MAKERERE UNIVERSITY

JOB SATISFACTION, JOB ENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE BEHAVIOURAL LOYALTY IN THE HOTEL SECTOR IN WESTERN UGANDA

1.0 Background of the study

Employees are a vital resource for any organization (Shweta et al., 2016). Employees are a source of competitive advantage (Abugre, 2013). Moreover, for a labour intensive hospitality industry, service delivery depends on people so much (Khuong and Tien, 2013). Indeed, positive employee behavior, attitude such as commitment can result into improved productivity (Kembabazi, 2010), greater efficiency (Geeta and Pandey, 2011), and a high-quality service (Vijit, 2011). Unfortunately, positive employee behavior remains a big challenge in the hotel sector, for example, the sector experiences higher employee turnover rates compared to other sectors (Shweta et al., 2016). A study carried out by Burn and Thompson (2013), shows that turnover rates were the highest in Mexico (41%), the Netherlands (39%) and the United States (34%). Extended literature indicates that employees with three- to five-years tenure with employers were the most susceptible to turnover (Khuong and Tien, 2013; Matip, 2015). 

In Uganda, the rate at which employees are switching jobs in Uganda is not different. The average turnover rate is 30.3% in the hospitality industry for the period December 2015 to November 2016, yet high turnover rates can pose as a risk to the hospitality industry due to the human capital loss in the form of skills, training, and knowledge (Human Resource Managers Association of Uganda, HRMAU, 2016). Secondary research by Next Generation Consulting shows that today’s young talent rotates jobs every 18-36 months. Furthermore, both college degrees and employers don’t guarantee job anymore (Dailey and Kirk, 2014). In a developing country like Uganda, Labor Law does not prohibit hiring fixed term contract workers for tasks of permanent nature. There is no regulation of fixed term contracts (their maximum duration or renewals) in the Employment Act. The Employment regulations of 2011 also do not regulate the use of fixed term contracts. They do however contain provisions on specific categories of temporary employees, namely casual employee, piece work employees and task work employees (Employment Regulations, 2011).

Drawing from the above and on the existing literature, it’s evident that there a number of factors that influence behavourial loyalty (Matip, 2015). These factors may include but not limited to both job satisfaction and job engagement. Thus, this study focuses on job satisfaction and job engagement as the possible determinants of behavioural loyalty. This is because these two concepts have remained a gleaning gap in the hotel sector. Most of the employees appear to work for survival not because they are committed, they seem to loose interest and they are not engaged hence high levels of exit (Akbar et al., 2011). The current study hypotheses that if employees are satisfied with their job and are fully engaged then they can stay and become loyal to the organization. Unfortunately, it appears that a few studies have attempted to investigate the relationship between job satisfaction, job engagement and employee behavioural loyalty in the hotel sector in a developing country such as Uganda. The current study therefore timely intends to fill on this gap.

1.1 Statement of the problem

The benefits of employee loyalty are widely emphasized (Emerson, 2013). However, employee behavioural loyalty has remained low in the hotel sector worldwide over, more so in developing countries like Uganda (Kyeyune, 2014). This is reflected by high levels of exit, low morale, less commitment, low levels of job satisfaction and most importantly poor engagement among others. This could be attributed to poor satisfaction inducements such as salary, opportunities for promotion, benefits (health insurance, life insurance), job security, recognition for work accomplished among others. Yet not many studies have investigated the role of these concepts in employee behavioural loyalty. There is therefore need to examine the relationship between job satisfaction, job engagement and employee behavioural loyalty in the hotel sector in Western Uganda

1.2 Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study is to examine the relationship between job satisfaction, job engagement and employee behavioural loyalty in the hotel sector in Western Uganda.

1.3 Specific Objectives

The study will be guided by the following objectives: 

1. To examine the relationship between job satisfaction and job engagement among employees in the hotel sector in Western Uganda.
2. To examine the relationship between job satisfaction and employee behavioural loyalty in the hotel sector in Western Uganda.
3. To examine the relationship between job engagement and employee behavioural loyalty in the hotel sector in Western Uganda.

1.4 Research Questions

The study will be guided by the following questions;

1. Is there a relationship between job satisfaction and job engagement among employees in the hotel sector in Western Uganda?
2. Is there a relationship between job satisfaction and employee behavioural loyalty in the hotel sector in Western Uganda?
3. Is there a relationship between job engagement and employee behavioural loyalty in the hotel sector in Western Uganda?

1.5 Scope of Study

1.5.1. Content Scope

The study will focus on examining the relationship between job satisfaction, job engagement and employee behavioural loyalty among employees in the hotel sector in Uganda. Major emphasis will be put on examining the relationship between job satisfaction and job engagement, job satisfaction and behavioural loyalty and job engagement and behavioural loyalty in the hotel sector in Uganda.

1.5.2 Geographical Scope

It will be carried out in hotels registered under Uganda Hotel Owner’s Association in Western Uganda. Main focus will be put in Mbarara district and Kabale district. This is because they have many hotels that are registered under Uganda Hotel Owner’s Association.

1.5.3 Time Scope

The study will consider a period (2000-2017) as a body of literature to be reviewed and it will also consider a period (2012-2016) to get information from the hotels.

1.6 Significance of Study

Given changing employee demographics and attitudes, supply-demand imbalances in the workforce, as well as ever-growing demand for hospitality businesses, it is increasingly obvious that a new understanding of employee values, attitudes, and behaviors is needed if hospitality organizations are to sustain a competitive advantage through service. Examining the relationship job satisfaction, job engagement and behavioural loyalty will advance the understanding of why an employee quits or maintains organizations. 

It will help hotel managers and human resource practitioners come to term with behavioural loyalty strategies. The hospitality industry is historically identified with poor employment and underdeveloped human resource practices, which largely focus on cost control, neglecting behavioural loyalty (Zheng, 2009). The study will also highlight other human resource related issues in the hospitality industry, in particular, in Uganda that need further investigation.

1.7 Conceptual Framework

This section proposes a conceptual framework within which the concept, behavioural loyalty is treated in this work. It is arrived at basing on the System’s theory Input-Output model advanced by Ludwig Von Bertalanffy in 1956. The selection of the model is based on the belief that, the quality of input invariably affects quality of output in this case behavioural loyalty (Acato 2006).

Figure 1.1 showing the conceptual framework for this study

Independent variable Dependent variable         

The conceptual framework consists of three major variables: job satisfaction, job engagement and employee behavioural loyalty. Job satisfaction and job engagement are both used as independent variables. Despite the fact that job engagement may mediate the relationship between job satisfaction and behavioural loyalty the study does not test for this mediation. 

Description of the variables

Job satisfaction

Job satisfaction is the feelings of the employees in relation with their jobs and the job components such as the working environment, working conditions, equitable rewards, and communication with the colleagues (Glisson and Durick, 1988). 

There are there three attitude’s facets of job satisfaction: intrinsic job satisfaction, extrinsic job satisfaction, and general job satisfaction (Gunlu, Aksarayli, & Perçin, 2010). Intrinsic job satisfaction is derived from factors such as ability utilization, activity, achievement, authority, independence, moral values, responsibility, security, creativity, social service, social status, and variety.  While the key factors for extrinsic job satisfaction are as a result of advancement, company policy, compensation, recognition, supervision-human relations, and supervision-technical. General job satisfaction facet is formed from two more factors such as working conditions and co-workers in addition to intrinsic and extrinsic factors (Feinstein & Vondrasek, 2001). In this study job satisfaction is a pleasurable emotional state that results from the evaluation of one’s job.

Job engagement

Kahn (1990) defines personal engagement as “the harnessing of organization members’ selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances.” Thus, according to Kahn (1990, 1992), engagement means to be psychologically present when occupying and performing an organizational role.

Rothbard (2001) also defines engagement as psychological presence but goes further to state that it involves two critical components: attention and absorption.

According to Maslach et al. (2001), engagement is characterized by energy, involvement, and efficacy, the direct opposite of the three burnout dimensions of exhaustion, cynicism, and inefficacy. Research on burnout and engagement has found that the core dimensions of burnout (exhaustion and cynicism) and engagement (vigor and dedication) are opposites of each other (Gonzalez-Roma et al., 2006).

Schaufeli et al. (2002) define engagement “as a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption.” They further state that engagement is not a momentary and specific state, but rather, it is “a more persistent and pervasive affective-cognitive state that is not focused on any particular object, event, individual, or behavior”.

Behavioural loyalty

Bloemer and Odekerken-Schroder (2006) operationalized employee behavioural loyalty using customer behavoural loyalty such as word of mouth, intention to stay, benefit insensitivity. They related positive word of mouth to an employee’s willingness to say positive things about the employer and the readiness to recommend the employer to other potential employees, purchase intentions in a customer to an employee’s willingness to remain in an organization (i.e. stay intentions) and price insensitivity to an employee’s tendency to be indifferent with respect to the remuneration offered by alternative employers.

LITERATURE REVIEW

1.8. Introduction

The chapter will present previously conducted research and scholarly work under the same area of investigation. The literature is cited from journals, books, newspapers, websites and reports.

1.9. Theoretical review 

The theory adapted for this study is derived from the System’s theory input-output model developed by Ludwig Von Bertalanffy in 1956. The theory, according to Koontz and Weihrich (1988), postulates that an organized enterprise does not exist in a vacuum; it is dependent on its environment in which it is established. They add that the inputs from the environment are received by the organization, which then transforms them into outputs. 

Robbins (1980), argued that organizations were increasingly described as absorbers, processors and generators and that the organizational system could be envisioned as made up of several interdependent factors. System advocates, according to Robbins (1980) have recognized that a change in any factor such as job satisfaction has an impact on all other organizational or subsystem components. Thus the inputs, the processors and the generators should function well in order to achieve the desired outcome. Saleemi (1997), in agreement with Robbins (1980) argued that all systems must work in harmony in order to achieve the overall goals. Input-output model (system theory) thus, it is assumed that satisfied employees will perform well if their job engagement and behavioural loyalty are all good which may not always be the case and this is the shortcoming of this theory. According to Oso and Onen (2005), the interrelationships among parts of a system have to be understood by all parties involved. 

2.0 Job satisfaction and job engagement 

Jain and Singh (2013) stated that employee attitudes reflect the values of the company. Employee satisfaction is extremely important especially in the areas of sales and services as they represent the company to employees. Khare and Pandey (2012) studied the impact of job satisfaction and organisational commitment and their impact on behavioural loyalty and found out that there was an impact of Job satisfaction and organisational commitment on behavioural loyalty. 

In addition, Hassan et al (2013) found that compensation was the most important factor for job satisfaction whereas employee empowerment was also a significant factor for behavioural loyalty. Whereas, Hooi Lai Wan (2013) in his study, revealed that there existed no correlation between behavioural loyalty and the extent of Japanese style of Human Resource Management policies used at workplace. 

Kumari and Pandey (2011) implied that job performance was comparatively high when positive beliefs and affective experiences are salient and thus predominate at a certain point in time but that their performance may be comparatively low at other times when negative beliefs and affective experiences are salient and predominate. 

Furthermore, Kabir and Parveen (2011) tested the factors affecting job satisfaction and suggested that the managers should focus on various factors that affect and enhance the employee job satisfaction for better performance of the organisation. Khuong and Tien (2013) argued that in order to achieve high behavioural loyalty, companies in banking industry should achieve high level of employee job satisfaction, enhance supervisor support and teamwork among employees, and provide good working environment.

Abugre and Sarwar (2013) identified that the reward system in an organisation plays a significant role in increasing the job satisfaction of employees, higher rewards and satisfied employees at work results in higher productivity of Business organizations. Adjetey and Prako (2013) revealed that there were significant linear correlations among behavioural loyalty, engagement and performance. They also found out significant positive correlations of human relation, leadership style, job content, personal development, creativity and their effect on behavioural loyalty.

Bauer (2004) showed that higher involvement of workers in high performance workplace organisations is associated with high level of job satisfaction. This positive effect is dominated by worker’s involvement in flexible work system, workers particularly associated with opportunities in the organisation regarding functional autonomy and coordination among workers. Akbar et al. (2011) identified that employee empowerment has positive and significant impact on job satisfaction they also found that there existed significant difference between male and female employees regarding job satisfaction level, male employees found to be more satisfied with their jobs.

The Loyalty of the employees mean that he is willing to work in that organization where he is already work, he try their best for the success of the organization and he think to do work in that organization it is the best option for him. He decided not to leave and nor any plan to go in some other organization (The Loyalty Research Center, 1990). It is just like a behavior of citizenship who tries to increase the value of firm, its image as well as develop interest in outsiders mind (Bentten Court, Gwinner and Meuter, 2001). 

According to Bernal et al. (2005), “The last state of psychological Process is called satisfaction”. We should be defined job satisfaction in that context which is may be accepted as: The feelings of the employees and attitude in relation with job components such as the environment where he work, work place conditions, rewards such as salary and bonuses and job itself (Glisson and Durick, 1988; Kim et al., 2005). 

In last, few years in the major organization, the employee’s satisfaction and job satisfaction apparent to be a prerequisite for spirited levels of quality and organizational success has become a major objective (Bernal et al., 2005). 

In the most of researches, it is define that if the behavior of the organization and environment of the organization is fit and the environment of the person dominates it (Mottaz, 1985; Kristof, 1996), it means the employees do their work in given time, values and characteristics of a person is high, than the degree of job satisfaction is positive. 

According to the Walker (2005), relationship between job satisfaction and job loyalty would be positive if the organization provides different opportunities such as learn, grow and clear established career path. There is strong correlation between employee satisfaction and behavioural loyalty based on these variables, recognition and rewards, working conditions, relationship with supervisor teamwork (Fosam et al., 1998). 

Empirical findings (McCusker & Wolfman (1998), McGuiness (1998), Selnow & Gibert, (1997), Vardi et al., (1989) argue that there is relationship between job satisfaction and employee loyalty on the basis of these values, honesty, trust, respect for others. So on the basis of previous research there is positive relation between job satisfaction and job loyalty.

2.1 Job satisfaction and employee behavioural loyalty 

Employee engagement is today seen as a powerful source of competitive advantage in the turbulent times. A study on drivers of engagement by Mani (2011) predicted four drivers, namely employee welfare, empowerment, employee growth and interpersonal relationships. While Bedarkar & Pandita (2014) states that employees are the key assets to any organization and if they are not given the right space and time to make a perfect blend of work and fun at workplace, then the sense of dis-engagement sets in the employees. Organization and employees are both dependent on each other to fulfil their goals and objectives. Therefore, employee engagement should not be a one-time exercise but it should be integrated in the culture of the company. Employee engagement should be a continuous process of learning, improvement and action. Thus, organizations today should actively look forward to fulfil employee`s expectations and thus, create an impact on the performance of employee, which directly affects the organization’s performance.

A study by Robertson-Smith and Markwick (2009), points out that engagement provides employees with an opportunity to invest themselves in their work and also creates a sense of self efficacy. Research on the consequences of employee engagement indicates that engagement may result in positive health and positive feelings towards work and organisation. Gallup (2006) reported improved health and well-being in engaged employees.

Engagement may lead to mindfulness, intrinsic motivation, creativity, authenticity, non-defensive communication, ethical behavior. Employee engagement is the emotional commitment that the employee has to the organization and its goals. This emotional commitment means engaged employees actually care about their work and their company. They don’t work just for a salary, or just for promotion, but work for the organization’s goals. When employees care – when they are engaged – they use discretionary effort (Kevin Kruse, 2012). There are increasing claims in management literature that engagement is needed for high-level organizational performance and productivity. Saks (2006) agrees that employee engagement could be a strong factor for organizational performance and success, as it seems to have a significant potential to affect employee retention, their loyalty and productivity, and also with some link to customer satisfaction, organizational reputation and the overall stakeholder value (Andrew & Sofian, 2012).

To succeed in any goals set, organisations need motivated employees, too; motivated employees are more productive and help organizations to survive and prosper (Smith, 1994). In this context, the notion of motivation can be described as a psychological process that gives behaviour purpose and direction (Kreitner, 1995). It is actually one of the management’s key tasks to constantly motivate their employees, something difficult at times, as what motivates one person may not motivate another and certainly such what motivates one do not necessarily remain static over time. For example, it has been argued that as income increases money becomes less of a motivator, or when employees get older, interesting work becomes more of a motivator (Kovach, 1987).

Job satisfaction is a multidimensional construct the conceptualization and measurement of which has long been of interest in the industrial and organisational psychology literatures (Bodur, 2002) where according to (Bowling and Hammond, 2008), it has been the most widely studied topic. Job satisfaction defined as an attitude reflecting a persons feelings toward his or her job or job setting at particular point in time (Schermerhon et al., 2012).

2.2 Job Engagement and Employees Behavioural Loyalty.

The term employee engagement was first conceptualized and defined by Kahn (1990) as “The harnessing of organizational members selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively and emotionally during role performances.” Andrew & Sofian (2012) understood the level of commitment and involvement an employee has towards his or her organization and its values. Aon Hewitt defines engagement as the state of emotional and intellectual involvement that motivates employees to do their best work (Hewitt, 2010).

Loyalty is faithfulness that comes from consciousness and arises without any forces, but is based on past experience (Claes, 1992). In the ECSI model (European Employee Satisfaction Index), employee loyalty is a result of employee Satisfaction on quality, value, expectations, and company image (Yao & Liu, 2008). Employee loyalty (attitudes and behaviour) comes from the commitment and trust / confidence of employees, which is a feeling of satisfaction with the purchase or consumption of a good (Marie et. Al., 2008).

Anderson, Kumar, & Narus (2007), believe that retaining existing employees is a much more effective strategy for the organization then attempting to attract new. Impact of satisfaction is regarded as one of the major factor affecting employee loyalty. Several studies have revealed that there exist a direct connection between satisfaction and loyalty – satisfied employees become loyal and dissatisfied employees lead to another vendors (Heskett et al., 1997). By far, the most commonly used employee perceptual metric by managers is satisfaction. Image of brand or supplier affects loyalty at least in two ways. Firstly, employee may use his preferences to present his own image.

According to the Belk’s theory of extended self, people define themselves by the possessions they have, manage or create. Secondly, according to social identity theory, people tend to classify themselves into different social categories. They prefer partners who share similar objectives and values. Oliver (1999) argues that for fully bonded loyalty the consumable must be part of the consumer’s self-identity and his or her social-identity.

Trustworthiness of the partner is a factor that has certain impact on the establishment of loyalty. Morgan and Hunt (1994) posit that trust is a major determinant of relationship commitment: brand trust leads to brand loyalty because trust creates exchange relationships that are highly valued.

Many definitions describe loyalty as a desire to retain a valuable or important relationship (Morgan et al 1994) that way the establishment of loyalty is predetermined by the importance of relevant relationship or selection.

A relationship can also be made important by personal approach. Levitt, 1983 has considered a role of salesman in making relationship more personal. Employee bonding may be seen as a process which influences employees and employee loyalty is a result of this process. In ACSI model employee satisfaction has three antecedents: perceived quality, perceived value and employee expectations (Anderson et al., 2000). Employee bonding can be developed on through and basically with the employees’ engagement with the employees for value delivery. Employees are key stakeholders in value delivery and brand/supplier success, and they frequently represent the difference between positive experiences or negative experiences and whether employees stay or go.

A link between having engaged employees and increased employee loyalty and satisfaction has been established (Haid & Sims, 2009; Harter et al., 2009; Gonring, 2008). Giving employees the drive to enhance the employees experience is as important as the reputations and bottom lines of businesses that rely on the ability to inspire employee loyalty. In their 2009 meta-analysis, Harter et al. found that business units that scored in the top 25% on engagement had employee ratings 12% higher than business units scoring in the bottom 25% of engagement. This improvement is due to the fact that engaged employees care more about meeting employee needs.

2.4 Summary

Both the existing literature and the empirical review seem to suggest that the independent variable has a positive relationship to job engagement and employee behavioural loyalty in hotel industry. It may be so due to an intervening role of job engagement that initially translates short-term passive state (job satisfaction) into more active short-term state (job engagement) that eventually builds a long-term loyalty to an organization.

METHODOLOGY

2.5 Introduction

This chapter presents the research methodology which include; Research design, study population, study area, instruments of data collection, data processing, Study  instruments, sources of data and data  analysis.

2.6 Research design

The study will use analytical as well as cross sectional design will be used. This approach will be used because it will bring the researcher closure to the respondents and provide an interface for interaction. A cross sectional survey will be used to provide information on the situation in the selected hotels at a given time frame. A quantitation approach will be used where quantitative data will be used for analysis. Quantitative approach is the systematic empirical investigation of observable phenomena via statistical, mathematical or computational techniques (Mugenda & Mugenda, 2003). According to Silverrman (2001), quantification gives greater confidence in the accuracy of conclusions derived from qualitative data; and it gives the reader a chance to think through the data on their own to cap on the researcher’s findings. 

2.7 Study Area

The study will be carried out in hotels registered under Uganda Hotel Owner’s Association in Western Uganda. The major hotels targeted include; Lake view mbarara, Igongo Cultural Centre, oxford hotel and Embassy hotel. 

2.8 Study population

Study population is a complete set of individuals, cases or objects with some common observable characteristics (Thornhill et al. (2003). The sample population consists of 8 top managers (2 from each hotel), 40 middle management (10 from each hotel), 288 operational staff including waiters, room attendants and support staff (116 from Lake view hotel, 65 from Igongo cultural centre, 52 from Oxford hotel and 54 from Embassy hotel). The total population will include 336 respondents.

2.9 Sample size

The sample size will consist of 242 respondents from the study population. It is determine based on the Krejcie and Morgan’s (1970) sample size calculation which same as using the Krejcie and Morgan’s sample size determination table. The Krejcie and Morgan’s sample size calculation was based on p = 0.05 where the probability of committing type I error is less than 5 % orp <0.05. The study will use selected sample size because it will be enough for the study to obtain reliable information. In addition, it will help the researcher to finish her study in time.

Table 1: Sample size

Source: Krejcie and Morgan’s (1970)

3.0 Sampling method

According to Baron (2011), this is a definite plan determined before data collection for obtaining a sample from a given population. It involves three decisions: who to be sampled, how many people to sample, and how to obtain the sample. 

Simple stratified random sampling will be then used to select samples from the population strata. It’s a method in which the population is divided into a number of divisions and a sample is drawn from division and such sample makes us the final sample. This technique will be employed since it eases the making of proportionate samples, and therefore meaningful, comparisons between homogeneous sub-groups (Zikmund, 2003).

The Human Resource department within hotels will coordinate the data collection process. The responsibility for the dissemination of questionnaires will be transferred to line and staff managers, while the collection of fulfilled questionnaires will be done again by the HRM department in order to assure the confidentiality of responses. Altogether 132 employees are expected to participate voluntary in the survey. 

3.1 Data collection methods and instruments

3.1.1 Questionnaire method

The researcher will use the questioning method whereby he will draft to respondents structured questions. This method will be used because some respondents may have no time to sit down and answer during interviews. A questionnaire will be used and this will be in form of close ended in nature and this will allow the study respondents to fill the questionnaire in the study field. The questionnaire method of data collection will be used because of being cheap and that the method collects responses with minimum errors and high level of confidentiality.

3.2 Data collection procedure

The study will observe all procedures followed in research. Using the letter of introduction obtained from the Research Coordinator, the researcher will be introduced to every respondent reached at, fully explaining the purpose of research. After getting their consent, he will set a program with the respondents on when the questionnaires will be administered and date for the interview sessions will be set. The researcher also will build the confidence of the respondents by assuring them that their views will be confidential and will be used only for academic purposes.

3.3 Validity and reliability of research instruments

There are no scientific principles which would guarantee a valid and reliable research instrument, but there are ways in which this can be pursued. First, the items in the research instruments should be based on prior research whenever possible. Due to this, in this study most of the questions will be to be based on prior research. Secondly, the questionnaire should be pre-tested (Malhotra & Birks 2007).

3.3.1 Validity

Validity can be defined as the degree to which a test measures what it is supposed to measure. There are three basic approaches to the validity of tests and measures as shown by Mason and Bramble (1989). Law & Kelton (1991) suggests that if a questionnaire model is “valid”, then the decision made with the questionnaire model should be similar to those that would be made by physically experiencing with the system. In order to ensure validity the questionnaire will be made clear and understandable, the questionnaire will be first discussed by the researcher with the supervisor; this will include careful choice of words, order and structure of questions plus the research instruments will be subjected to a content validity test (CVI) (George & Mallery, 2006). After receiving the questionnaires, manual editing will be done, followed by coding. Frequency count of different provisions will be done and this will give the number of occurrences and percentages out of total occurrences for different responses. And lastly simple conclusions will be drawn from the given percentages and numbers. 

3.3.2 Reliability

According to Mugenda et al. (2003), reliability is the degree to which a measure is consistent in producing the same reading or results when measuring the same thing at different times. Reliability is influenced by random error, that is, as random error increases, reliability decreases. The random error is the deviation from the true measurement due to the factors that have not effectively been addressed by the researcher. Mugenda study indicated that the questionnaire has to be well structured to achieve the purpose of the research thereby meeting the test of reliability. The reliability of the research instruments will be tested through a pre-test. The results will be subjected to the Cronbach’s Alpha reliability test to measure the internal consistency of responses. Cronbach’s Alpha is used to determine if all the items within the instrument measure the same thing. The closer the alpha is to 1.00, the greater the internal consistency of the items being measured (George & Mallery, 2006).

3.4 Data analysis

Manual editing of questionnaires will be done to eliminate errors. After coding, tabulation will be done to clearly present various responses and the interpretation. Frequencies and percentages will be used to portray statistics used to analyze and interpret the findings of the study. Data analysis will be done using; correlation analysis to establish the relationships that exist between the variables. For ease of analysis, procedures within Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) will be used.

3.5 Expected limitations of the Study

As with any research there are study limitations that should be acknowledged for the benefit of future research efforts. 

Firstly, the study is limited to a few organization source data thereby questioning the generalizability of our findings. In the future, various organizational and industrial settings should be explored. 

Secondly, the study relies on self-reports, which might increase the risk of common method bias. However, studies exploring similar concepts and using the identical methodological approach should conduct additional construct-related analyses.

The study will not examine sub dimensions of the research concepts. Therefore, in order to get more fine-grained results, sub dimensions of examined concepts should be investigated as well. Certain aspects or facets of job satisfaction, job engagement and employee behavioral loyalty could be more or less related. By conducting additional construct-related analyses, some additional underlying mechanisms of workplace behaviour will be obtained.

3.6 Ethical considerations

The researcher will collect data upon seeking respondents’ consent after revealing the type of information needed and the purpose to avoid potential concealment of vital information.

The researcher will assure respondents of confidentiality and private treatment of their information; and report the true findings of the study without any bias.

QUESTIONNAIRES FOR MANAGEMENT AND STAFF

Dear respondent, 

My name is Akiteng Stella. I am carrying out a study on “the relationship between job satisfaction, job engagement and employee behavioural loyalty in the hotel sector in Western Uganda”.  The data will strictly be used for this purpose. Utmost confidentiality, autonomy and anonymity will be ensured. Kindly answer the following questions and your corporation will be highly appreciated.

Section A: Background information 

This section contains the background information of the respondents

1. What is your gender?

Male Female

2. What is your age (years)?
3. a) 18 –30 b) 31-40 c) 41-50 d) Over 50

3. What is your level of education? 
4. a) O’ level b) A’ level c) Certificate/Diploma 
5. d) Degree  e) Postgraduate

4. How many years have you worked in this hotel?
5. a) Less than 1 b) 1-3 c) 4 and above

5. Which department are you employed in?

a). Procurement  b). Transportation  c). Human Resource 

d). Marketing e). Stores 

6. What is your position in the organization?

1. Top Management (c). Middle Management
2. Lower Management (d). Non-Managerial Staff

Section B: Job satisfaction 

This section will examine job satisfaction of employees in the hotel.

6. Tick the best option by using strongly Agree (SA), agree (A), Not Sure (NS), Disagree (D), Strongly Disagree (SD). 

Section B: Job Engagement

This section will examine job engagement of employees in the hotel.

7. In this section, tick the best option by using strongly Agree (SA), agree (A), Not Sure (NS), Disagree (D), Strongly Disagree (SD).

Section D: Employee behavioural loyalty 

This section will examine behaviuoral loyalty  of employees in the hotel.

8. In this section, tick the best option by using strongly Agree (SA), agree (A), Not Sure (NS), Disagree (D), Strongly Disagree (SD).

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME