Analysis and Evaluation of Job Satisfaction Level Among Administrative Private Sector Employees: A Quantitative Study

Analysis and Evaluation of Job Satisfaction Level Among Administrative Private Sector Employees: A Quantitative Study

Fawaz Alkhawaji

Department of Industrial Engineering King Abdulaziz University

Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

Mohammed Alamoudi

Department of Industrial Engineering King Abdulaziz University

Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

AbstractThis study evaluates job satisfaction among employees in private sector in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, using a comprehensive questionnaire. The research utilizes Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) and regression analysis to assess the data, aiming to provide valuable insights into effective resource management for companies and organizations. The survey captures multiple dimensions of job satisfaction, including collaboration, communication, leadership, personal growth, inclusion, job engagement, performance assessment, and work processes. The study's unique approach lies in its use of IPA to map the importance and satisfaction of job satisfaction attributes, coupled with regression analysis to understand the statistical significance of various job satisfaction dimensions. This dual-method approach allows for a nuanced understanding of job satisfaction factors, making the study particularly relevant for businesses looking to enhance employee satisfaction and productivity in Saudi Arabia.

KeywordsJob satisfaction, private sector, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, Importance performance analysis, regression

1. INTRODUCTION

   Job satisfaction is often defined as mental or emotional states which illustrate the employees positive psychological state regarding the work they are doing and other related job aspects [1]. Considering its frequent use in both daily life and academic research, there remains no consensus on what exactly constitutes job satisfaction. There is no definitive description of what a job entails. Consequently, it is necessary to consider the nature and significance of work as a fundamental human activity before establishing a definition of job satisfaction. The definition of job satisfaction is approached differently by many researchers. One of the key components in determining the success and effectiveness of corporate organizations is job satisfaction. A very good indicator of the significance of job satisfaction in contemporary businesses is the new managerial paradigm, which stresses that employees should be treated and viewed first as human beings with their own desires, interests, and personal goals. The idea that a satisfied employee is a successful employee is one that should be considered while assessing job satisfaction.

   When considering the numerous disadvantages of job dissatisfaction, such as a low level of loyalty, absenteeism and turnover, an increase in accidents, etc., the significance of job satisfaction particularly comes into focus. Three crucial aspects of job happiness are listed by [1]. Organizations should first follow human values. These businesses will focus on treating

   employees fairly and with decency. In certain situations, a persons level of job satisfaction may be a reliable measure of their productivity. Increased levels of job satisfaction may indicate that staff members are in sound mental and emotional condition. Second, businesses performance and progress are directly affected by their employees level of job satisfaction. Based on the previous observation, high levels of job satisfaction will lead to favorable and useful efforts and the opposite holds, low levels of job satisfaction may lead to negative practices. Third, for businesses to assess different aspects of their progress and development, job satisfaction may provide a critical measure to study and evaluate different departments and divisions and which changes may lead to high performance.

   The aspects that impact job satisfaction measurements are not always the same but usually are compounded and differed per task. Examples of that may include aspects such as the nature of the job, resources, organization overall performance, and employees performance [4]. Various job-related elements have been included in this type of research to assess job satisfaction.

   Job satisfaction significantly influences both individual and organizational well-being, establishing a positive cycle within the workplace. Numerous studies have underscored these benefits to understand the significance of prioritizing employee well-being and cultivating a favorable work environment. The following are some statistics found in the literature:

   • Reduced turnover and enhanced productivity:

     Employees who are dissatisfied are more inclined to explore new opportunities, resulting in turnover costs and lower productivity. In contrast, findings from [14] indicate that companies with satisfied employees experience a 50% lower turnover rate. Furthermore, [15] notes that engaged employees exhibit a 59% reduced likelihood of leaving their position. Satisfied employees also demonstrate increased productivity, as evidenced by [16] revealing that a 10% rise in job satisfaction corresponds to a 5% increase in productivity. Moreover, a meta-analysis conducted by [17] disclosed that satisfied employees are 12% more productive compared to their dissatisfied counterparts.

   • Positive mental and physical health:

   The advantages of job satisfaction extend beyond organizational outcomes to positively influence individual well-being. A study revealed a connection between job satisfaction and a reduced risk of heart disease, depression, and anxiety [21]. Additionally, a research study indicates that individuals with high job satisfaction tend to live approximately five years longer than their counterparts with lower job satisfaction [22]. These insights underscore the considerable impact of job satisfaction on both mental and physical health.

   Job satisfaction surveys are designed based on job attributes that directly impact the level of employees satisfaction. Those dimensions include, but are not limited to, collaboration, communication, company leadership, engagement, personal growth, inclusion, performance, and accountability, etc.

   This research is aiming at collecting responses of a job satisfaction questionnaire among employees in Saudi Arabia and assessing the collected data using importance performance analysis (IPA) and regression analysis in order to provide companies and organization with useful insights about resources management.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

   1. Job satisfaction

      Job satisfaction is often defined as mental or emotional states which illustrate the employees positive psychological state in regard to the work they are doing and other related job aspects [1]. Job satisfaction is the result of subjective experience employees have and hence varies per person. Employees satisfaction will reach high levels when their expectations about the job match or come near the experience they are having while performing the job and the opposite holds in this case which means that dissatisfaction will likely occur when the difference between expectation and experience is high. This indicates that when an aspect of a job is of high importance, this factor contributes more to overall satisfaction [1].

      The aspects that impact job satisfaction are not always the same but usually are compounded and differ per task. Examples of that may include aspects such as the nature of the job, resources, organization overall performance, and employees performance [4]. Various job-relted elements have been included in this type of research to assess job satisfaction.

      In the same subject, and regarding the environmental aspects of a job which mostly are objective by nature, the literature indicates that at low levels, it directly affects the employees mental states and consequently help in shaping their actions in the work environment. These observations have been stated and concluded in various studies in the field of environmental psychology [5].

      Another critical aspect besides the environmental ones is the personal relationships with other employees which directly impacts the job satisfaction levels [6]. This observation usually appears in a work environment where teamwork and collaboration of various divisions is required. The study concluded that job satisfaction is significantly affected by those various personal and environmental aspects.

      The field of job satisfaction research is wise and includes various disciplines, so it's impractical to list every individual

      who has measured and worked on it. However, some influential figures and groups have played significant roles in developing and applying tools for measuring job satisfaction, the following is some of their work:

      • In 1950s, Frederick Herzberg proposed a theory that job satisfaction has two dimensions: hygiene and motivation. Hygiene aspects, such as salary and supervision, decrease employees' dissatisfaction within the workplace. Motivators, on the other hand, such as recognition and achievement, increase employees productivity, creativity and commitment [22].

      • In 1960s, Edwin A. Locke provide an alternative theory to Herzberg one, stating that both motivators and hygiene lead to both satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Locke proposed the goal setting theory, highlighting the importance of challenging and specific goals in job satisfaction. The theory is an employee-engagement tactic that involves setting specific and measurable goals to improve productivity. Locke studies satisfaction cross several dimensions including salary, promotions, peers, policies, etc. [24].

   2. performance analysis (IPA)

   In 1977, K. Martilla and J.C. James proposed importance performance analysis to the automotive industry to improve the management of job performance and importance [7]. Their method utilized 2D map for the relation of importance and performance to provide insights for decision making regarding which domain needs improvements and which one already performing well. Fig 1 shows the proposed IPA map. Management uses the map to plot various attributes according to their importance and level of performance. It is shown that attributes in quadrant 1 need more attention and resources due to their high importance and low performance. Usually, to improve quadrant 1, resources from 3 and 4 are reassigned for quadrant 3 since they both are of low priority and low importance.

   Fig 1. Importance performance (IPA) quadrants.

   Since its emergence, the research communities across various domains make enormous use of the IPA map in areas like service quality, customer satisfaction, policies evaluation, etc. This research is also using IPA to assess job satisfaction levels across various sectors in Saudi Arabia which will be obtained by collecting questionnaire responses data from employees.

   In utilizing IPA method for assessment, often it is required to decide about the points that divide the importance and

   performance map. [7] recommended that the division is done based on researcher respective of the market and the purpose of the analysis. This may lead to some ambiguity in the various divisions of a business which leads to choosing the means of both dimensions as the separator [8]. Since different attributes have different meanings, it is better to consider both the importance and performance independently.

   In utilizing IPA for customer satisfaction in tourism, [9] omitted performance and replaced it with customer satisfaction. It is logical to say that this practice is accepted since a high level of customer satisfaction implies high performance levels. This way, the analysis provides additional insights to which attribute leads to high satisfaction and which one result in low one making the whole analysis centered around the customer, in the case of this research, the employees are the center of the study.

   Performance usually is calculated and defined by using various methods, one of them is rating scales. Importance, on the other hand, is evaluated by approximation of performance 10]. This approximation is usually done using various statistical methods such as regression equations. Regardless of which statistical method is used for estimating the importance, the conclusion is reached using the importance performance map. The results of the analysis are based on assuming that both importance and performance are independence 7]. This implies that a feature high low level of importance and low level of performance indicates an opportunity for improvement.

3. METHODOLOGY

   aspirations. Dimension 5 is Inclusion which is the culture in which the mix of people can come to work, feel comfortable and confident to be themselves, and work in a way that suits them and delivers your business or service needs. Dimension 6 is Job engagement, it is the engagement and the evaluation of job contents, and atmosphere. Dimension 7 is Performance assessment which assesses whether a person performs a job well. Dimension 8 is Work Processes, they are the processes that involve the majority of your organizations workforce and produce customer, stakeholder, and stockholder value. The choice of these dimensions was determined after studying the current job satisfaction survey found in the literature as well as curating it to suit the organizational structure and work policies in Saudi Arabia.

   The questionnaire consists of 51 questions divided across the eight dimensions where each question has a Likert scale from 1 which represent strongly agree to 5 which represent strongly disagree. Table 1 summarizes the dimensions along with their questions.

   A. Data collection

   Since the main objective of the research is to study job satisfaction among employees from various sectors in Saudi Arabia, data collection is a crucial aspect of the study design. The data will be based on the responses of employees to a questionnaire that captures various aspects of job satisfaction. The questionnaire is designed based on job attributes that directly impact the level of employees satisfaction. Those aspects include, but not limited to, collaboration, communication, company leadership, engagement, personal growth, inclusion, performance, and accountability, etc. The survey was distributed across Saudi Arabia in order to obtain data from various sectors that represents the overall population. The questionnaire was designed to capture insights across 8 dimensions where all the dimensions combined represent job satisfaction attributes. The first dimension D1 is collaboration which is a work style that helps employees work together to achieve a common goal in ways that benefit a company and its employees. Dimension 2 is Communication which is the process of exchanging information and ideas, both verbally and non-verbally between one person or group and another person or group within an organization. It includes e-mails, videoconferencing, text messages, notes, calls, etc. Dimension

   3 is Company Leadership. Leadership in business is the capacity of a companys management to set and achieve challenging goals, take fast and decisive action when needed, outperform the competition, and inspire others to perform at the highest level they can. Dimension 4 is Personal growth and career development which is the art of employees finding and morphing into the person they want to become through an exploration of identity, talents, potential, as well as deams and

   Published by : http://www.ijert.org

   Table 1 Job satisfaction questionnaire

   International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)

   ISSN: 2278-0181

   Volume 13, Issue 03 March 2024

   1. My manager promotes teamwork as a value.

      D1: Collaboration

   2. I get opportunities to collaborate at work.

   3. Mostly, whenever I need help, I can ask for it.

   4. I am satisfied with the manager assignments of tasks.

   5. In teamwork, the work is distributed equally.

   6. Each team member collaborates to accomplish the work.

   7. Overall, I am satisfied with the collaboration level at my work.

   D2: Communication

   1. I have clear access to the information I need for my job role

   2. There is transparency with information across the company

   3. I find it easy to share ideas and thoughts about the work

   4. There are different means for communication.

   5. Managers listen and respond to their employees.

   6. Overall, I am satisfied with the communication level

   D3: Company Leadership

   1. I am confident in my managers ability to represent my needs

   2. The companys goals are well defined.

   3. Managers take fast and decisive action when needed

   4. Managers inspire others to perform at the highest level they can

   5. I think my leaders demonstrate the company values and goals

   6. I am satisfied with supervisors organization of the workflow

   7. Overall, I am satisfied with the leadership level

   D4: Personal growth and career development

   1. I have a clear career development plan Managers encourage me to develop my

   4.2

   career and talents.

   My colleagues encourage me to develop

   4.3

   my career and talents.

   4.4 The company offers various training courses and sessions

   When I do a good job, I receive the

   4.5

   recognition for it that I should receive.

   4.6 Overall, I am satisfied with the personal growth and career development level

   1. I feel my manager listens to my ideas and takes them on

      D5: Inclusion

   2. I feel encouraged to suggest my ideas and opinions

   3. I feel my job is meaningful

   4. My work that I do is always appreciated from my managers.

   5. Overall, I am satisfied with the Inclusion level

   1. My work is too challenging

      D6: Job Engagement

   2. My work is interesting

   3. I may recommend this company to others

   4. I believe I have enough authority to complete my job

   5. I like doing the things I do at work

   6. The management provide a great working environment.

   7. My co-workers provide a great working atmosphere

   8. Overall, I am satisfied with the Job contents level

   1. I have periodic meetings with my manager where they share feedback

      D7: Performance assessment

   2. The feedback presented in a constructive way

   3. I have a clear understanding of my goals and targets

   4. Those who do well on the job stand a fair chance of being promoted.

   5. The job assessment is the same for all employees.

   6. Overall, I am satisfied with the Performance assessment method.

   1. My manager promotes high quality as a value

      D8: Work Processes

   2. I get opportunities to improve processes or policies

   3. I get enough time to get my assigned tasks done.

   4. My work is coordinated from my manager.

   5. Work distribution and assignments are fully explained.

   6. During a certain task, I get help from my manager.

   7. During a certain task, I get help from my colleagues

   8. Overall, I am satisfied with the Work Processes level

   IJERTV13IS030246 (This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)

   Published by : http://www.ijert.org

   B. Participant

   International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)

   ISSN: 2278-0181

   Volume 13, Issue 03 March 2024

   than 0.05 indicates that the corresponding dimension had a statistically significant impact on job satisfaction.

   The survey was distributed across the private sector in Jeddah.

   A total number of 336 participants filled the survey across different ages, education level, and years of experience. The respondents of the survey can disregard any question that they might not want to answer. The questions regarding personal aspects such as age, education, and work experience are not mandatory and participants can leave it if they want, only the question regarding the dimensions are mandatory. Table 2 summarizes the demographic of the respondents.

   Table 2 Demographic information of the respondents

   D. IPA

   After the collection of the data, detailed analysis is performed to study the different attributes that impact on job satisfaction level. The correlation between each attribute and the overall job satisfaction will be calculated to be used in formulating the IPA map. The separation line between the two dimensions of the IPA grid will be defined based on the mean of both dimensions.

4. RESULTS

   Demographic Information	Participants (n = A. IPA results 336) The IPA is employed	to	understand	the	satisfaction	levels
   	18-24	6	across the eight dimensions of the questionnaire. This analysis substitutes performance with satisfaction to better align with the study's focus, allowing for the prioritization of factors based on their importance to overall job satisfaction and the current satisfaction levels reported by the respondents.
   	25-34	236
   Age	35-44	26
   	45-54	1
   	55-64	9
   Education	Bachelor Master PhD Other	196 44 11 29	Table 3 summarizes the descriptive statistics, mean and standard deviation, for the eight dimensions based on the respondents answers to the survey. Figure 2 shows the IPA maps for the eight dimensions
   	0-3	79	Table 3 Dimensions descriptive statistics Dimension Mean
   Work	4-7	90				SD
   Experience	7-10	71	D1	3.39		1.46
   	10+	40	D2	3.09		1.67

   C. Regression

   To test various statistical methods for achieving the research objectives, regression analysis modeling is included in the research. Regression will help in modelling job satisfaction by assigning different weights to the different attributes of the problem resulting in insights about which attributes are more likely to contribute to the overall job satisfaction. Larger weights imply a larger possibility of that attribute in contributing to job satisfaction.

   The regression analysis aimed to understand the relationship between the independent variables (the dimensions of job satisfaction) and the dependent variable (overall job satisfaction). The model can be expressed as:

   Where represents the overall job satisfaction score, is the intercept, are the coefficients for each

   dimension, are the independent variables

   representing each dimensions score, and is the error term. Each coefficient quantifies the expected change in job satisfaction for a one-unit change in the corresponding

   dimension, holding all other variables constant.

   Using Pythons statsmodels library, the regression model was fitted to the data. The statistical significance of the coefficients was determined using a 95% confidence level. A p-value less

   D3	2.81	1.83
   D4	2.62	1.84
   D5	2.71	1.92
   D6	2.75	1.87
   D7	2.46	1.81
   D8	2.56	1.88

   B. Regression results

   The regression model was specified to identify significant predictors of job satisfaction and to quantify the strength and direction of their relationships with the overall job satisfaction score. The model also included interaction terms to explore the combined effects of different dimensions on job satisfaction. Table 4 shows the results of regression models fitted across the 8 dimensions of the job satisfaction questionnaire.

   IJERTV13IS030246

   (This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)

   Published by :

   International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology

   Collaboration	Coef.	Std Err.	P>|t|
   Const	1.20398	0.359488	0.00091
   1.1	0.027314	0.061369	0.656576
   1.2	0.063032	0.062989	0.31775
   1.3	0.119737	0.057356	0.037641
   1.4	0.10719	0.052763	0.043046
   1.5	0.100768	0.054378	0.064808
   1.6	0.227557	0.059871	0.000173
   Communication	Coef.	Std Err.	P>|t|
   const	0.668705	0.292284	0.02281
   2.1	0.146556	0.060168	0.015415
   2.2	0.189901	0.060641	0.001903
   2.3	0.054701	0.056778	0.336074
   2.4	0.164546	0.055978	0.003532
   2.5	0.156107	0.060421	0.010228
   Company Leadership	Coef.	Std Err.	P>|t|
   const	0.681025	0.23561	0.004115
   3.1	0.049481	0.056182	0.379144
   3.2	0.046001	0.055156	0.404909
   3.3	0.102434	0.054073	0.059095
   3.4	0.173553	0.054556	0.001614
   3.5	0.175978	0.058444	0.002815
   3.6	0.172621	0.057551	0.002922
   Personal growth and career	Coef.	Std Err.	P>|t|
   const	0.963088	0.222408	2.01E-05
   4.1	0.207611	0.05552	0.000219
   4.2	0.057537	0.058539	0.326421
   4.3	0.054672	0.060443	0.366406
   4.4	0.15299	0.061387	0.013211
   4.5	0.18778	0.056971	0.001093

   Table 4 Regression models results.

   International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)

   ISSN: 2278-0181

   Volume 13, Issue 03 March 2024

   Inclusion Coef. Std Err. P>|t|
   const	0.698236	0.228621	0.002451
   5.1	0.138192	0.058253	0.018282
   5.2	0.116459	0.059776	0.052274
   5.3	0.120676	0.055299	0.029832
   5.4	0.112681	0.052334	0.032071
   5.5	0.217347	0.06063	0.000391
   Job Engagement	Coef.	Std Err.	P>|t|
   const	0.519661	0.258542	0.045295
   6.1	0.101054	0.05642	0.074248
   6.2	-0.00508	0.060193	0.932803
   6.3	0.170583	0.065293	0.009421
   6.4	0.066709	0.059104	0.259899
   6.5	0.103937	0.057492	0.071592
   6.6	0.199494	0.06175	0.001367
   6.7	0.139611	0.062133	0.025341
   Performance assessment	Coef.	Std Err.	P>|t|
   const	0.57632	0.198807	0.004009
   7.1	0.158936	0.054503	0.038
   7.2	0.083997	0.054324	0.123054
   7.3	0.083465	0.048235	0.084544
   7.4	0.136929	0.051384	0.008101
   7.5	0.246795	0.057727	2.54E-05
   Work Processes	Coef.	Std Err.	P>|t|
   const	0.768729	0.200789	0.000156
   8.1	0.088943	0.051983	0.088071
   8.2	0.116443	0.0568	0.041194
   8.3	0.233102	0.055685	3.69E-05
   8.4	0.011689	0.052504	0.823972
   8.5	0.227017	0.057563	9.91E-05
   8.6	-0.01606	0.052194	0.758473
   8.7	0.10209	0.052017	0.050579

   Published by : http://www.ijert.org

   International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)

   ISSN: 2278-0181

   Volume 13, Issue 03 March 2024

   Fig 2 IPA maps for the eight dimensions

5. DISCUSSION

   The output of the regression analysis included the regression coefficients, standard errors, p-values for each predictor, along with other meaningful metrics. These parameters were crucial for interpreting the influence of each question withing each dimension on job satisfaction. A positive regression coefficient indicated a positive relationship with overall job satisfaction, whereas a negative coefficient suggested an inverse relationship. The significance of each predictor was determined based on the p-values, with values less than 0.05 considered statistically significant.

   The IPA highlights critical areas across all dimensions where satisfaction does not meet the importance placed on them by employees. These areas should be the focus of targeted improvements. Conversely, elements that show high satisfaction and importance should be recognized as strengths and maintained.

   Regarding collaboration dimension, factors such as teamwork promotion by managers, opportunities for collaboration, and equal work distribution in teams showed varying degrees of influence. Notably, Each team member collaborates to accomplish the work question (1.6) has a significant positive impact on job satisfaction (_ = 0.23, p = 0.002), highlighting the importance of collective effort in the workplace. The IPA map for collaboration shows that ease of asking for help (1.3) and the satisfaction with team members' collaboration (1.6) are in Q2, demonstrating that these elements are well-received and should be maintained. Questions (1.4) which ask about mangers assignments of tasks fall into Q4, suggesting that while satisfaction with these aspects is high, their importance is lower, indicating a possible reallocation of resources.

   For communication dimension, clear access to information needed for job roles (2.1) (_ = 0.15, p = 0.015) and transparency of information across the company (2.2) (_ = 0.19, p = 0.002) were significant predictors of job satisfaction. This underscores the value of open and clear communication channels within organizations. Analyzing the IPA results for communication, clear access to information (2.1) is positioned in Q2, signifying these are areas where employees feel their needs are met and are critical to their job satisfaction. Interestingly, the transparency of company information (2.2) is placed in Q4, suggesting that while current satisfaction is high, its importance is not as significant in the eyes of the employees, pointing to a potential overkill of resources in this area.

   Regarding leadership, attributes related to the effectiveness of leadership, such as Managers inspire others to perform at their best (3.4) (_= 0.17, p = 0.002), and fast decisive actions (3.3) were found to be significant. This suggests the pivotal role of leadership in shaping employee satisfaction. The IPA shows that decisive action when needed (3.3) is placed in Q1, calling for immediate attention. Inspirational leadership (3.4) is a high point in Q2, suggesting a strong area that resonates with employees. Confidence in managerial representation (3.1) and well-defined company goals (3.2) appear in Q3, highlighting them as less critical areas of focus. Strong satisfaction with leaders demonstrating company values (3.5) and supervisors' organization of work (3.6) is noted in Q4, indicating these

   areas receive more attention than necessary given their lower importance.

   For personal and career developments, the presence of a clear career development plan significantly contributed to job satisfaction (4.1) (_ = 0.21, p = 0.0002), training offers (4.4) (_ = 0.19, p = 0.013), and recognition (4.5) (_ = 0.21, p = 0.001). This result emphasizes the importance of career progression opportunities and appreciation in employee satisfaction. The IPA shows that a clear career development plan (4.1) is in Q2, aligning well with employee satisfaction. Meanwhile, training opportunities (4.4) and recognition for good performance (4.5) are in Q4.

   In inclusion, factors such as employees suggestions implementation (5.1) (_ = 0.13, p = 0.018), encouragement to share ideas (5.3) ( = 0.12, p = 0.03), and appreciation (5.5) (_

   = 0.22, p = 0.0003) plays crucial role in employees overall satisfaction with the work environment. Inclusion within the organization notably places appreciation from managers (5.5) in Q1, highlighting this as a critical area where employees feel their contributions could be better recognized and valued. Encouragement to suggest ideas (5.3) and managers listening to ideas (5.1) are in Q3, indicating that while there is room for improvement, they are currently viewed as less critical to overall job satisfaction.

   Regarding job engagement, factors such as challenging work (6.1) (_ = 0.22, p = 0.0003), managerial policies in the work environment (6.6) (_ = 0.19, p = 0.001), and co-worker working environment (6.7) (_ = 0.13, p = 0.02) were significant, indicating the critical impact of work challenge level and work environment. In IPA, the overall job content level (6.7) is seen as satisfactory and important, placed in Q2, denoting this as a key strength within the organization. The challenge of work (6.1) is in Q3, suggesting that while improvements could be made, they are not pressing issues now. Notably, the provided working environment (6.6) is in Q4, indicating that despite high satisfaction, the emphasis employees place on these aspects is less, and resources could be better utilized elsewhere.

   For performance, factors like periodic meetings (7.1) (_ = 0.16, p = 0.003), fair promotion (7.4) (_ = 0.14, p = 0.008), and fair and transparent job assessments (7.5) (_ = 0.25, p < 0.001) were strongly associated with higher job satisfaction, highlighting the need for equitable and clear performance evaluation systems. Within performance assessment in IPA, fair chances of promotion (7.4) are in Q3, indicating these areas are not as pressing. Interestingly, periodic feedback meetings (7.1) and the uniformity of job assessments (7.5) are in Q4, suggesting that while satisfaction is high, the importance placed on these aspects is lower.

   And lastly for the work process, efficient work processes, including adequate time for task completion (8.3) (_ = 0.23, p

   < 0.001), and clarity of work tsks (8.5) (_ = 0.22, p < 0.001) significantly afected job satisfaction. This finding points to the importance of well-organized and manageable workloads. In the IPA, managerial assistance during tasks (8.6, 8.7) and the promotion of high quality (8.1) are critical areas in Q1, where satisfaction is not in line with their importance. Coordination of work by managers (8.4) is a less critical area in Q3. The opportunities to improve processes (8.2), clear work distribution (8.5), and adequate time for tasks (8.3) are in Q4,

   suggesting these areas might be overemphasized relative to their current importance.

   The results indicate that various facets of the work environment, from leadership quality to communication and career development opportunities, significantly impact job satisfaction. The findings align with existing literature, suggesting that a holistic approach to employee welfare, encompassing both professional and personal growth opportunities, is crucial in enhancing job satisfaction. One notable observation is the significant impact of leadership and management quality on employee satisfaction. This suggests that companies in Jeddah and Saudi Arabia may benefit from investing in leadership development programs.

   This IPA analysis provides a detailed breakdown of where each aspect of job satisfaction stands in relation to its importance and current satisfaction levels. This information is crucial for strategic planning, where the focus should be on improving areas in Q1, maintaining the strengths in Q2, evaluating the emphasis on aspects in Q4, and considering the significance of the aspects in Q3.

6. CONCLUSION

The findings of this study show the multifaceted nature of job satisfaction among employees in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The use of IPA revealed critical areas needing improvement and areas where employee satisfaction aligns well with their importance. For instance, leadership quality, clear communication, and career development opportunities emerged as significant contributors to job satisfaction. The regression analysis further highlighted the substantial impact of management quality and workplace environment on employee satisfaction. The research's approach, combining IPA and regression analysis, provided a comprehensive view of job satisfaction, offering actionable insights for businesses in Jeddah and across Saudi Arabia. While the research study focused on Jeddah, its findings offer valuable lessons for broader applications. Future research could explore these dimensions in different contexts to enhance the generalizability of the results.

The research study is built upon the collection of the data and the quality of the received responses. Since the collection of the data is not entirely under team control, meaning that employees who agree to fill in the questionnaire may, at some point, feel unobligated to complete the questions and therefore input random answers. To tackle this issue, the questionnaire should be simple, precise, and to the point that enables the results obtained from the analysis to have a high level of statistical significance. The design process of the questionnaire will take into consideration those aspects and try to come up with questions that will reflect the entire employees population. Also, the study's focus on specific regions, Jeddah in our case, may limit the generalizability of the findings.

REFERENCES

[1]. Spector, P. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452231549

[2]. Hoppock, R. (1935). Job Satisfaction, Harper and Brothers, New York, p. 47

[3]. Vroom, V.H. (1964). Work and motivation, John Wiley and Sons,

New York, p.99

[4]. Karatepe, O. M., & Douri, B. G. (2012). Does customer orientation mediate the effect of job resourcefulness on Hotel employee outcomes? evidence from Iran. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 19(1), 133142. https://doi.org/10.1017/jht.2012.15

[5]. Sansone, C., Morf, C. C., & Panter, A. T. (2008). The sage handbook of methods in social psychology. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412976190

[6]. Limpanitgul, T., Jirotmontree, A., Robson, M. J., & Boonchoo, P. (2013). Job attitudes and Prosocial Service behavior: A test of the moderating role of Organizational Culture. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 20, 512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2013.05.006

[7]. Martilla, J. A., & James, J. C. (1977). Importance-performance analysis. Journal of Marketing, 41(1), 77-79

[8]. Hollenhors, S., Olson, D., & Fortney, R. (1992). Use of importance

– performance analysis to evaluate state park cabins: the case of the West Virginia State Park System. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 10(1), 1-11.

[9]. Chang, Y. C., & Chen, C. F. (2011). Identifying mobility service needs for disabled air passengers. Tourism Management, 32(5), 1214e1217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.tourman.2010.11.001

[10]. Oliver, R. L. (1993). Cognitive, affective, and attribute bases of the satisfaction response. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(3), 418- 430

[11]. Kristensen, K., Kanji, G.K. and Dahlgaard, J.J. (1992), On measurement of customer satisfaction, Total Quality Management,

Vol. 3 No. 2

[12]. Sydsaeter, K. and Hammond, P.J. (1995), Mathematics for Economic Analysis, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

[13]. Kristensen, K. (1998), Some aspects of customer satisfaction and customer loyalty, Total Quality Management, Vol. 9 No. 4 and 5,

pp. 145-51

[14]. Conference Board. (2022). Employee Engagement Benchmark Report 2022. Survey: Job Engagement Declines For A Third of Workers; Remote Work Is Not to Blame.

[15]. Gallup. (2023). The State of Global Workplace Engagement.

[16]. Schneider, B., & Gruman, J. (2015). The service profit chain: How to break the vicious cycle of costs and service delivery. John Wiley & Sons.

[17]. Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (2007). The effects of employee satisfaction on productivity and customer service. The Oxford handbook of organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 406-429). Oxford University Press.

[18]. Heskett, J. L., Schlesinger, L. A., & Smith, K. R. (1997). Service profit chain. Free Press.

[19]. Society for Human Resource Management. (2022). 2022 Employee Benefits Survey.

[20]. American Psychological Association. (2021). Work and well-being 2021 survey report.

[21]. World employment and social outlook – Trends 2022. Geneva: International Labor Organization.

[22]. Syptak, J. M., Marsland, D. W., & Ulmer, D. (1999). Job satisfaction: Putting theory into practice. Family Practice Management.

[23]. Kaldenberg DO, Regrut BA. Do satisfied patients depend on satisfied employees? Or, do satisfied employees depend on satisfied patients? QRC Advis. 1999 May;15(7):9-12. PMID: 10351566.

[24]. Locke, E. A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4(4), 309336. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(69)90013-0

[25]. Younes, M. (2012).Job satisfaction and work performance: a case study of the American University in Cairo (AUC) [Master's Thesis, the American University in Cairo]. AUC Knowledge Fountain.

[26]. Susanto, P., Hoque, M. E., Jannat, T., Emely, B., Zona, M. A., & Islam, M. A. (2022). Work-Life balance, job satisfaction, and job performance of SMES employees: The Moderating role of Family- Supportive Supervisor Behaviors. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.906876

[27]. Inayat, W., & Khan, M. J. (2021). A study of job satisfaction and its effect on the performance of employees working in private sector organizations, Peshawar. Education Research International, 2021, 19. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/1751495

[28]. Job satisfaction: theories and definitions – OSHwiki | European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. (2013, April 6).

[29]. Survey: Job engagement declines for a third of workers. Th Conference Board.

[30]. Gottwald, D., & Lejsková, P. (2023). Job satisfaction and perceived workload in the context of personality typology among subway train drivers. Frontiers in Psychology, 14.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1283122