The Relationship between Organizational Learning and Job Satisfaction of Staff Using Structural Equation Modeling: A Case Study of Kermanshah

علوم اجتماعی دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

Article 3, Volume 14, Issue 1 - Serial Number 29, September 2017, Pages 81-112   

Document Type: Scientific-Research

DOI: 10.22067/jss.v14i1.42653

Authors

Ali Moradi^{* 1}; Hamidreza Jalilian²

¹Eslam Abad Branch, Islamic Azad University

²Payame Noor University, Tehran

Abstract

Extended Abstract
1. Introduction
One of the issues discussed by social science researchers is organizational life and, in particular, job satisfaction. Job Satisfaction is the common theme of all organizations, and therefore analyzing and recognizing it is the main concern of all thinkers of the humanities. One of the factors that can affect job satisfaction is organizational learning. The main purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between organizational learning and job satisfaction of employees with an emphasis on Kermanshah government departments.
In this study, Parsons’ (1977) theoretical view is used. He believes that organizations need to solve their four tasks for survival and progress over time: 1. Achievement of goal; 2. Adaptation; 3. Integrity; 4. Preservation of the pattern. Parsons considers the organization as a social system based on a larger social system, that is, society, and on this basis, the concept of job satisfaction (Parsons, 1965, p. 30) is set forth.
2. Theoretical Framework
Feldman (1987) thinks that the process of socialization in organizations has three stages:
1. The first stage is the stage before entering the organization or the preliminary stage. The person has a series of general information about the organization.
2. The second stage is the stage of confrontation or adaptation. A person faces the reality of the organization and knows the roles of himself and others.
3. The third stage is the stage of metamorphosis or role management. The individual either adapts himself to the organizational culture or leaves the expected organization. At this stage, the person knows his or her own job restrictions and those of the others, and he is to perform as part of the role he plays (Saatchi, 2008, p. 277).
Senge (1992) considers the five principles or disciplines of individual skills, mental models, common goals, team learning, and systemic thinking are essential in organizational learning.
3. Methodology
In this research, 377 people were surveyed by Kermanshah public administration staffs whose total number was 14777 people. They were studied by stratified random sampling and Linn table sampling method. Factor analysis was used to estimate the validity of the two concepts of job satisfaction and organizational learning. Five-dimensional organizational learning (personal skill, mental model, common goal, team learning, and system learning) was measured.
4. Results & Discussion
The results show that the mean job satisfaction of employees is 40.23, which is lower than the expected mean (45) and indicates a low level of employee satisfaction. There is a significant and positive relationship between organizational learning and job satisfaction (r = 0. 495), and this is a generalizable result for the entire statistical population. The results of the functional model of the organizational learning variable show that the non-significant Chi-Square of the CMIN is 263.77 and the significance level of 0.0000 does not show a good result. The second RMSEA is 0.053 which is close to zero and confirms the fitness of the model. The value of the RMR index or root mean square of the residuals is 0.046, which is close to zero and confirms the fitness of the model. The CMIN/DF was used for assessing the model, the value of which is 1.84, and that one in turn represents a recovery condition for the model. The comparative fitting index of CFI is 0.933, which shows good results. For PCFI adaptive fit index, values of 0.50 and above are acceptable. The results show the values of this index is 0.702.
5. Suggestions
Based on the findings of this study, job satisfaction is directly affected by organizational learning. In other words, increase of organizational learning of employees lead to their job satisfaction changes. The correlation coefficient for this variable is 0.45, which indicates a strong, direct and significant relationship between the two variables. This result can be explained in the form of a social learning perspective. In the theory of social learning, it is assumed that people that are new in an organization are free of inter-organizational processes that become organizational entities through the influence of the organizational world. Such a person learns in the organization to attract parts of the behavior that will make him unique. Based on Bandura's (1977) social learning theory, one of the most fundamental tools for modeling a new behavior is to personally view behavior and adapt with it. Generally, having dedicated and loyal committed employees is the most important factor in the success of any organization. The main priority for any company should be to attract and retain committed and competent employees. Failure to realize this means losing productivity, a lack of growth and a loss of business. Success in a competitive world belongs to companies that consider committed and loyal employees as their greatest capital. Many scholars have argued that human resources are the only competitive advantage that organizations need, and they should turn this potential force into action by taking appropriate actions and directing them to the organization. Lack of human resources can never achieve their goals. In other words, human resources play a key role in maintaining market competition.

Keywords

Organizational Learning; Job satisfaction; Staff; Structural equation modeling

References

1. اشنایدر، سی و ژان سوئی، ب. (1382). مدیریت در پهنة فرهنگ‌ها. (م. اعرابی و د. ایزدی، مترجمان). تهران: پژوهش‌های فرهنگی.

2. اعتباریان، ا. و خلیلی، م. (1387). رابطة کیفیت زندگی کاری و ابعاد آن با رضایت شغلی سازمانی (کارکنان سازمان تأمین اجتماعی اصفهان). دانش و پژوهش در روان‌شناسی، 1 (35 و 36)، 106-81.

3. ایران‌زاده، س. (1382). جهانی‌شدن و تحولات استراتژیک در مدیریت و سازمان. تهران: افق دانش.

4. رحمان سرشت، ح. (1386). تئوری‌های سازمان و مدیریت از تجددگرایی تا پساتجددگرایی (دوران تجددگرایی و مدرنیسن). جلد اول. تهران: دوران.

5. رهنورد، ف.ا. و زارع پور، ف.ا. (1378). یادگیری سازمانی و سازمان یادگیرنده. مدیریت دولتی، 2 (5)، 76-59.

6. روزن باوم، ه. (1367). خانواده به منزلة ساختاری در مقابل جامعه. (م. ص. مهدوی، مترجم). تهران: نشر دانشگاهی.

7. ساعتچی، م. (1387). روان‌شناسی کار (کاربرد روان‌شناسی در کار، سازمان و مدیریت). تهران: مؤسسة نشر ویرایش.

8. سنگه، پ. (1386). پنجمین فرمان خلق سازمان یادگیرنده. (ح. کمال هدایت و م. روشن، ترجمان). تهران: سازمان مدیریت صنعتی.

9. شرمر، ه. (1386). مدیریت رفتار سازمانی. (م. ایران نژاد پاریزی، م. ع. بابایی و م. ع. سبحان اللهی، مترجم). تهران: انتشارات مهتاب قدس.

10. مارکوارت، م. (1385). ایجاد سازمان‌یادگیرنده. (م. ر. زالی). تهران: دانشگاه تهران.

11. میردریکوندی، ر. (1379). شغل، رضایت شغلی و روش‌های ارزیابی آن. نشریة معرفت، 1 (38)، 77-64.

12. نادی، م.ع.، گل‌پرور، م. و سادات، س. ع. (1388). رضایت شغلی سازمانی و آرزوهای- شغلی کارکنان در محیط‌های کاری. جامعه‌شناسی کاربردی. 22 (37)، 176-159.

13. Akoff, R. (1996). On learning and the systems that facilitate it. Center for Quality of Management Journal, 5(2), 27-35.

14. Bauer, T. N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D. M., & Tucker, J. S. (2007). Newcomer adjustment during organizational socialization: A meta-analytic review of antecedents, outcomes, and methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 707-721.

15. Gruidl, J., & Hustedde, R. (2003). Evaluation of capacity-building programs: A learning organization approach. Journal of Extension. Retrieved from https://www.joe.org/joe/2003october/a1.php.

16. Heathfield, M. S. (2000). Make learning matter: Become a learning organization. Retrieved from https:// www. thebalance. com/ make – learning -matter - become - a- learning-organization -1917939

17. Kang, K. H., Lee, S., & Huh, C. (2010). Impacts of positive and negative corporate social responsibility activities on company performance in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(1), 72-82.

18. Love, P. E. D., Li, H., Irani, Z., & Faniran, O. (2000). Total quality management and the learning organization: a dialogue for change in construction. Construction Management and Economics, 18(3), 321-331.

19. Lowhorn, G. L. (2009). The effect of supportive organizational leadership, organizational socialization, and satisfaction with supervision on turnover as mediated by organizational commitment and job satisfaction in faculty (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Regent University, Virginia, VA.

20. Lussier, R. (2002). Human relations in organizations: Applications and skill building. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

21. Neefe, D. O. (2001). Comparing levels of organizational learning maturity of colleges and universities participating in traditional and non-traditional (Academic quality improvement project) accreditation processes (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Wisconsin-Stout, Wisconsin, WI.

22. Pitts, R. (2010). Organizational socialization of physicians into a large medical group practice. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Walden University, Minnesota, MN.

23. Rodriguez, S. D., Perez, J. F. M., & Val, M. P. d. (2003). An empirical study about the effect of cultural problematic on organizational learning in alliances. The Learning Organization, 10(3), 138-148.

24. Schermerhorn Jr., J. R., Hat, J. G., & Osborn, R. N. (1998). Basic organizational Behavior. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

25. Tsai, K.-H., & Wang, J.-C. (2004). The R&D performance in Taiwan's electronics industry: A longitudinal examination. R&D Management, 34(2), 179-189.

26. Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1(2), 209–264.