (202) of the study was sufficient and includes major job satisfaction facets.
Balasundaram (2010) study on the topic “Job satisfaction and Employees’ work performance: A
case study of people’s bank in Jaffna Peninsula, Sri Lanka”. The study had the following two
research questions: 1) to what extent employee’s job satisfaction exist in the peoples’ banks in
Jaffna Peninsula? And 2) whether job satisfaction of the employees determine their work
performance or not?
The objectives of the study were to examine job satisfaction, to examine factors that caused job
satisfaction, to identify work performance and to suggest some measures in order to improve
employees’ work performance through job satisfaction in people’s bank in Jaffna Peninsula, Sri
Lanka.
Four hypotheses was derived for the study stating that high level of fair promotion system,
reasonable pay system, high level of appropriate work itself and high level of good working
condition will lead to high level of employee work performance.
In this study stratified random sampling with sample of 60 employees was used and primary data
were collected through direct personal interview with the help of questionnaire. The
questionnaire used a five point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree to job satisfaction
and employee work performance.
The study used simple correlation analysis to find out the relationship between job satisfaction
and employees performance. The result and discussion part of the study state that the correlation
between promotion and employees’ performance, between pay and employee performance,
between works itself and employees performance and between working condition and employees
performance is moderately positive.
The study concluded that employee’s job satisfaction has positive impact on their performance
and high level of fair promotion, reasonable pay system, appropriate work itself and good
working condition leads to high level of employees’ performance.
The empirical findings of Balasundaram (2010) used correlation only without regression in
which the study may not show the impact of independent variables on the dependent variable. In
addition the sample size (60) of the study was very small.
Pushpakumari (2009) conducted a study on the topic “the impact of job satisfaction on Job
performance: An empirical analysis” and addressed a research problem of: Is there an impact of
job satisfaction on employee performance? The main objective of the study was to assess the
validity of the relationship between job satisfaction and performance from Sri Lankan working
environment.
The study took sample from manufacturing and services industries in private sector in the
economy of Sri Lanka with a total number of 237 employees on random basis with three
employee categories professional, mangers and non mangers were considered. A field survey
using questionnaire method was used to collect primary data. Two questionnaires were
developed for measuring job satisfaction and job performance using a five point Lickert scale.
Twenty one (21) job facets were developed to measure employee satisfaction and fourteen (14)
criteria were identified to measure employee performance in terms of effort extended to the job.
The result and discussion part of the study shows that the coefficient of correlation was applied
and the result revealed that there is a positive and significant relationship between satisfaction
and performance for managers and non managers. But statistical test did not support to identify
the significant relationship between job satisfaction and performance for professionals.
The study concluded that based on the calculated correlation coefficient for all employees there
is a significant impact of job satisfaction on performance of employees in private sector
organizations.
The empirical findings of Pushpakumari (2009) used correlation only without regression, with
large number of sample size (223) and large number of job satisfaction facet variables to
measure independent variable rather than selecting major factors affecting job satisfaction.
2.3 Conceptual frame work
Pay
Promotional
Opportunities
Supervision Job satisfaction Job Performance
Co-Worker
Work itself
Source: Funmilola, Sola, and Olusola (2013)
This conceptual frame work was taken from the reviewed literatures about job satisfaction and
job performance and support the conceptualization of objectives and research questions of this
study. The conceptual frame work states that pay, promotional opportunities, supervision, co-
worker and work itself are factors that affect job satisfaction and job satisfaction has impact on
job performance.
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research design
A research design is a master plan that specifies the methods and procedures for collecting and
analyzing needed information (Zikmund et al, 2009 pp.66).The research design of this study is
explanatory type as it tries to explain the impact of job satisfaction on employee’s job
performance at Development Bank of Ethiopia. This study explains the casual relationship
between job satisfaction and employee job performance. The style of the research is theory
testing rather than theory building because this study test the impact of job satisfaction on
employee job performance, using deductive reasoning to set propositions, collect and analyze
data and implications for propositions.
The study had employed more of quantitative research approach because it is explanatory and the
research problem requires measuring the variables of job satisfaction and assessing the impact of
these variables on employee job performance. In addition, Cross-sectional survey research
technique has been employed, as it is believed to be the most appropriate way to collect the
needed information from employees in Development Bank of Ethiopia.
Variables of the study:
Job satisfaction is independent variable and employee job performance is dependent variable.
Five factors that affect the independent variable are defined as work itself, pay, promotion
opportunities, supervision and co-workers. Job performance is defined as dependent variable.
3.2 Source and tools of data collection
The data for the study were collected from primary and secondary sources. Data obtained from
both head office and regional offices employees of Development Bank of Ethiopia were primary
data which were collected to know employee attitude toward job satisfaction and employee
behavior toward job performance.
Secondary data were collected from books and articles associated to the subject matter from
libraries and web sites. In addition, desk reviews were conducted from the bank's relevant
offices.
Primary data were collected by structured questionnaires. Structured questionnaire method of
collection has been selected because it is relatively quick to collect information from a large
portion of employees, are helpful in gathering information that is unique to individual such as
attitude and behavior and the result of the questionnaire can be easily and quickly quantified.
The questionnaire has two parts. The first part has helped to measure the level of job satisfaction
of employees in Development Bank of Ethiopia. To measure the satisfaction level, the most
widely used measurement, the Likert scale, was used.
A 4 point level Likert scale has been used as follows: 1=strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Agree,
and 4=Strongly Agree.
The second part of the questionnaire has helped the researcher to measure employee job
performance behavior from the attitude towards their jobs.
The questionnaire was prepared in English and Amharic languages. The English language
questionnaire was submitted to employees who are middle level supervisors, professionals and
the Amharic version of the questionnaire was distributed to clerical and non-clerical employees
To check the reliability and consistency of the questionnaire, Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was
used and the result show that Cronbach alpha coefficient of α = 0.813 confirming the reliability
of the data collecting instrument.
3.3 Sample and sampling techniques
Sampling involves any procedure that draws conclusions based on measurements of a portion of
the population (Zikmund et al, 2009, pp.66). The target population for this research study was all
employees of Development Bank of Ethiopia. The sample size has to be large because the target
population of this study is heterogeneous as employees of the bank have different age, sex,
experience and tenure in the bank and to reduce the sampling errors.
Development Bank of Ethiopia has core and support processes in head office and five regional
offices. The five regional offices are: (a) Central region which is found in Addis Ababa, (b)
North Region in Mekele town, (c) North West region in Bahr Dar town, (d) South Region in
Hawassa town, and (e) West region in Jimma town.
According to fourth quarter and annual report of Development Bank
of Ethiopia for the period 2012/13F.Y, as of June 30, 2013, the total manpower of the bank was
1,080 employees. Out of the total number of employees, 627 (58%) are professional and high
level supervisors, 160 (15%) are semi-professional, clerical and Administrative, 75 (7%) are
technical and skilled and the remaining 218 (20%) are manual and custodians (Fourth Quarter
and Annual Report of Development Bank of Ethiopia, 2013).
The sampling frame which is the actual set of samplings units from which sample selected were
processes found in head office and regional offices. Employees who are middle level
supervisors, professionals, clerical and non-clerical were in the sampling frame. High level
supervisors who are executive management members, process owners and managers was not
included in this study as supervisor is stated as one factor that affect job satisfaction.
To determine the size of the sample, this study had used Taro Yamane's (1967) simplified
formula:
𝑁
𝑛=
1 + 𝑁(𝑒 2 )
Where n is the sample size, N is population size and e is the percentage of allowance in accuracy
for making sampling errors. The level of precision or sampling error to this study was assumed
to be ±5%.
1,080
𝑛=
1 + 1,080(0.052 )
𝑛 =292. Thus sample size for this study was 292 employees from core processes, support
processes and regional offices.
As every element in a sample frame has an equal chance of being incorporated into the sample,
Probability sampling was selected.
As the bank has an organizational structure divided between strata’s like core processes, support
processes and regional office and as each strata contain heterogeneous employees, stratified
sampling and simple random sampling techniques of probability sampling were used to select the
samples. Out of the total distributed 292 sample questionnaires, 32 were disqualified and 30 were
unreturned. The questionnaires collected and used in this data were those, which were properly
filled and returned from 230 employees of the bank. Out of the 230 employees, 39 respondents
are from core processes, 78 respondents are from support processes and the rest 113 employees
are from Regional offices.
3.4 Procedures of data collection
The primary data for this research were collected using a survey questionnaire. Before
distributing the questioner to the selected sample, pre-testing was conducted on few employees
to test the relevancy and accuracy of the designed questionnaire and to know how respondents
understand the questions. The questionnaire was revised based on the pre-test information. The
respondents were informed that, the response is confidential, will be reported in aggregate and
will be used for academic purpose only.
The primary data were collected by distributing questionnaires to head office processes by the
researcher himself. The data from regional offices were collected by sending through Ethiopian
Mail Service (EMS) and assigning persons and paying fee to the assigned persons in regional
offices to collect and send back the collected questionnaires.
3.5 Methods of data analysis
The collected data were analyzed by a means of tabular, charts, correlation and regression
analysis. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version19 was used for data analysis
technique because it can take data from word and excel file, and use them to generate tabulated
report, charts, descriptive statistics and complex statistical analysis like correlation and
regression analysis.
Correlation analysis was used to measure the strength or degree of association between variables.
In addition regression analysis was used in order to estimate or predict the impact of job
satisfaction on job performance.
3.6 Model Specification
The main objective of this study was to assess the impact of job satisfaction on employee job
performance. The study had used regression model to estimate or predicate the average value the
job performance variable from the independent job satisfaction variables.
The multiple regression analysis models can be written as:
𝐽𝑃𝑖 = 𝛼 + 𝛽1 𝑃𝑖 + 𝛽2 𝑃𝑂𝑖 + 𝛽3 𝐶𝑊𝑖 + 𝛽4 𝑆𝑖 + 𝛽5 𝑊𝑖 + 𝜖𝑖
Where 𝐽𝑃𝑖 = Job performance
𝛼= the intercept term
𝛽1 , 𝛽2 , 𝛽3 , 𝛽4 , 𝛽5 , 𝛽6 = partial regression coefficient of independent variable
𝑃 = Pay
𝑃𝑂=promotional opportunities
𝐶𝑊= co-workers
𝑆= supervisor
𝑊= work it self
CHAPTER FOUR
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
In this chapter the data are presented and analyzed under three categories such as demographics
variables of respondents, job satisfaction and employee job performance parts. These three parts
are presented to assess the impact of job satisfaction on employee job performance in
Development Bank of Ethiopia and is shown as follows.
4.1.Demographics of the Respondents
4.1.1. Gender of the respondents

Figure 4.1 Gender of the respondents
Gender
200 166
64 72
28 Female
0
Frequency Percent
The above figure shows the gender wise analysis of the respondents. It reveals that 64 (28%)
of the respondents were female and the rest 166 (72 %) of the respondents were male out of
the total 230 respondents. This indicates that the number of males is higher than the number
of females in Development Bank of Ethiopia and the male respondents formed majority of
the target population.
4.1.1. Years of experience in the bank

Figure 4.2 Experience of the respondents
Experience
100 82
53 59
36 36 23 26
16
Frequency
0
Less than 2 years 2-5 years 6-10 years more than 10 years
The above figure shows the number of experience of the respondents in the bank. It reveals that
36 (16%) of the respondents had less than 2 years experience, 82 (36%) of the respondents had
between 2 and 5 years experience, 53 (23%) of the respondents had between 6 years and ten
years experience and the rest 59 (26%) of the employees had more than ten years experience in
the bank. This shows that majority of the respondents have between 2 and 10 years experience in
Development Bank of Ethiopia.
4.1.2. Job position of respondents
Figure 4.3 Job positions of the respondents

Job Position
100 51 58 55
50 22 10 22 25 24 29 13 15 7 Frequency
0
principal Senior officer officer Junior officer Secretary Driver
Officer
The above figure shows the position of the respondents in the bank. It reveals that out of the total
230 respondents, 22 (10%) of the employees were principal officers, 51 (22%) of the employees
were senior officers, 58 (25%) of the employees were officers, 55 (24%) of the employees were
junior officers, 29 (13%) of the employees were secretary and 15 (7%) of the employees were
drivers. This shows that the bank has more professional employees than clerical and non clerical
employees. The sample in this research is taken to represent all employees with different
positions in the bank.
4.1.3. Age of respondents
Figure 4.4 Age of the respondents

Age
200
113
82
100 49 36 Frequency
20 9 15 7
0 Percent
Below 30 30-40 41-50 More than 50
The above figure shows the age wise analysis of the respondents in the bank. It reveals that out
of the total 230 respondents, 113 (49%) of the respondents fall into the age category below 30,
81 (36%) of the respondents belong to 30-40 years of age group, 20 (9%) of the respondents
belong to 41-50 years of age group and the rest 15(7%) of the respondents were above 50 years
of age. This shows that the bank is filled with more young generation employees and 85 % of the
respondents belong to less than 40 years of age.
4.1.4. Processes of respondents
Figure 4.5 Processes of the respondents

Processes
113
120
100 78
80
60 39 37
40 15 14 14 15 22 20 19
8 9 7 10 3 11 7 9 10
20
0
Fund…
Property…
Change…
Audit
Appraisal
PRLRP
CRMP
Credit process
Total Core
SPDEP
FAMP
ECG&SFA
Research
Total Support
Total Region
Central Region
South Region
Northwest Region
West Region
North Region
Core Support Region
The above figure shows the place where the respondents worked in the bank. Out of the total 230
respondents 39 (17%) have been working in core processes (Credit, Appraisal, PRLR,
ECG&SFA), 78 (34 %) have been working in Support processes (Audit, Property, Change
Management, Research, CRMP, SPDEP, FAMP, Fund Management) and the rest 113 (49 %)
have been working in Regional offices (North, North West, Central, South and West). This
shows that the respondents were taken from core processes, support processes and regional
offices of the bank and the samples were taken from all the strata in the bank population. This
makes the study to have large sample size, make the sample reliable and more representative of
the population.
4.2. Employee Job satisfaction
4.2.1 Employee’s satisfaction with the amount of pay and financial compensation.
Figure 4.6 Employee’s satisfaction with the amount of pay
Sattisfaction from Pay

200 159
100 69 Frequency
36 16 26
9 4 11
Percent
0
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree
The above figure shows that the respondent’s level of satisfaction with the amount of pay and
financial compensation they receive. Out of the 230 respondents 9 (4%) strongly disagree, 36
(16%) disagree, 159 (69%) agree, and 26 (11%) strongly agree, and this shows that they were
satisfied with the amount of pay and financial compensation they received. The figure clearly
shows that 185 (80%) of the respondents were satisfied with the amount of pay and financial
compensation they receive.
4.2.2 Employees perceive that pay is fair & equitable.
Figure 4.7 Employees perceiveness that pay is fair & equitable
Pay is fair and equitable

200 148
41 64 Frequency
12 5 18 29 13
0 Percent
The above figure shows the respondent perceiveness level that, the pay they receive is fair &
equitable. Out of the 230 respondent’s 12 (5%) strongly disagree, 41 (18%) disagree, 148 (64%)
agree and 29 (13%) strongly agree that the pay they receive was fair and equitable. The figure
clearly shows that majority 177 (77%) of the respondents were satisfied with the pay they
receive and think that it was fair and equitable.
4.2.3 Total pay level
Table 4.1 Group Statistics for pay

Group Statistics for pay
Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
1 Female 64 2.65 .66476 .08309
Pay 2 Male 166 2.94 .60905 .04727
Total 230 2.86 0.64 .63743
The above table gives the descriptive statistics for each of the two groups (female and male) for
pay variable. There were 64 female respondents with a mean score of 2.65, 166 male respondents
with a mean score of 2.94 and total respondents with a mean score of 2.86. The variables in
questionnaire were likert scale type and coded as 1= “Strongly Disagree”, 2= “Disagree”, 3=
“Agree” and 4= “Strongly Agree”. The mean of pay variable, for both female and male, by
rounding of has a value 3.00. Thus looking at the mean score, the respondents were satisfied with
the level of their pay.
Table 4.2 Independent Samples Test for pay
t-test for Equality of Means for pay
95% Confidence
Mean Interval of the
Sig. (2- Differen Std. Error Difference
t df tailed) ce Difference Lower Upper
Pay Equal -3.201 228 .002 -.29433 .09195 -.47552 -.11315
variances
assumed
Equal -3.079 106.132 .003 -.29433 .09560 -.48387 -.10480
variances not
assumed
The independent samples t-test used to see, if two means from male and females were different
from each other and to infer that the two population means are equal or not. The negative t value
indicates (-3.201) that the mean score for the first group, females, was significantly less than the
mean score for the second group, males for pay variable. As the Sig (2-Tailed) value (0.002) is
less than .05 there is a statistically significant difference between the mean from male and
females and could be inferred that the associated population means are significantly different.
4.2.4 Employee’s satisfaction with opportunities of being promoted to a better position and
advancement.
Figure 4.8 Employee’s satisfaction promotional opportunities

Satisfaction from Promotional Opprtunities
200 117
69 51 Frequency
18 8 30 26 11
0 Percent
The above figure shows the respondent satisfaction with opportunities of being promoted to a
better position and advancement in the bank. Out of the 230 respondent’s 18 (8%) strongly
disagree, 69 (30%) disagree, 117 (51%) agree and the rest 26 (11%) strongly agree that they
were satisfied with opportunities of being promoted to a better position and advancement in the
bank. The figure clearly shows that majority of the respondents 143 (62%) were satisfied with
the promotional opportunities in the bank.
4.2.5 Promotion in the bank is fair and within performance.
Figure 4.9 Promotion in the bank.
Promotional Opportunities is fair and with in performance

200
78 106
34 46 24 Frequency
22 10 10
0 Percent
The above figure shows the respondent’s answer with promotion practice in the bank. Out of the
230 respondent’s 22 (10%) strongly disagree, 78 (34%) disagree, 106 (46%) agree and the rest
24 (10%) strongly agree that promotion in the bank was fair and with in performance. The figure
clearly shows that the majority of the respondents 130 (57%) think that promotion in the bank
was fair and within performance.
4.2.6 Total promotional opportunities

Table 4.3 Group Statistics for promotional opportunities
Group Statistics for promotional opportunities

Promotional 1 Female 64 2.39 .65143 .08309
opportunities 2 Male 166 2.70 .68971 .04727
Total 230 2.62 .69212 .04564
The above table shows the descriptive statistics for each of the two groups for promotional
opportunities variables. There were 64 female respondents with a mean score of 2.39, 166 male
respondents with a mean score of 2.70 and total respondents with a mean score of 2.62.
The variables in questionnaire were likert scale type and coded as 1= “Strongly Disagree”, 2=
“Disagree”, 3= “Agree” and 4= “Strongly Agree”. The mean of promotional opportunities
variable by rounding of have a value 3.00. Thus looking at the mean score the respondents were
satisfied with the level of their promotional opportunities.
Table 4.4 Independent Samples Test for promotional opportunities

t-test for Equality of Means for promotional opportunities
Std. 95% Confidence
Error Interval of the
Sig. (2- Mean Differen Difference
t df tailed) Difference ce Lower Upper
Promotional Equal -3.113 228 .002 -.31118 .09996 -.50814 -.11423
opportunities variances
assumed
Equal -3.193 120.620 .002 -.31118 .09745 -.50411 -.11825
variances not
assumed
The above table shows the independent samples t-test for promotional opportunities variable.
The negative t value indicates that the mean score for the first group, females, was significantly
less than the mean score for the second group, males. As the Sig (2-Tailed) value (0.002) is less
than .05 there is a statistically significant difference between the mean from male and females
and could be inferred that the associated population means are significantly different for
promotional opportunities variables.
4.2.7 Employee’s satisfaction in relation with their co -workers.
Figure 4.10 Satisfaction in relation with co-workers

Satisfaction from Co-Workers
200 161
150
100 70 Frequency
54
50 15 24 Percent
0 0 7
0
The above figure shows the respondent’s answer relation with their co-workers. Out of the 230
respondent’s none of the respondents strongly disagree, 15 (7%) disagree, 161 (70%) agree and
the rest 54 (24%) strongly agree that people with whom they work or meet in connection with
their work were good. The figure clearly shows that the majority of the respondents 215 (94%)
were satisfied in relation with their coworkers.
4.2.8 Employee’s co-workers are friendly and supportive.
Figure 4.11 co-workers are friendly and supportive
Co-workers are friendly and supportive

200 136
87
100 59 Frequency
38
0 0 7 3 Percent
0
The above figure shows the respondent’s answer relation with their co-workers. Out of the 230
the rest 87 (38%) strongly agree that people with whom they work were friendly and supportive.
The figure clearly shows majority of the respondents 223 (97%) agree and strongly agree and
satisfied with their coworkers.
4.2.9 Total level on relationship with co-workers
Table 4.5 Group Statistics for co-workers

Group Statistics for co-workers
Co- 1 Female 64 3.2188 .51851 .06481
Workers 2 Male 166 3.2741 .43190 .03352
Total 230 3.2587 .45715 .03014
The above table gives the descriptive statistics for each of the two groups for co-workers
variables. There were 64 female respondents with a mean score of 3.2, 166 male respondents
“Agree” and 4= “Strongly Agree”. The mean of co-workers variable by rounding of have a value
3.00. Thus looking at the mean score the respondents were satisfied with the level of relationship
with their co-workers.
Table 4.6 Independent Samples Test for co-workers

t-test for Equality of Means for co workers
Std. 95% Confidence Interval
Sig. Error of the Difference
(2- Mean Differen
Co Equal -.822 228 .412 -.05535 .06731 -.18798 .07728
workers variances
assumed
Equal -.758 98.522 .450 -.05535 .07297 -.20014 .08945
variances not
assumed
The above table shows independent samples t-test for co-workers variable. The t value which is
closer to 0 indicates that, the mean score for the first group, females, is not significantly less than
the mean score for the second group, males. As the Sig (2-Tailed) value (0.412) is greater than
.05, there is no statistically significant difference between the mean from male and females and
could be inferred that the associated population means are not significantly different.
4.2.10 Employee’s supervisor support at work.
Figure 4.12 Supervisor Support at work
Supervisor Support
200
117
100 59 51 51 Frequency
26 22
3 1 Percent
0
The above figure shows the respondent’s answer relation with their supervisor support at work.
Out of the 230 respondent’s 3 (1%) of the respondents strongly disagree, 59 (26%) disagree, 117
(51%) agree and the rest 51 (22%) strongly agree that their supervisor support them enough at
work. The figure clearly shows most of the respondents 168 (73%) agree and strongly agree that
they get enough work support from their supervisor.
4.2.11 Employee’s supervisor appreciations for good work done.
Figure 4.13 Supervisor appreciations for good work done
Supervisor appreciation
150
111
100
67 Frequency
48 49
50 29 21 Percent
3 1
0
The above figure shows the respondent’s answer with their supervisor appreciation for the good
work done by them. Out of the 230 respondent’s 3 (1%) of the respondents strongly disagree, 67
(29%) disagree, 111 (48%) agree and the rest 49 (21%) strongly agree that their supervisor
appreciates good work done by me. The figure clearly shows most of the respondents 160 (70%)
were satisfied with appreciation they receive from their supervisors.
4.2.12 Employee’s supervisor politeness and care.

Figure 4.14 Supervisor politeness and care
Supervisor politeness and care

150 126
100 61
55 Frequency
39 27
50 17
4 2 Percent
0
The above figure shows the respondent’s answer weather their supervisor is polite and cares for
them or not. Out of the 230 respondent’s 4 (2%) of the respondents strongly disagree, 39 (17%)
disagree, 126 (55%) agree and the rest 61 (27%) strongly agree that their supervisor is polite and
cares for them. The figure clearly shows most of the respondents 187 (81%) were satisfied with
their supervisor’s politeness and care.
4.2.13 Total level on relationship with supervisor
Table 4.7 Group Statistics for supervisor

Group Statistics for supervisor
Co-Workers 1 Female 64 2.7812 .64302 .08038
2 Male 166 3.0281 .65176 .05059

Total 230 2.9594 .65736 .04334
The above table gives the descriptive statistics for each of the two groups for supervisor
“Agree” and 4= “Strongly Agree”. The mean of supervisor variable by rounding of have a value
3.00. Thus looking at the mean score the respondents were satisfied with the level of relationship
with supervisors.
Table 4.8 Independent Samples Test for supervisor

t-test for Equality of Means for supervisor
Std. 95% Confidence
Sig. Error Interval of the
(2- Mean Differen Difference
Supervisor Equal -2.584 228 .010 -.24686 .09554 -.43512 -.05860
variances
assumed
Equal -2.599 115.853 .011 -.24686 .09497 -.43497 -.05876
variances
not
assumed
The above table shows independent samples t-test used to see if two means from male and
females were different from each other for supervisor variable and to infer that the two
population means are equal or not. The negative t value indicates that the mean score for the first
group, females, is significantly less than the mean score for the second group, males.
As the Sig (2-Tailed) value (0.01) is less than .05 there is a statistically significant difference
between the mean from male and females and could be inferred that the associated population
means are significantly different.
4.2.14 Employee’s who are interested in their job.
Figure 4.15 Work itself interest
Job Interest
200 127
100 58 55 42 Frequency
3 1 25 18
0 Percent
The above figure shows the respondent’s level of interesting with the job they are doing. Out of
the 230 respondent’s 3 (1%) of the respondents strongly disagree, 58 (25%) disagree, 127 (55%)
agree and the rest 42 (18%) strongly agree that the job they were doing have been interesting.
The figure clearly shows most of the respondents 169 (74%) were interested in the job they have
been doing.
4.2.15 Employee’s job is mentally challenging with variety of job responsibilities.

Figure 4.16 mentally challenging job with variety of job responsibilities job
Mentally challenging work

150 120
100 71
52 Frequency
50 31 28
11 5 12
Percent
0
The above figure shows the respondent’s work type. Out of the 230 respondent’s 11 (5%) of the
respondents strongly disagree, 71 (31%) disagree, 120 52%) agree and the rest 28 (12%) strongly
agree that the job they are doing have been mentally challenging with variety of job
responsibilities. The figure clearly shows that most of the respondents 148 (64%) agree and
strongly agree that their job were mentally challenging.
4.2.16 Total level on work itself
Table 4.9 Group Statistics for work itself
Group Statistics for work itself
Co-Workers 1 Female 64 2.5625 .65768 .08221
2 Male 166 2.9066 .57894 .04493
Total 230 2.8109 .61998 .04088
The above table gives the descriptive statistics for each of the two groups for work itself
“Agree” and 4= “Strongly Agree”. The mean of work itself variable by rounding of have a value
3.00, thus looking at the mean score the respondents were satisfied with the level of work itself.
Table 4.10 Independent Samples Test for work itself

t-test for Equality of Means for work itself
95% Confidence
Mean Std. Error Interval of the
Sig. (2- Differenc Differenc Difference
t df tailed) e e Lower Upper
Work Equal variances -3.887 228 .000 -.34413 .08854 -.51858 -.16967
itself assumed
Equal variances -3.673 102.763 .000 -.34413 .09369 -.52994 -.15831
not assumed
females were different from each other for work itself variable and to infer that the two
population means are equal or not. The negative t value indicates that the mean score for the first
group, females, is significantly less than the mean score for the second group, males.
As the Sig (2-Tailed) value (0.00) is less than .05 there is a statistically significant difference
4.2.17 Central Tendency Statistics for Job satisfaction

Figure 4.17 Central Tendency Statistics
Measure of central tendency & Dispersion

5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
4.0 3.3 Mean
2.9 3.0 2.8
3.0 2.6
2.0 Std. Deviation
2.0 1.3 1.5
1.0 0.71.0 Minimum
0.6 0.5 0.7 0.6
1.0
.0 Maximum
Pay Promotional Co-wokers Supervisor Work itself
opprtunities
The above figure shows the mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum values of the job
satisfaction variables (pay, promotional opportunities, co-workers, supervisor and work itself) to
measure the central tendency and dispersion. The variables in questionnaire are likert scale type
and coded as 1= “Strongly Disagree”, 2= “Disagree”, 3= “Agree” and 4= “Strongly Agree”.
The figure reveals that pay has a mean of 2.9, promotional opportunities has a mean of 2.6, co-
workers has a mean 3.3, supervisor has a mean of 3.0 and work itself has a mean of 2.8. The
mean of all the job satisfaction variables by rounding of have a value 3.00. As per the rating
scale the respondents agree with their pay, promotional opportunities, co-workers, supervisor and
work itself questions. In addition the respondents have high mean for co-workers and have the
least mean of 2.6 for promotional opportunities.
The standard deviation show how far the responses deviate from the mean. The figure shows that
all job satisfaction variables (pay, promotional opportunities, co-workers, supervisor and work
itself) have a standard deviation ranging from 0.5 to 0.7. This low standard deviation for all
variables shows that the data from the respondents are very close to the mean.
The maximum value for all variables shows a value of 4.00 and these shows there are
respondents who strongly agree with the questions. The minimum values for pay, promotional
opportunities, co-workers, supervisor and work itself are 1.0, 1.0, 2.0, 1.3 and 1.5 respectively.
This shows that all respondents do not strongly disagree with the co-workers questions.
4.2.18 Over all Job satisfaction level
Over job satisfaction level is expressed as a percentage between 0 and 100, with 100% represent-
ing complete Job satisfaction. The questions were in Likert scales ranging from strongly disagree
to strongly agree. To determine the level of the job satisfaction 0% is given to strongly disagree,
25 % given to disagree, 75 % given to agree and 100% given to strongly agree. Thus, by
computing all the job satisfaction variable questions using this score line, the following result
was found.
Table 4.11 Job Satisfaction Level

Job Satisfaction Level
Pay 66.20 %
Promotional opportunities 55.22 %
Co-workers 80.27 %
Supervisor 67.79 %
Work itself 62.50 %
Total Job Satisfaction 66.39 %
Thus the above table shows that level on pay has overall job satisfaction level of 66.20%, level
on promotional opportunities have over all job satisfaction level of 55.22%, relation with co-
workers have over all job satisfaction level of 80.27%, relation with supervisor have over all job
satisfaction level of 67.79 %, work itself have over all job satisfaction level of 62.50 and
cumulatively employee job satisfaction level in Development Bank of Ethiopia is 66.39 %.
The table revealed that respondents were more satisfied from relation with their co-workers and
were least satisfied with the promotional opportunities. This result was also shown from the
mean score of job satisfaction facets.
4.3.Employee Job performance
4.3.1 Employee’s factual knowledge and information of the job.
Figure 4.18 Declarative Knowledge
Declarative Knowledge
200 160
100 70 55 Frequency
15 7 24
0 0 Percent
0
The above figure shows the respondent’s declarative knowledge of their job. Out of the 230
the rest 55 (24%) strongly agree that they have the necessary factual knowledge and information
of the job. The figure clearly shows 215 (94%) agree and strongly agree that they have
knowledge of facts and principles of their job.
4.3.2 Employee’s necessary procedural knowledge and skills in actually knowing what should
be performed.
Figure 4.19 Procedural Knowledge
Procedueral Knowledge
200 154
100 67 62
12 27 Frequency
2 1 5
0 Percent
The above figure shows the respondent’s procedural knowledge of their job. Out of the 230
respondent’s 2 (1%) strongly disagree, 12 (5%) disagree, 154 (67%) agree and the rest 62 (27%)
strongly agree that they have the necessary procedural knowledge and skills in actually knowing
what should be performed. The figure clearly shows 216 (94%) agree and strongly agree that
they have skill in actually doing what should be done.
4.3.3 Employee’s motivation to exert more effort into the job.
Figure 4.20 Motivation
Motivation
200 130
57 72 Frequency
2 1 26 11 31
0 Percent
The above figure shows the respondent’s level of motivation to exert more effort into their job.
Out of the 230 respondent’s 2 (1%) strongly disagree, 26 (11%) disagree, 130 (57%) agree and
the rest 72 (31%) strongly agree that they have the motivation to exert more effort into the job
they are doing. The figure clearly shows 202 (88%) agree and strongly agree that they have the
motivation to exert more effort into the job.
4.3.4 Total job performance determinants
Table 4.12 Group Statistics for job performance determinants
Group Statistics for job performance determinants
1 Female 64 3.23 .496 .062
Declarative knowledge 2 Male 166 3.15 .535 .042
Total 230 3.17 .525 .035
1 Female 64 3.22 .701 .088
Procedural knowledge 2 Male 166 3.19 .504 .039
Total 230 3.20 .525 .037
1 Female 64 3.09 .583 .073
Motivation 2 Male 166 3.22 .680 .053
Total 230 3.18 .655 .043
The above table gives the descriptive statistics for each of the two groups (females and males)
for job performance determinants. There were 64 female respondents with a mean score of 3.23,
3.22 and 3.09 for declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge and motivation respectively and
there were 166 male respondents with a mean score of 3.15, 3.19 and 3.22 for declarative
knowledge, procedural knowledge and motivation respectively. The variables in questionnaire
were likert scale type and coded as 1= “Strongly Disagree”, 2= “Disagree”, 3= “Agree” and 4=
“Strongly Agree”. The mean of job performance determinants variable by rounding of have a
value 3.00, thus looking at the mean score the respondent’s have the necessary declarative
knowledge, procedural knowledge and motivation to exert into the job.
Table 4.13 Independent Samples Test for job performance determinants
t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error
t df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
Declarative Equal variances 1.086 228 0.279 0.084 0.077 -0.068 0.236
knowledge assumed
Equal variances 1.123 122.828 0.264 0.084 0.075 -0.064 0.231
not assumed
Procedural Equal variances 0.313 228 0.755 0.026 0.083 -0.138 0.19
knowledge assumed
Equal variances 0.271 89.226 0.787 0.026 0.096 -0.165 0.217
not assumed
Motivation Equal variances -1.279 228 0.202 -0.123 0.096 -0.313 0.067
assumed
Equal variances -1.368 132.337 0.174 -0.123 0.09 -0.301 0.055
not assumed
The above table shows Independent Samples t-test used to see if two means from male and
females were different from each other and to infer that the two population means are equal or
not. As the Sig (2-Tailed) value for all three variables is greater than .05 there is no statistically
significant difference between the mean from male and females and could be inferred that the
associated population means are not significantly different for these three variables.
4.3.5 The bank follows a defined job performance measurement criterion?

Figure 4.21 Measurement criterion
Job performance measurement criteria

200
116
100 68 50 Frequency
30 13 30 16 7 Percent
0
The above figure shows the respondent’s perception on job performance measurement criterion
that the bank follows. Out of the 230 respondent’s 30 (13%) strongly disagree, 68 (30%)
disagree, 116 (50%) agree and the rest 16 (7%) strongly agree that the bank follows a defined job
performance measurement criterion.
The figure clearly shows 98 (43%) disagree and strongly disagree and 132 (57%) agree and
strongly agree that the bank follows a defined job performance measurement criterion.
Table 4.14 Group Statistics for job performance measurement criterion

Group Statistics for job performance measurement criterion
Co- 1 Female 64 2.38 .787 .098
Workers 2 Male 166 2.57 .812 .063
Total 230 2.51 .808 .053
for job performance measurement criterion question. There were 64 female respondents with a
mean score of 2.38, 166 male respondents with a mean score of 2.57 and total respondents with a
mean score of 2.51. The variables in questionnaire were likert scale type and coded as 1=
“Strongly Disagree”, 2= “Disagree”, 3= “Agree” and 4= “Strongly Agree”. The mean of job
performance measurement criterion question by rounding of have a value 3.00, thus looking at
the mean score the respondents were agreed that the bank follows a defined job performance
measurement criterion.
Table 4.15 Independent Samples Test for job performance measurement criterion
t-test for Equality of Means for job performance measurement criterion
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error Difference
Work Equal variances -1.615 228 .108 -.191 .118 -1.615 228
itself assumed
Equal variances -1.637 117.770 .104 -.191 .117 -1.637 117.770
not assumed
females were different from each other and to infer that the two population means are equal or
not.
As the Sig (2-Tailed) value (.108) of the test is greater than .05, there is no statistically
significant difference between the mean from male and females and could be inferred that the
associated population means are not significantly different for these variable.
4.3.6 Individual Performance evaluation result
According to Development Bank of Ethiopia cascading guideline and procedure and manual of
performance evaluation using balanced score card 2012, employee performance evaluation point
is classified as per the following performance level category.
1. 95% to 100% …………………………………..5points (Excellent performance)
2. 80% to 94% ……………………………..……..4points (Very good performance)
3. 60% to 79%.........................................................3points (good or average performance)
4. 50%to 59%..........................................................2points (poor performance)
5. Below 50%..........................................................1points (Very poor performance)
Figure 4.22 Performance evaluation result
Employee Performance evaluation result

250 200
200
150 87
100 30
50 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 Frequency
0 Percent
The above figure shows each respondent’s employee performance evaluation result with
performance level category. Out of the 230 respondent’s 30 (13%) have good or average
performance and the rest 200 (87%) have very good performance.
The figure clearly shows that majority of the respondents have very good performance that range
from 80% to 94% and no respondent gets excellent and poor and very poor performance.
Figure 4.23 Performance evaluation central tendency result
Employee performance centernal tendency result

84 93
100 73 Mean
50 Std. Deviation
4 Minimum
Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Maximum
The above figure shows the central tendency and dispersion statistics for employee performance
result. The figure reveals that respondents employee performance evaluation have a mean of 84,
have a standard deviation of 4 away from the mean and have a minimum of 73 and a maximum
of 93 value.
Table 4.16 Group Statistics for employee Job performance result

Group Statistics for employee Job performance result
Job performance 1 Female 64 83.18 4.761 .595
2 Male 166 85.00 4.018 .312
Total 230 84.50 4.305 .284
for employee job performance measurement result. There were 64 female respondents with a
mean score of 83.18, 166 male respondents with a mean score of 85 and total respondents with a
mean score of 84.5. Looking at the mean scores the respondent’s have very good performance
result that range from 80% to 94%.
Table 4.17 Independent Samples Test for Job performance result

t-test for Equality of Means for employee job performance
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error Difference
Job Equal variances -2.923 228 .004 -1.822 .623 -3.050 -2.923
performa assumed
nce Equal variances -2.712 99.477 .008 -1.822 .672 -3.155 -2.712
not assumed
The above independent samples t-test table used to see if two means from male and females were
different from each other and to infer that the two population means are equal or not. The
negative t value (-2.923) indicates that the mean score for the first group, females, is significantly
less than the mean score for the second group, males.
As the Sig (2-Tailed) value (0.004) is less than .05, there is a statistically significant difference
4.4.Correlation analysis
Correlation analysis was used to measure the strength or degree of association between variables.
A Pearson product-moment correlation analysis was used to investigate the relationship between
job satisfaction variables and job performance variables. The variables were pay, promotional
opportunities, co-workers, Supervisor, work itself and job performance.
Based on the conventional definition of effect size for correlations [ignoring the sign], 0.00-0.19
is very weak or very low correlation, 0.20-0.39 is weak or low correlation, 0.40-0.59 is
moderate correlation, 0.60-0.79 is strong or high correlation and 0.80 to 1.0 is very high or very
strong correlation. The following table shows the bivariate correlation of job satisfaction
variables with job performance variable.
Table 4.18 Correlations

Correlations
Job Promotional
performance Pay opportunities Coworkers Supervisor Work itself
** ** **
Job performance Pearson Correlation 1 .513 .567 .465** .665** .441
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
** ** ** **
Pay Pearson Correlation .513** 1 .531 .289 .417 .336
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
** ** ** ** **
Promotional Pearson Correlation .567 .531 1 .309 .532 .331
opportunities Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
** ** ** ** **
Co workers Pearson Correlation .465 .289 .309 1 .653 .277
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
** ** ** ** **
Supervisor Pearson Correlation .665 .417 .532 .653 1 .408
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
** ** ** ** **
Work itself Pearson Correlation .441 .336 .331 .277 .408 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
N=230
The results of the correlation analysis indicated that there is a positive correlation between Job
satisfaction variables (pay, promotional opportunities, co-workers, supervisor and work itself)
and job performance.
Results of the bivariate correlations table shows that pay has a moderate correlation with Job
performance, r=0.513, p < 0.05, promotional opportunities has also a moderate correlation with
Job performance, r=0.567, p < 0.05, co-workers has a moderate correlation with Job
performance, r=0.465, p < 0.05, supervisor has a strong or high correlation with Job
performance, r=0.665, p < 0.05 and work itself has a moderate correlation with Job performance,
r=0.441, p < 0.05.
As all the signs of coefficients are positive, this shows there is a positive relationship between
job satisfaction variables (pay, promotional opportunities, co-workers, supervisor and work
itself) and job performance.
4.5. Regression analysis
Regression analysis was used in order to estimate or predict the impact of independent variables
on dependent variable.
A multiple regression was conducted to determine if job satisfaction variables (pay, promotional
opportunities, co-workers, supervisor and work itself) significantly predict Job performance.
Different kind of assumptions used for multiple regression analysis such as normality of
distribution, linear relationship, homoscedasticity (equal variance), independent of residuals and
multi co linearity.
Multiple linear regressions require that the independent variables in the analysis be normally
distributed. The skewness and Kurtosis statistics for variables shows this normality distribution.
Table 4.19 skewness and Kurtosis statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error
Pay 230 2.8609 .63743 -.664 .160 0.461 .320
Promotional opportunities 230 2.6152 .69212 -.161 .160 -.090 .320
Co-workers 230 3.2587 .45715 .208 .160 -.509 .320
Supervisor 230 2.9594 .65736 -.067 .160 -.578 .320
Work itself 230 2.8109 .61998 .044 .160 -.493 .320
The result of the normal distribution for independent variables, skewness and Kurtosis shows
that the variables are within the acceptable range for normality (-1.0 to +1.0).
To check the assumption of linear relationship and homoscedasticity, a scatter plots was drawn
for every independent variable against the dependent variable. The result (attached to annex)
shows that there is a linear relationship between job satisfaction variables (pay, promotional
opportunities, co-workers, supervisor and work itself) and job performance.
There is homoscedasticity (equal variance) means that the variance of Y for each value of X is
constant in the sample. Multiple regressions assume that the residual are independent. Residuals
are the prediction errors or differences between the actual score for a case and the score
estimated by the regression equation.
The Durbin-Watson statistic was used to test for the presence of serial correlation among the
residuals. As a general rule, the residuals are not correlated if they are within the acceptable
range of is 1.50 - 2.50.
Table 4.20 Model Summary

Model Summaryb
Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Model R R Square Square Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 .744a .553 .543 2.909 1.563
a. Predictors: (Constant), Work itself, Coworkers, Pay, Promotional opportunities,
Supervisor
b. Dependent Variable: Job performance
The above table shows Durbin-Watson statistic for the job satisfaction variables. The result
shows that a Durbin-Watson statistic which measures correlation among the residuals is 1.56 and
it is within acceptable range and the independent of residuals assumptions are met.
Multi collinearity occurs when independent variables in the regression model are more highly
correlated with each other than with the dependent variable. Tolerance values and Variance
Inflation Factor (VIF) for each independent variable determines multi collinearity.
Multi co linearity is a problem and exists when Tolerance is below .10; and the average VIF is
larger than 2.5.
Table 4.21 Collinearity Statistics
Collinearity Statistics
Model Tolerance VIF
(Constant)
Pay .674 1.484
Promotional opportunities .594 1.682
Co-workers .570 1.754
Supervisor .428 2.334
Work itself .795 1.257
The colinearity statistics of the result shows that multi collinearity was not a problem because
tolerance value was not below 0.1 for each independent variable and Variance Inflation Factor
(VIF) for each independent variable was not greater than 2.5.
Regression analysis Result
Table 4.22 Regression analysis

b
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of the Durbin-Watson Sig.
Square Estimate
a a
1 .744 .553 .543 2.909 1.563 .000
a. Predictors: (Constant), Work itself, Co workers, Pay, Promotional opportunities, Supervisor
The above table shows the result of the regression analysis. The strength of the relationship
between the dependent and independent variables is based on R statistic. The R statistic 0.744
shows a strong positive relationship between facets of job satisfaction and job performance.
Thus the five independent variables of job satisfaction (pay, promotional opportunities, co-
workers, supervisor and work itself) in aggregate are significant predictor of job performance.
The R Square statistic 0.553 means that 55.3% of the variability in the percent of job
performance is accounted for by job satisfaction variables.
Table 4.23 ANOVA for Regression analysis

b
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
a
1 Regression 2349.252 5 469.850 55.522 .000
Residual 1895.567 224 8.462
Total 4244.819 229
a. Predictors: (Constant), Work itself, Coworkers, Pay, Promotional opportunities, Supervisor
The relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable is determined by
examining the significance of the regression. The probability of the significance statistic for the
regression analysis is .000, less than the level of significance of 0.05 with 95% confidence
interval. Thus there is significant relationship between the job satisfaction facets and Job
performance.
Table 4.24 Coefficients

Standardized 95.0% Confidence Interval
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients for B
Lower Upper
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Bound Bound
(Constant) 65.679 1.556 42.208 .000 62.612 68.745
Pay 1.224 .367 .181 3.331 .001 .500 1.948
Promotional 1.240 .360 .199 3.441 .001 .530 1.950
opportunities
Co-workers .561 .557 .060 1.007 .015 .536 1.658
Supervisor 2.542 .447 .388 5.690 .000 1.662 3.422
Work itself .969 .348 .140 2.787 .006 .284 1.654
The above table shows the coefficients of the regression analysis. The B coefficient of the
independent variable is the slope. It represents the amount of change in the dependent variable
for a one-unit change in the independent variable.
Looking at the B coefficient in the table, it is positive for all independent variable indicating that
as job satisfaction variables (pay, promotional opportunities, co-workers, supervisor and work
itself) increases job performance also increases. The Sig. level for the all job satisfaction
variables is less than .05. Thus all the job satisfaction variables are significantly related to job
performance.
Looking at the B coefficient for pay, it is positive, indicating that as pay increases Job
performance also increases. For every one percent increase in pay, I would predict that job
performance would increase by 1.22 percent. The magnitude of the coefficient for pay is less
than the magnitude of the supervisor and promotional coefficients and greater than the
magnitude of work itself and co-workers.
Looking at the B coefficient for promotional opportunities, it is positive, indicating that as
promotional opportunities increases job performance also increases. For every one percent
increase in promotional opportunities, I would predict that job performance would increase by
1.24 percent. The magnitude of the coefficient for promotional opportunities is less than the
magnitude of the supervisor and greater than the magnitude of pay, work itself and co-workers.
Looking at the B coefficient for co-workers, it is positive, indicating that as co-workers increases
job performance also increases. For every one percent increase in co-workers, I would predict
that job performance would increase by 0.56 percent. The magnitude of the coefficient for co-
workers is less than the magnitude of the pay, promotional opportunities and work itself
coefficients.
Looking at the B coefficient for supervisor, it is positive, indicating that as supervisor increases
job performance also increases. For every one increase in supervisor, I would predict that the job
performance would increase by 2.54 percent. The magnitude of the coefficient for supervisor is
the highest from all coefficients
Looking at the B coefficient for Work itself, it is positive, indicating that as work itself increases
job performance also increases. For every one increase in pay, I would predict that of job
performance would increase by 0.96 percent. The magnitude of the coefficient for work itself is
less than the magnitude of the pay, promotional opportunities and supervisor coefficients and
greater than co-workers coefficients.
4.6.General comments on open ended questions
Out of 230 respondents, 159 respondents responded on the open ended questions. The
respondent’s answers and their comment are summarized as follows.
4.6.1 Do you feel happy by the performance result you got so far?
Figure 4.24 Happiness by performance result
Do feel happy by the result you got far? in percent
46 yes
54 No
The above figure shows that out of 159 respondents, 73 (46%) answer yes and feel happy by the
performance result they got so far and 86 (54%) answer no and don’t feel happy by the
performance result they got so far. The no answer respondent’s comment on the reason why they
don’t feel happy with the performance result they got and their comments are summarized as
follows. The performance evaluation system in the bank is subjective, not well defined, do not
show individual effort, not appropriately measure their work, and their individual performance
result is confined only with their process performance result.
4.6.2 Do you think that your job satisfaction level affects your job performance?
Figure 4.25 Respondent’s thinking
Do you think your job satisfaction level affects your job perforamnce?
31
yes No
69
The above figure shows that out of 159 respondents, 109 (46%) think that that thier job
satisfaction level affects thier job performance and 50 (31%) think that that thier job satisfaction
level do not affects thier job performance. The yes answer respondent’s comment on how they
think thier job satisfaction level affects thier job performance and their comments are
summarized as follows. Job satisfaction increase motivation, moral to work, skill and knowledge,
energy to perform work, communication with supervisor, and affect promotion to a better
position in the bank and these in turn affects their job performance.
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. Summary of the findings
Over all in this study, the survey result find that the respondents were satisfied with their pay,
relation with co-workers, promotional opportunities in the bank, their supervisor and work itself.
The result shows that majority of the respondents were satisfied:
• With the amount of pay and financial compensation they receive and think that the pay
they receive was fair and equitable. The mean score value for pay was 2.9, so the
respondents agree on average that they were satisfied from pay. Therefore, the
respondents were satisfied with the level of their pay.
• With the promotional opportunities in the bank for a better position and advancement and
think that promotion in the bank was fair and with in performance. The mean score for
Promotional opportunities was 2.6, so the respondents agree on average on the
satisfaction they get from Promotional opportunities. Therefore, the respondents were
satisfied with the level of their promotional opportunities.
• In relation with their coworkers. The people with whom they work or meet in connection
with their work are good, friendly and supportive. The mean score value for co-workers
was 3.3, which indicates that the respondents agree on average on satisfaction they get
from relation with their co-workers. Therefore, the respondents were satisfied with
relation with their co-workers.
• In relation with their supervisor. Supervisors give them enough supports at work; give
appreciation for good work done. In addition their supervisors were polite and care for
them. The mean score for supervisor was 3.0, so the respondents agree on average on
satisfaction they get from relation with their supervisor. Therefore, the respondents were
satisfied with relation with their supervisors.
• With the work itself and the job they are doing is interesting, mentally challenging and
with variety of job responsibilities. The mean score for work itself was 2.8, so the
respondents agree on average on satisfaction they get from the work itself. Therefore, we
can see that the respondents were satisfied with the job they are doing.
In regard to the overall job satisfaction by computing all the job satisfaction variables (pay,
promotional opportunities, co-workers, supervisor and work itself), the overall job satisfaction
level in Development Bank of Ethiopia is 66.39 %. Majority of the respondents have very good
performance that range from 80% to 94% and with a mean score of 84%.
The results of the correlation analysis indicate that:
• There is a positive moderate correlation between pay and job performance. This means
that pay has positive impact on employee job performance.
• There is a positive moderate correlation between promotional opportunities and job
performance. This means that promotional opportunities have positive impact on
employee job performance.
• There is a positive moderate correlation between co-workers and job performance. This
means that co-workers have positive impact on employee job performance.
• There is a positive strong or high correlation between Supervisor and job performance.
This means that supervisor have positive impact on employee job performance.
• There is a positive moderate correlation between work itself and Job performance. This
means that work itself have positive impact on employee job performance.
The results of the regression analysis indicate that there is a strong positive relationship between
job performance and job satisfaction and 53.3% of the variability in the percent of job
performance is accounted for by job satisfaction facets.
The results of the regression analysis B coefficient indicate that, it is positive for all independent
variables means when pay, promotional opportunities, co-workers, supervisor and work itself
increases job performance also increases. The significant level shows that all the job satisfaction
facets (pay, promotional opportunities, co-workers, supervisor and work itself), are significantly
related to job performance.
The results of the regression analysis magnitude of the coefficient for all independent variables
on dependent variable shows that supervisor has the highest magnitude while pay and
promotional opportunities have almost similar magnitude lower than supervisor, work itself has
low magnitude and co-workers have the least magnitude of all independent variables in affecting
job performance.
The major findings of the study were summarized as follows:
1. The respondents were satisfied with their pay, relation with co-workers, with promotional
opportunities, relation with supervisor and work itself.
2. In regard to the overall job satisfaction (pay, promotional opportunities, co-workers,
supervisor and work itself), the overall job satisfaction level in Development Bank of
Ethiopia is 66.39 %.
3. Majority of the respondents have very good performance that range from 80% to 94%
and with a mean score of 84%.
4. There is a positively moderate correlation between pay, promotional opportunities, co-
workers, work itself and job performance. In addition there is a strong positive
correlation between supervisor and job performance.
5. The impact of job satisfaction on job performance is predicated that job satisfaction have
a strong positive impact on job performance and when pay, promotional opportunities,
co-workers, supervisor and work itself increases Job performance also increases.
5.2. Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of job satisfaction on employee job
performance at Development Bank of Ethiopia. A total of 230 employees with different sex,
experience, job position and from different processes and regional offices of the bank were
surveyed.
In this study five variables (pay, promotional opportunities, co-workers, supervisor and work
itself) that affect job satisfaction were used and their impact on job performance analyzed. To
analyze the data descriptive statistics like frequencies, percentages, figures, tables correlation and
regression analysis were used.
Over all in this study, the research revealed that the respondents are satisfied with their pay,
relation with co-workers, with promotional opportunities, with their supervisor and the work
itself. In regard to the overall job satisfaction, the overall job satisfaction level in Development
Bank of Ethiopia is 66.39 %.
Analysis shows that there is a positively moderate correlation between pay, promotional
opportunities, co-workers, work itself and job performance. In addition, there is a strong positive
correlation between supervisor and job performance.
The impact of job satisfaction on job performance is predicated that job satisfaction have a
strong positive impact on job performance and when pay, promotional opportunities, co-workers,
supervisor and work itself increases job performance also increases.
In addition, all job satisfaction facets are significantly related to job performance. The study
findings suggest that there is a strong positive relationship between facets of job satisfaction and
job performance.
The result of this study is consistent with the study of Funmilola, Sola, and Olusola (2013),
Balasundaram (2010) and Pushpakumari (2009) who concludes that, employee’s job satisfaction
has positive impact on their job performance. On the contrary, the result contradicts with the
result of Alf & Bassem (2003) and Iaffaldano & Muchinsky (1985) who concludes that, there are
no significant or weak relationship between job satisfaction and job performance.
The implication of this study is that job satisfaction has a significant impact on job performance
of employees and employee performance can be increased by increasing job satisfaction. In
addition, when job satisfaction facets (pay, promotional opportunities, co-workers, supervisor
and work itself) increase job performance also increases. This study takes direction that the bank
should develop fair and equitable pay level, fair and with in performance promotional policies,
good relationship among employees and supervisors and design job mentally challenging with
variety of job responsibilities.
5.2. Recommendations
Bn,
Based on the study findings and conclusions the following recommendations are follows:
1. It is evident that there is a positive moderate correlation between pay, promotional
opportunities, co-workers, supervisor, work itself and job performance. Thus,
management of the bank need to take into account these variables to attract retains and
motivates their employees, so that employees are satisfied with their jobs and have good
performance.
2. Management of bank and policy planners should consider pay, promotional
opportunities; work itself as an important factor while designing the job, setting
promotional policies and developing pay and compensation system.
3. The bank should ensure that the existing system of pay and financial compensation is fair
and equitable and promotional policies and procedures in the bank for better
advancement are fair and within performance.
4. Management of bank should consider and encourage good employee’s relation with
supervisor to increase job performance by giving different management and leadership
training to supervisors and by encouraging discussions.
5. Management of bank should develop organization culture of having strong and good
relationship among employees which in turn helps to increase job performance by
creating good communication, by showing appreciation, giving positive and critical
feedback to employees and by making employees feel good about what they do and
where they work.
6. The bank should consider and give attentions to job satisfaction variables which have a
lower score level like promotional opportunities, pay, and supervisor and work itself.
7. The bank needs to work more to increase job satisfaction level of employees to higher
level in order to achieve the vision, mission, and objectives and maintain its financial
stability.
8. The bank should create a performance evaluation system which is well defined, well
communicated and which appropriately measures individual work performance.
9. The impact of job satisfaction on job performance is predicated that there is a strong
positive relationship in between. Thus, the bank needs to use job satisfaction as an
effective tool for improving employee job performance and organizational performance
at large.
10. Banking job is competitive and it is essential to made steady progress to survive in the
working environment. This largely depends upon the performance of its employees. For
ensuring good job performance, the bank should be more sensible and cautious to the
employees so that they are satisfied with their jobs.
REFERENCES
Aarti,c., Seema,C., Bhawna, C., and Jyoti, c. (2013) ‘Job satisfaction among bank employees: An
analysis of the contributing variables towards job satisfaction’, International Journal of Science
& technology research, Vol.2, No. 8 , Pp.11-20.
Aftab,H and Idrees, W. (2012), ‘ Astudy of Job satisfaction and IT’s impact on the performance
in the banking industry of Pakistan’, International Journal of business and social science, Vol.3,
No.19, pp. 174-180.
Alf, C. and Bassem, A. (2003), ‘Job satisfaction and employee performance of Lebanese banking
staff’, Journals of Managerial Psychology, Vol.18, No. 4, pp.368-376.
Aziri, B. (2011), ‘Job Satisfaction: A literature Review’, Management Research and practice,
Vol.3, No.4, pp. 77-86.
Chen, J., and Silverthorne, C. (2008) ‘the impact of locus of control on job stress, job
performance and job satisfaction in Taiwan’, leadership & organization development journal,
Vol.29, No.7, pp. 572-582.
Deidera,J., Jhon, D., & Gary, J. (2004), ‘Reexamining the Job Satisfaction–Performance
Relationship: The Complexity of Attitudes’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.89, No. 1, pp.
165-177.
Divya, S. (2009), ‘Job performance and satisfaction – A study of their various aspects’, scrbid,
oct. 11 2009, <http://www.swinburne.edu.au/lib/studyhelp/harvard_style.html>.
Development Bank of Ethiopia, Fourth Quarter and Annual Report for the period 2012/13 F.Y.,
July 2013.
Frank, J. (1978), ‘An Opponent Process Theory of Job Satisfaction, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 63, No. 5, pp 533-547.
Funmilola, O., Sola, K., and Olusoa, A. (2013) ‘ impact of job satisfaction dimensions on job
performance in a small and medium enterprise in Ibadan, South Western, Nigeria’,
interdisciplinary journal of contemporary research in business, Vol. 4, No. 11, pp. 509-521.
George, M. and Jones, R. (2008), understanding and managing organizational behavior,

Prentice-Hall, Inc,New Jersey.
Iaffaldano, M., and Muchinsky, P. (1985) ‘Job satisfaction and Job performance: A Meta-
Analysis’, psychological bulletin, Vol. 97, No.2, pp. 251-273.
Jex, S. (2002), organizational psychology: A scientist-practitioner approach, John Wiley & sons,
New York.
Judge, T., Bono, J., Thoresen, C and Patton, K. (2001) ‘the job satisfaction-Job performance
relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review’, psychological bulletin, Vol.127, No.3, pp.
376-407.
Kenneth, T. (2003). The early sociology of management and organizations, Routledge11 New
Fetter Lane, London.
Locke, E. (1976), the nature and causes of job satisfaction, In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.) Handbook
of industrial and organizational psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago.
Luthans, F. (2005), Organizational Behavior, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York.
Milkovich, T. and Widgor, K. (1991), pay for performance: evaluating performance appraisal
and merit pay, National academic press, Washington, D.C.
Okpara, J. (2004),’ the impact of salary differential on managerial job satisfaction: A study of the
gender gap and its implication for management education and practice in developing economy’,
the journal of business in developing nations, Vol.8, pp. 65-92.
Pushpakumari, M. (2008), ‘the impact of Job satisfaction on Job performance: An Empirical

Analysis’, Pp 89-105 retrieved in 14-01-2014 from,<http://202.11.2.113/SEBM/ronso/no9_1/08_
PUSHPAKUMARI.pdf>.
Robbins, S. (1998), Organizational behavior: concepts, controversies, applications, Prentice-
Hall, Inc,New Jersey.
Sonnentag, Judith and Spychala (2008), Job performance In Barling J, and Cooper, C., The
SAGE hand book of organizational behavior, Vol. 1, pp.427-447, SAGE publications limited,
Great Britain.
Sulaiman, W., Alsafir, M., and Ahmad, Z. (2013) ‘Lob performance: Relationship between
competency and attitude towards achieving Tnb’s vision, Journal of advanced social research,
Vol.3, No. 1, pp.1-11.
Zeffane, R., Ibrahim, M.E. and Al Mehairi, R. (2008), Exploring the differential impact of job
satisfaction on employee attendance and conduct: the case of a utility company in the United
Arab Emirates, Employee Relations, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 237-250.
Zikmund,W., Babin, B., carr, J., and Griffin, M. (2009), Business research methods, south
western hub, U.S.A.
APPENDICES
General Information
1. Gender of the Respondent
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1 Female 64 27.8 27.8 27.8
2 Male 166 72.2 72.2 100.0
Total 230 100.0 100.0
2. Experience of the respondents
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 Less than 2 years 36 15.7 15.7 15.7
2 2-5 years 82 35.7 35.7 51.3
3 6-10 years 53 23.0 23.0 74.3
4 more than 10 years 59 25.7 25.7 100.0
Total 230 100.0 100.0
3. Job positions of the respondents
Valid 1 principal Officer 22 9.6 9.6 9.6
2 Senior officer 51 22.2 22.2 31.7
3 officer 58 25.2 25.2 57.0
4 Junior officer 55 23.9 23.9 80.9
5 secretary 29 12.6 12.6 93.5
6 Driver 15 6.5 6.5 100.0
Total 230 100.0 100.0
4. Age of the respondents
Cumulative
Valid 1 Below 30 113 49.1 49.1 49.1
2 30-40 82 35.7 35.7 84.8
3 41-50 20 8.7 8.7 93.5
4 More than 50 15 6.5 6.5 100.0
Total 230 100.0 100.0
5. Processes of the respondents
Cumulative
Valid Appraisal 8 3.5 3.5 3.5
Audit 10 4.3 4.3 7.8
Central Region 37 16.1 16.1 23.9
Change Management 3 1.3 1.3 25.2
Credit process 15 6.5 6.5 31.7
CRMP 11 4.8 4.8 36.5
ECG&SPA 7 3.0 3.0 39.6
FAMP 9 3.9 3.9 43.5
Fund Management 10 4.3 4.3 47.8
North Region 15 6.5 6.5 54.3
Northwest Region 22 9.6 9.6 63.9

PRLRP 9 3.9 3.9 67.8
Property Management 14 6.1 6.1 73.9
Research 14 6.1 6.1 80.0
South Region 20 8.7 8.7 88.7
SPDEP 7 3.0 3.0 91.7
West Region 19 8.3 8.3 100.0
Total 230 100.0 100.0
6. I am satisfied with the amount of pay and financial compensation I receive.
1 Strongly Disagree 9 3.9 3.9 3.9
2 Disagree 36 15.7 15.7 19.6
Valid 3 Agree 159 69.1 69.1 88.7
4 Strongly agree 26 11.3 11.3 100.0
Total 230 100.0 100.0
7. I perceive that the pay I receive is fair & equitable.
2 Disagree 41 17.8 17.8 23.0
Valid 3 Agree 148 64.3 64.3 87.4
4 Strongly agree 29 12.6 12.6 100.0
Total 230 100.0 100.0
8. I am satisfied with opportunities of being promoted to a better position and advancement.
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent
2 Disagree 69 30.0 30.0 37.8
Valid 3 Agree 117 50.9 50.9 88.7
4 Strongly agree 26 11.3 11.3 100.0
Total 230 100.0 100.0
9. Promotion in the bank is fair and within performance.
Cumulative
Valid 1 Strongly Disagree 22 9.6 9.6 9.6
2 Disagree 78 33.9 33.9 43.5
3 Agree 106 46.1 46.1 89.6
4 Strongly agree 24 10.4 10.4 100.0
Total 230 100.0 100.0
10. People with whom I work or meet in connection with my work are good.
Cumulative
Valid 2 Disagree 15 6.5 6.5 6.5
3 Agree 161 70.0 70.0 76.5
4 Strongly agree 54 23.5 23.5 100.0
Total 230 100.0 100.0
11. My Co-workers at work are friendly and supportive.
Cumulative
3 Agree 136 59.1 59.1 62.2
4 Strongly agree 87 37.8 37.8 100.0
Total 230 100.0 100.0
12. My supervisor supports me enough at work.
Cumulative
2 Disagree 59 25.7 25.7 27.0
3 Agree 117 50.9 50.9 77.8
4 Strongly agree 51 22.2 22.2 100.0
Total 230 100.0 100.0
13. My supervisor appreciates good work done by me.
Cumulative
2 Disagree 67 29.1 29.1 30.4
3 Agree 111 48.3 48.3 78.7
4 Strongly agree 49 21.3 21.3 100.0
Total 230 100.0 100.0
14. My supervisor is polite and cares for me.
Cumulative
2 Disagree 39 17.0 17.0 18.7
3 Agree 126 54.8 54.8 73.5
4 Strongly agree 61 26.5 26.5 100.0
Total 230 100.0 100.0
15. The job I am doing is interesting
Cumulative
2 Disagree 58 25.2 25.2 26.5
3 Agree 127 55.2 55.2 81.7
4 Strongly agree 42 18.3 18.3 100.0
Total 230 100.0 100.0
16. My job is mentally challenging with variety of job responsibilities.
Cumulative
2 Disagree 71 30.9 30.9 35.7
3 Agree 120 52.2 52.2 87.8
4 Strongly agree 28 12.2 12.2 100.0
Total 230 100.0 100.0
17. Central Tendency Statistics for Job satisfaction
N Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Pay 230 1.00 4.00 2.8609 .63743

Promotionalopprtunities 230 1.00 4.00 2.6152 .69212
Cowokers 230 2.00 4.00 3.2587 .45715
Supervisor 230 1.33 4.00 2.9594 .65736
Workitself 230 1.50 4.00 2.8109 .61998
Valid N (listwise) 230
18. I have the necessary factual knowledge and information of the job.
Cumulative
3 Agree 160 69.6 69.6 76.1
4 Strongly agree 55 23.9 23.9 100.0
Total 230 100.0 100.0
19. I have the necessary procedural knowledge and skills in actually knowing what should be
performed.
Cumulative
Valid 1 Strongly Disagree 2 .9 .9 .9
2 Disagree 12 5.2 5.2 6.1
3 Agree 154 67.0 67.0 73.0
4 Strongly agree 62 27.0 27.0 100.0
Total 230 100.0 100.0
20. I have the motivation to exert more effort into the job I am doing.
Cumulative
Valid 1 Strongly Disagree 2 .9 .9 .9
2 Disagree 26 11.3 11.3 12.2
3 Agree 130 56.5 56.5 68.7
4 Strongly agree 72 31.3 31.3 100.0
Total 230 100.0 100.0
21. The bank follows a defined job performance measurement criterion?
Cumulative
2 Disagree 68 29.6 29.6 42.6
3 Agree 116 50.4 50.4 93.0
4 Strongly agree 16 7.0 7.0 100.0
Total 230 100.0 100.0
22. Job performance category
Cumulative
Valid 3.00 Average Performance 30 13.0 13.0 13.0
4.00 Very Good 200 87.0 87.0 100.0

Performance
Total 230 100.0 100.0
23. Descriptive Statistics for Job performance
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Job performance 230 73 93 84.50 4.305

24. Normality of the distribution
N Mean Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error
Pay 230 2.8609 .63743 -.664 .160 0.461 .320

Promotional opprtunities 230 2.6152 .69212 -.161 .160 -.090 .320
Co workers 230 3.2587 .45715 .208 .160 -.509 .320
Supervisor 230 2.9594 .65736 -.067 .160 -.578 .320
Work itself 230 2.8109 .61998 .044 .160 -.493 .320
25. Scatter plot for pay and job performance
26. Scatter plot for promotional opportunities and job performance
27. Scatter plot for co-workers and job performance
28. Scatter plot for Supervisor and job performance
29. Scatter plot for work itself and job performance
30. Regression analysis Result
b
Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of the

Model R R Square Square Estimate Durbin-Watson
a
1 .744 .553 .543 2.909 1.563
a. Predictors: (Constant), Workitself, Cowokers, Pay, Promotionalopprtunities, Supervisor

b. Dependent Variable: Jobperformance
b
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

a
1 Regression 2349.252 5 469.850 55.522 .000
Residual 1895.567 224 8.462
Total 4244.819 229
a. Predictors: (Constant), Work itself, Coworkers, Pay, Promotional opportunities, Supervisor

a
Coefficients
Standard
ized
Unstandardized Coefficie 95.0% Confidence Collinearity
Coefficients nts Interval for B Statistics
Lower Upper Tolera

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Bound Bound nce VIF
1 (Constant) 65.679 1.556 42.208 .000 62.612 68.745

Pay 1.224 .367 .181 3.331 .001 .500 1.948 .674 1.484
Promotional 1.240 .360 .199 3.441 .001 .530 1.950 .594 1.682
opportunities
Coworkers .561 .557 .060 1.007 .015 .536 1.658 .570 1.754
Supervisor 2.542 .447 .388 5.690 .000 1.662 3.422 .428 2.334
Work itself .969 .348 .140 2.787 .006 .284 1.654 .795 1.257
31. Do feel happy by the result you got far?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
1.00 yes 73 45.9 45.9 45.9
Valid 2.00 No 86 54.1 54.1 100.0
Total 159 100.0 100.0
32. Thinking Do you think your job satisfaction level affects your job performance?
1.00 yes 109 68.6 68.6 68.6
Valid 2.00 No 50 31.4 31.4 100.0
Total 159 100.0 100.0
Research Questionnaire
St. Mary’s University School of Graduate Studies
Dear respondent
I am kindly request you to participate on this survey questionnaire to assess the impact of job
satisfaction on employee job performance in Development Bank of Ethiopia. The information
you will provide will be used as primary data for partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
second degree in Master of Business Administration. Your participation in this study is
completely voluntary. Your genuine response and cooperation is vital for this study and will take
approximately 10 minutes. All your responses are strictly confidential and data from this
research will be reported only in the aggregate. Please don’t write your name anywhere on this
questionnaire. If you have any questions, please ask the researcher using mobile no.-0911 34 68
23. Please Tick (√) where appropriate in the box. I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude in
advance for your kind participation
General Information
1. Please indicate your Gender Male
Female
2. Total number of years you have worked in the Bank
Less than 2 years 2-5 Years
6-10 years more than 10 years
3. What is your position in the bank?
Principal Officer Senior officer Officer
Junior officer Secretary Driver
4. Please indicate your age? Below 30 30-40
41-50 Above 50
5. Please indicate the process/ office you work in?
VP Branch operation and coordination RUFIP
Credit Process Central Region
Project Appraisal Sub Process North Region
Project Rehabilitation & Loan Recovery North West Region

Sub Process
West Region
Compliance and Risk Management
South Region
Process
Research Process
Internal Audit process
Information Technology Service Process
Finance and Accounts Management

Process
HRM
Fund Management Process
Property Management Process
Legal Process
SPDEP
ECG &SPA
Ethics and Compliant Management

Bureau
Change Management Bureau
Part Two
Employees Job satisfaction
1. Think of your Job in general. Over all I am satisfied with the job I work in.
Strongly Agree Agree
Disagree Strongly Disagree
2. I am satisfied with the amount of pay and financial compensation I receive.
3. I perceive that the pay I receive is fair & equitable.
4. I am satisfied with opportunities of being promoted to a better position and advancement.
5. Promotion in the bank is fair and within performance.
6. People with whom I work or meet in connection with my work are good.
7. My Co-workers at work are friendly and supportive.
8. My supervisor supports me enough at work.
9. My supervisor appreciates good work done by me.
10. My supervisor is polite and cares for me.
11. The job I am doing is interesting.
12. My job is mentally challenging with variety of job responsibilities.
Part Three
Employee Job performance
1. I have the necessary factual knowledge and information of the job.
2. I have the necessary procedural knowledge and skills in actually knowing what should be
performed.
3. I have the motivation to exert more effort into the job I am doing.
4. How much result do you achieved in the recent performance evaluation given?
_______________________________
5. The bank follows a defined job performance measurement criterion?
6. Do you feel happy by the performance result you got so far?
Yes No
If No why…………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………..
7. Do you think that your job satisfaction level affects your job performance?
Yes No
If yes How……………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………...
¾Çcd Ø“ƒ SÖÃp
pÉe} T`ÁU ¿’>yè+
¾²=I SÖÃp ›LT u›=ƒÄâ=Á MTƒ v”¡ ¨<eØ ¾c^}—¨<” ¾e^ ˆ`‹q uc^}—¨<
¾e^ ¨<Ö?ƒ ÁK¨<” }î°• KTØ“ƒ ’¨<:: u²=I Ø“ƒ ¾ˆè }dƒö S<K< uS<K<
uðnÅ˜’ƒ LÃ ¾}Sc[} ’¨<:: ¾ˆè ƒww`“ ˆ¨<’}— SMe K²=I Ø“ƒ u×U
›eðLÑ> c=J” SÖÃl uÓUƒ 10 Åmn ÃðÍM:: G<K<U ¾ˆè ULj‹ T>eØ^©’ƒ
¾}Öuk“ ŸØ“~ ¾}Ñ–¨< S[Í u}“ØM dÃJ” uÉU` ¾T>}’}” ’¨<:: ˆv¡”
eUƒ” u¾ƒ—¨<U xq LÃ ›Ãíñ:: T”—¨<”U ¯Ã’ƒ ØÁo ‹L‹G< Ø“ƒ
›É^Ñ>¨<” u VvÃM lØ` 0911 34 68 23 Å¨<K¨< TÓ–ƒ Ã‹LK<:: ˆv¡”
uƒ¡¡K—¨< xq LÃ ¾ (√) UM¡ƒ ÁÉ`Ñ<::
upÉT>Á LÅ[Ñ<M˜ k“ ƒww` ŸMw ¾k[u UeÒ“Â” ›k`vKG<::
ÖpLL S[Í
1. ïq ¨”É
c?ƒ
2. uv”Ÿ< ¨<eØ ¾c\uƒ ÖpLL ¯Sƒ ¾e^ MUÉ
ŸG<Kƒ ¯Sƒ uq‹ 2-5 ¯Sƒ
Ÿ6-10 ¯Sƒ Ÿ10 ¯Sƒ uLÃ
3. ¾e^ Å[Í
ý]”eûM *òc` c=’>¾` *òc` *òc`
Ì’>¾` *òc` ìGò g<ô`
4. °ÉT@
Ÿ30 ¯Sƒ uq‹ Ÿ30-40
41-50 Ÿ50 ¯Sƒ uLÃ
5. ¾T>c\uƒ ¾e^ H>Åƒ/¡õM
ምክትል ኘሬዝዳንት የቅርንጫፎች ሥራ የውጪ ንግድ ብድር ዋስትናና የልዩ
ማስተባበሪያ አገልግሎት ብድር አስተዳደር ቢሮ
¾wÉ` e^ H>Åƒ የሥነ ምግባርና ቅሬታ ማስተናገጃ ቢሮ
የኘሮጀክት ጥናትና ትንተና ንዑስ የሥራ የለውጥ አመራር ቢሮ
ሂደት አነስተኛ የገጠር ብድር ኘሮግራም
የኘሮጀክት ማስታመሚያና ማገገሚያ ማስተባበሪያ ቢሮ
ንዑስ የሥራ ሂደት T°ŸL© ]Ï”
ኮምኘሊያንስና ሪስክ አመራር የሥራ cT@” ]Ï”
cT@” U°^w ]Ï”

ሂደት
U°^w ]Ï”
የጥናትና ምርምር የሥራ ሂደት
Åu<w ]Ï”
የውስጥ ቁጥጥር የሥራ ሂደት
ኢንፎርሜሽን ቴክኖሎጂ ሰርቪስ የሥራ
ሂደት
ፋይናንስና አካውንትስ ማኔጅመንት
የሥራ ሂደት
ð”É T’@ÏS”ƒ ¾e^ H>Åƒ
የሰው ሀብት አመራር የሥራ ሂደት
ንብረት ማኔጅመንት የሥራ ሂደት
የሕግ የሥራ ሂደት
የስትራቲጂያዊ ዕቅድና የልማት
ውጤታማነት የሥራ ሂደት
¡õM 2
1. ›e+ ¾Uƒc\ƒ” e^ uÖpLL ›eu<:: uÖpLL¨< ˆ’@ uUc^¨< c^ [¡‰KG<::

u×U êTTKG< êTTKG<
›MeTTU u×U ›MeTTU
2. uT>ŸðK˜ w`“ uTÑ—†¨< ¾Ñ”²w ØpTØpV‹ [¡‰KG<::
3. ¾TÑ–¨< ÅS¨´ }Ñu=“ }S××˜ ’¨< wÂ ›evKG<::
4. uv”Ÿ< ¨<eØ ¨Å}hK ¾e^ Å[Í“ xq KTÅÓ vK¨< ¾°ÉÑƒ °ÉM [¡‰KG<::
5. uv”Ÿ< ¨<eØ ÁK¨< °ÉÑƒ ›ÉM ¾K?Kuƒ u‹KAq“ ue^ ¨<ጤƒ ’¨<::
6. ›w_›†¨< ¾Uc^†¨< ¨ÃU ue^ ›Ò×T> ¾TÑ—†¨< ¾e^ vMÅ[xŠ Ø\
“†¨<::
7. ›w_›†¨< ¾Uc^†¨< ¾e^ vMÅ[xŠ ¾T>ÁÓ²<˜“ ˆ”Å ÕÅ— “†¨<::
8. ¾e^ }q××]Â ue^Â ¾UðMÑ¨<” ÁIM ˆ`Çq ÁÅ`ÓM—M::
9. ¾e^ }q××]Â ¾Uc^†¨<” e^‹ ÁÅ”pM—M::
10. ¾e^ }q××]Â ƒG<ƒ“ eK’@ ¾T>Áew ’¨<::
11. ¾Uc^¨< e^ ¾T>ew“ Åe ¾T>M ’¨<::
12. ¾Uc^¨< e^ ›Ûa” ¾T>ðƒ”“ ¾}KÁ¿ ¯Ã’ƒ ¾e^ HLò’„‹” ¾Á² ’¨<::
¡õM 3
1. KUc^¨< e^ ¾T>ÁeðMÑ<˜ ÖpLL ¾J’ Sc[q© °¨<kƒ ›K˜::
2. ¾Uc^¨<” e^ ˆ”Èƒ Mc^¨<ˆ”ÅU‹M ¾T>[Ç˜ ¾›‹H@É °¨<kƒ“ ¡IAƒ
›K˜::
3. ŸUc^¨< e^ u}ÚT] w²< KSe^ƒ }’di’~ ›K˜::
4. upù< u}cÖ¨< ¾c^}™‹ ¾°pÉ ›ðíìU U²“ e”ƒ ’Øw ›Ñ–I/i;
-------------------------------------------------------
5. v”Ÿ< ¾}¨c’ ¾c^}™‹ ¾°pÉ ›ðíìU U²“ SKŸ=Á‹” ÃŸ}LM::
6. ê‹G<” vÑ–G¨</i¨< ¾c^}™‹ ¾°pÉ ›ðíìU U²“ SKŸ=Á ¨<ጤƒ Åe}—
’I/i;
› ›ÃÅKU
Åe}— "MJ”I/i KU”-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------
7. uUƒc^¨< e^ ÁKI/i ¾e^ ˆ`‹q uUƒc^¨< e^ ¨<ጤƒ LÃ }î°• ÁS×M
wKI qevKI/qeu=ÁKi;
›evKG< ›LewU
"cwI/i ˆ”Èƒ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
DECLARATION
I, the undersigned, declare that this thesis is my original work, prepared under the
guidance of Dr. Tilaye Kassahun. All sources of material used for the thesis have
been duly acknowledged. I further confirm that the thesis has not been submitted
either in part or in full to any other higher learning institutions for the purpose of
earning any degree.
_________________________ ______________________
Name Signature
St. Mary’s University, Addis Ababa June, 2014
ENDORSEMENT
This thesis has been submitted to St. Mary’s University, School of Graduate
studies for examination with my approval as a university advisor.
Dr. Tilaye Kassahun _________________
Advisor Signature
St. Mary’s University, Addis Ababa June, 2014

Abel Alemnew

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abel Alemnew

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abel Alemnew

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ST.

IMPACT OF JOB SATISFACTION ON

ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO ST.MARY’S UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF

ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA

IMPACT OF JOB SATISFACTION ON

APPROVED BY BOARD OF EXAMINERS

have tirelessly guided and encouraged me at all times throughout my course.

 DBE Development Bank of Ethiopia

 BSC Balances Scorecard

 PRLRP Project Rehabilitation and Loan Recovery Sub Process

 ECG&SFA Export Credit Guarantee and Special Fund Administration Bureau

 CRMP Compliance and Risk Management Process

 SPDEP Strategic Planning and Development Effectiveness Process

 FAMP Finance and Accounts Management Process

LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................................... vii

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................1

1.1. Back ground of the study................................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Organization Background.................................................................................................................. 3

1.3. Statement of the problem................................................................................................................... 4

1.4. Research questions ............................................................................................................................ 6

1.5. Objectives of the study ...................................................................................................................... 6

1.6. Significance of the study ................................................................................................................... 7

1.7. Scope of the study ............................................................................................................................. 7

1.8. Organization of the research study .................................................................................................... 8

CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ........................................................................................9

2.1 Theoretical literature review.............................................................................................................. 9

2.2 Emperical studies on job satisfaction and job performance ........................................................... 18

2.3 Conceptual frame work ................................................................................................................... 23

3.1 Research design ............................................................................................................................... 24

3.2 Source and tools of data collection.................................................................................................. 25

3.3 Sample and sampling techniques..................................................................................................... 26

3.4 Procedures of data collection........................................................................................................... 28

3.5 Methods of data analysis ................................................................................................................. 28

3.6 Model Specification ........................................................................................................................ 29

CHAPTER FOUR DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION .......................................................................... 30

4.1. Demographics of the Respondents .................................................................................................. 30

4.2. Employee Job satisfaction ............................................................................................................... 33

4.3. Employee Job performance ............................................................................................................. 47

4.4. Correlation analysis ......................................................................................................................... 55

4.5. Regression analysis ......................................................................................................................... 57

4.6. General comments on open ended questions................................................................................... 62

CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS................ 64

5.1. Summary of the findings ...................................................................................................................... 64

5.2. Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 70

Table 4.1 Group Statistics for pay .................................................................................................34

Figure 4.1 Gender of the respondents ...........................................................................................30

1.1. Back ground of the study

satisfaction, influences on job satisfaction and the outcomes of job satisfaction.

organization to achieve its goals.

important to an organization. “Job satisfaction has been linked to productivity, motivation,

satisfaction” (Frank 1978, p.533).

to organizational outcomes and success.

on their employees shoulders.

government financial institutions in the country established to support the economic

development of the country by providing project finance.

Development Bank of Ethiopia, 2013).

measured by employee satisfaction rate. According to annual reports of Development Bank of

desired employee satisfaction rate.