The Creation Of High Levels Of Job Satisfaction Essay

The Creation Of High Levels Of Job Satisfaction - Essay Example Moreover, according to Chen et al (2002), internalization of organizational values and systems lead to increased organizational commitment levels of employees, enhancing an individual’s intrinsic motivation to display higher levels of on-the-job performance. â€Å"Job satisfaction refers to an employee’s overall sense of well-being at work† (Biswas 2011: 96), and relates to intrinsic, extrinsic and social satisfaction. It enhances work performance, and has a positive correlation with organizational citizenship behavior. Thesis Statement: The purpose of this paper is to investigate and discuss the statement that if employees’ performance at soaring levels has to be achieved, it is necessary to create high levels of job satisfaction among the employees. There is a strong relationship between organizational support, job satisfaction and employee performance. Organizational citizenship and work performance are also related to leader supportiveness as well as f ollower job satisfaction. Perceived organizational support is the extent to which the organization values employees’ contributions and is concerned about their well-being. A supportive organization shows commitment towards its workers (Miao & Kim 2010). Theorists of organizational support state that a high level of perceived organizational support improves work attitudes and creates effective work behavior based on two reasons. First, these beneficial outcomes result from a process of social exchange. The work of researchers Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli and Lynch (1997) suggests that workers examine the discretionary actions and infer the extent to which they are being supported. They then seek to compensate for this favorable treatment, thereby becoming more hard-working and committed to their work and the organization.

Law of Tort Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Law of Tort - Essay Example To begin with, the information is solicited at a party which indicates that in the circumstances, Mary could not have reasonably expected Winston to exercise a degree of care. Secondly, there is no evidence on the facts of the case for discussion indicating the Winston held himself out as having specialized knowledge relative to good used car. It would appear that Mary is relying on the fact that Winston is her boyfriend and this is not the requisite special relationship alluded to in Hedley Byrne. The special relationship referred to is in which the individual relied on for information and advice is in that line of business. Liability for negligent misstatement will not arise in social settings.5 The situation with Errol is quite different as Winston is asked for advice based on his professional capacity as an account executive. Errol wants advice about the Winston’s company’s profitability and sales potential with a view to going into business with Winston. Liability for negligent misstatement would arise where advice or information is sought from a person who is qualified to give that information or advice and it is clear that the information or advice is going to be relied on.6 Therefore Winston owes Errol a duty of care since he is an account executive and owns the business that Errol wants information about for the sole purpose of going into business with Winston. It is clear that Errol will rely on Winston’s information, as Errol is seeking the information for a specific purpose.7 Winston can also be liable to Errol for remaining silent when his boss Felicity fraudulently misled Errol with respect to the insurance policy. Although Felicity is Winston’s boss, Sizzler’s is Winston’s company, the fraud involved information about Sizzler’s insurance policy covering Errol’s new shop. Therefore Felicity is actually Winston’s agent. Under the ruling in Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shi pping Co., the principle is liable for the fraud of an agent who was acting under the principle’s authority.8 Winston will also be liable for negligent misstatement with respect to the reference he provided for Barnie. Barnie was let go from Winston’s employ as a result of restructuring, not for the reasons stated in his reference for Barnie. The fact that Winston believed that his reference was honest is of no consequence since he failed to investigate the facts before committing his reference to paper and distribution. It was held in Cox v Sun Alliance Life Ltd that an employer owed a duty of care to conduct reasonable enquiries into the facts. All negative statements must only be made after conducting a reasonable inquiry or investigation.9 This case confirms an earlier ruling by the House of Lords in which it was ruled that an employer