Employee Behavior and Job Satisfaction

Employee Behavior and Job Satisfaction
Scenario (fictional): The following four employees have different attitudes towards their jobs and different job satisfaction levels, which impact their behavior on the job at this security products company. You are the human resources (HR) director who is concerned with some employees’ behavior at work. Read the following background information on each of the four employees and address all the checklist items.
Employee #1: Marketing product manager: He experiences cognitive dissonance every time his boss tells him he should not worry about the lower end of the market, saying “those people don’t have much buying power,” when the company’s values statement professes caring about the welfare of everyone everywhere. He comes from a blue-collar family and resents his boss’s attitude towards low-income groups. He is frequently late to work because he has to take his two preschoolers to daycare. As a result, his boss has given him a recent warning.
Employee #2: Engineer: She is in a highly visible job developing new products that creates a lot of stress, and she works 10- to 11-hour days, sometimes 6 days a week. She is loyal but feels depressed by the constant, incessant workload. She is starting to look at job openings online in her off hours because her current long hours are starting to affect her marriage and she does not get to see her children, ages 6 and 8, very often during the weekdays.
Employee #3: Loading dock manager: This young representative works the 12 a.m. – 7 a.m. shift. He does what is required but complains in the employee break room about the offices and work conditions when he is on break. His attitude is that he can go elsewhere if things do not improve. The other employees tend to agree with him when he complains. Lately, the distribution supervisor has noted employees’ reduced effort on the shift.
Employee #4: Distribution lead: She is the sole Asian employee in the organization and feels isolated, as though she is just a placeholder versus really making a recognized difference in the organization. The company promotes itself as a diverse organization, which she knows is not true. She feels everyone expects her to fail, and few people engage with her regularly, including her boss.
Checklist:
The four employees have different attitudes and levels of job satisfaction.
Describe the attitudes and job satisfaction of each of the four employees.
Categorize and explain the responses the employees have to dissatisfaction based on the reading.
Explain how each employee’s above attitudes and job satisfaction impact the organization in terms of profit, employee turnover, and affecting other employees’ attitudes.
Include at least two (2) scholarly* citations with accompanying references regarding attitudes, job satisfaction, and the impact on the organization that support your responses to the checklist item above.
Explain what each of the managers of the four employees can do to change the employees’ attitudes for the better (referencing at least two of Mintzberg’s managerial roles to explain your response).
Submit your 2- to 3-page paper with additional title and reference pagesusing current APA format and citation style (see the Learning Resources area for APA assistance) to the competency assessment Dropbox.
*Scholarly sources have been put through a peer-review by experts to ascertain that the content is original, supports any statements or claims with viable research, etc.
Select “Library” under the Academic Tools area. Then select “Limit to: Peer Reviewed” before doing your search on a topic.
What I submitted:
MT 302: Scenario (fictional): The following
four employees have different attitudes towards
their jobs
and different job satisfaction levels, which impact their behavior on the job
at this
security
products company. You are the human resources (HR) director who is concerned
with
some
employees’ behavior at work. Read the following background information on each
of the
four
employees and address all the checklist items.
Employee
#1: Marketing
product manager: He experiences cognitive dissonance every time his
boss tells
him he should not worry about the lower end of the market, saying “those people
don’t
have much
buying power,” when the company’s values statement professes caring about the
welfare of
everyone, everywhere. He comes from a blue-collar family and resents his boss’s
attitude
towards low-income groups. He is frequently late to work because he must take
his two
preschoolers
to daycare. As a result, his boss has given him a recent warning.
The
promoting item supervisor has conflicting mentalities as he hates his manager’s
disposition
towards low-pay gatherings, and he appears to be disappointed with his work.
The
specialist
feels that her work is upsetting since she works for extended periods of time
and
appears to
be disappointed with her work since she is searching for employment
opportunities on
the web. The
shipping bay supervisor gives off an impression of being disappointed with his
work and
grumbles in the worker’s break room. His demeanor is that if things don’t
improve, he
will go
somewhere else. The dissemination lead feels disengaged in the association, she
works
at, and her
disposition is that the organization professes to advance variation while she
realizes it
doesn’t.
(Wahba and Elmanadily, 2015).
Employee
#2: Engineer: She is
in a highly visible job developing new products that create a lot
of stress,
and she works 10- to 11-hour days, sometimes 6 days a week. She is loyal but
feels
depressed by
the constant, incessant workload. She is starting to look at job openings online
at
her
off-hours because her current long hours are starting to affect her marriage
and she does not
get to see
her children, ages 6 and 8, very often during the weekdays.
The
advertising item supervisor is disappointed with the way his manager respects
the law-
pay
gatherings. The specialist, the shipping bay supervisor, and the conveyance
lead are
disappointed
with their work. They are generally able to go somewhere else if things don’t
work
in their
associations.
Employee
#3: Loading dock
manager: This young representative works the 12 a.m. – 7 a.m.
shift. He
does what is required, but complains in the employee break room about the
offices and
work
conditions when he is on break. His attitude is that he can go elsewhere if
things do not
improve. The
other employees tend to agree with him when he complains. Lately, the
distribution
supervisor has noted employees’ reduced effort on the shift.
The
promoting item director’s demeanor will empower the association to benefit
since he
accepts that
the low-pay bunches have purchasing power. The specialist’s mentality and level
of
disappointment
can trigger a high representative turnover since it burns through a ton of
time.
Stacking
dock supervisor mentality will contrarily influence other representative’s
perspectives
since he
grumbles concerning the work while at the representatives break room, and they
appear
to concur
with him. The appropriation prompted work disappointment will influence the
mentality of
different representatives of thinking the association is discriminative. (Wahba
and
Elmanadily,
2015).
Employee
#4: Distribution
lead: She is the sole Asian employee in the organization and feels
isolated, as
though she is just a placeholder versus really making a recognized difference
in the
organization.
The company promotes itself as a diverse organization, which she knows is not
true. She
feels everyone expects her to fail, and few people engage with her regularly,
including
her boss.
The
supervisor to the principal representatives should go about as a pioneer by
moving the
worker to
meet objectives. The supervisor to the subsequent worker ought to likewise fill
in as a
pioneer to
guarantee that he urges the worker not to surrender in any event when the work
requests
excessively. The supervisor to the third worker should play a checking job to
address
the
representative’s functioning conditions. In conclusion, the director to the
fourth representative
ought to be
a nonentity and a guarantee that he locks in with workers consistently (Kumar,
P.
2015).
References
Kumar, P.
(2015). An analytical study on Mintzberg’s framework.
Managerial
roles. International Journal of Research in Management & Business Studies,
2(3), 12-19.
https://www.scirp.org/(S(lz5mqp453edsnp55rrgjct55))/reference/referencespapers.aspx?referenceid=2635
998
Wahba, M.,
& Elmanadily, D. (2015). Employer Branding Impact on Employee Behavior and
Attitudes
Applied
Study on Pharmaceutical in Egypt. International Journal of Management and
Sustainability, 4(6),
145-162.

https://ideas.repec.org/a/pkp/ijomas/2015p145-162.html

Last Completed Projects