Next Article in Journal
The Impacts of Poverty, Unemployment, and Divorce on Child Abuse in Malaysia: ARDL Approach
Next Article in Special Issue
Islamic vs. Conventional Equity Markets: A Multifractal Cross-Correlation Analysis with Economic Policy Uncertainty
Previous Article in Journal
Lending Technologies, Firm Characteristics and Small Business Efficiency in South Africa
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Economies
Volume 10
Issue 11
10.3390/economies10110290
economies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Power of Compensation System (CS) on Employee Satisfaction (ES): The Mediating Role of Employee Motivation (EM)

by
Nurul Mohammad Zayed
1,
Md. Mamunur Rashid
2,
Saad Darwish
3,
Md. Faisal-E-Alam
4,
Vitalii Nitsenko
5,6,* and
K. M. Anwarul Islam
7
1
Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Business and Entrepreneurship, Daffodil International University, Dhaka 1341, Bangladesh
2
Department of Management Studies, University of Rajshahi, Rajshahi 6205, Bangladesh
3
Department of Business Management, Kingdom University, Kingdom of Bahrain, Riffa Building 287, Road 3903, Block 939, Riffa P.O. Box 40434, Bahrain
4
Department of Management Studies, Faculty of Business Studies, Begum Rokeya University, Rangpur 5404, Bangladesh
5
Department of Entrepreneurship and Marketing, Institute of Economics and Management, Ivano-Frankivsk National Technical Oil and Gas University, 76019 Ivano-Frankivsk, Ukraine
6
SCIRE Foundation, 00867 Warsaw, Poland
7
Department of Business Administration, The Millennium University, Dhaka 1217, Bangladesh
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Economies 2022, 10(11), 290; https://doi.org/10.3390/economies10110290
Submission received: 24 September 2022 / Revised: 21 October 2022 / Accepted: 26 October 2022 / Published: 18 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Econophysics)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The compensation system, employee motivation, and employee satisfaction have received much attention from academics for many years. Existing research, however, does not yet detail the mediation effect of employee motivation on the relationship between the entire compensation system and employee satisfaction. The study explores the influence of the compensation structure on employee satisfaction using employee motivation as mediation. This research embraced a quantitative design, positivism paradigm, deductive approach, and explanatory research. Cross-sectional data from 100 employees were drawn with a random sampling technique using a self-administered survey questionnaire. First, in sequence of analysis, descriptive statistics were conducted. After that, a reliability test was used to test internal consistency. Finally, a correlation test, direct effect, indirect effect, and total effect were used to test the hypotheses at the 0.05 level while analyzing the data. The findings show that the compensation system has a favorable impact on employee satisfaction by partially mediating motivation. Concurrently, this study establishes awareness intending to revise a robust compensation strategy so that employee morale, engagement will increase and turnover will reduce. The study outcomes will assist policymakers in improving the situation of the existing workforce in insurance companies and other financial companies in Bangladesh.

1. Introduction

Employee motivation and satisfaction in insurance industries have received much scholarly attention, which is not unexpected given the current situation. One of the more accepted ideas to emerge is that insurance businesses will be better able to accomplish their objectives if their people are motivated and happy. However, employee motivation and satisfaction levels are frustrating in the Jiban Bima Corporation (JBC) of Bangladesh. The tendency to maintain compensation policy over a long period was genuinely hopeless and reflected the insurance industry’s low job motivation and satisfaction. As a result, the employees leave the organization. According to the annual report of the Insurance Development and Regulatory Authority IDRA (2010–2011 to 2016–2017 and 2017–2018, Annual Report. Available online: http://www.idra.org.bd/sites/default/files/files/idra.portal.gov.bd/annual_reports/961c9387_5cd3_4996_b8bc_97e3bf55fead/a7bb1216b730eb575c3a4220412c812e.pdf (accessed on 5 February 2022)), more employees were removed (removed staff was 3230 in 2017) every year than employees who were recruited (recruited staff was 2201 in 2017) for the life insurance industries in Bangladesh. To solve the problem, this study attempts to generate insight into how to increase employee job satisfaction based on an efficient compensation policy through mediating employee motivation. Employee satisfaction is a primary target of an organization’s compensation system (Ducharme et al. 2005) because it influences employee motivation and outcomes such as job satisfaction. Consequently, compensation, motivation and employee job satisfaction are three valuable tools in management’s toolbox for contributing to organizational effectiveness.
Compensation has a beneficial connection to employees’ desires as well as expectations. The remuneration packages offered by the company significantly impact how long employees are willing to remain on the job (Armstrong 2016; Bilyk and Sheremet 2019; Mitsel et al. 2021). Job satisfaction is said to be a consequence of several distinct satisfactions and dissatisfactions that arise from various aspects of the employee’s experience with their employment (Bustamam et al. 2014). Job satisfaction is a significant issue for companies since it affects staff performance and productivity, absenteeism, and attrition (Onukwube 2012; Līduma and Lūsēna-Ezera 2021; Malysheva and Hurova 2021). According to Ibrahim and Boerhaneoddin (2010), compensation motivates people to stay on the job, resulting in job satisfaction, commitment, and dedication. Additionally, it seems to be a fact that the compensation system provides money to employees and represents a significant expense for the company. In such a case, the Jiban Bima Corporation (JBC) needs to focus on its compensation system as a powerful weapon to influence and affect the motivation of employees to achieve work satisfaction. Organizations should improve internal and extrinsic motivation by paying people well to raise job satisfaction (Stringer et al. 2011). Furthermore, the compensation structure is a less noticeable organizational aspect to outsiders; hence, it might reveal information about an organization’s culture, standards, and values to job candidates.
Moreover, compensation is crucial to the organization to attract, motivate, satisfy, and retain outstanding individuals. The workforce’s knowledge, talents, and skills are critical resources for modifying new or current processes to gain a strategic advantage (Reza and Faisal-E-Alam 2022). Innovative compensation systems can motivate and satisfy employees, which is required in order for the Jiban Bima Corporation (JBC) to fill the talent shortages over the next decade in Bangladesh. Although the World Bank has provided support through the Bangladesh Insurance Sector Development Project (BISDP) to strengthen and modernize the business practices of the Jiban Bima Corporation (JBC), along with the Insurance Development and Regulatory Authority (IDRA), Bangladesh Insurance Association (BIA), and Sadharan Bima Corporation (SBC), the initiatives are insufficient to recover the life insurance industry’s problem, as mentioned above. However, minimal empirical evidence exists in this regard. Therefore, measuring the mediation effect of employee motivation on compensation to the satisfaction relationship can bring organizational success and sustainability to JBC in Bangladesh. This is because change is necessary for enhancing productivity and performance, since every organization is in a state of development (Shil et al. 2020), and so are its employees.
For this study, the conceptual framework (see Figure 1) represents the compensation system (such as basic salary, house rent allowance, festival allowance, medical facility, conveyance allowance, recreation allowance, transport allowance, food allowance, and other allowances) as the independent variable, employee motivation as the mediator variable, and employee satisfaction as the dependent variable. Compensation systems predict employee satisfaction by mediating employee motivation according to the relevant reviews discussed earlier in the study’s introduction and the literature review section. This study’s theoretical underpinning is the expectancy theory, which focuses on the relationship between rewards (valence), motivational drive (instrumentality), and behavior (expectancy), with the reward being the compensation system and the behavior being employee satisfaction, which is based on the inner drive of employees (Muguongo et al. 2015). Moreover, equity theory states that comparing an employee’s input–output to that of other employees will reveal whether they are satisfied or not, which influenced by motivation where the effort is considered as input and the pay is considered as output (Sudiardhita et al. 2018).
The lack of prior research on the mediation effect of employee motivation in this study adds to the body of knowledge on compensation to satisfaction. Insurance industries and financial industries would be inspired to restructure their compensation policy to support their employees’ motivation and expectations if they were aware of the importance of the indicators. Our work contributes to the ongoing debate in support of human resource management as an effective instrument for reducing dissatisfaction with work via motivation. In this study, the empirical work reviews are shown in detail to develop study hypotheses in the literature review section. After that, methods are discussed, including population, sample size, measurement procedure, scale, and data analysis techniques. Then, the results section describes part by part to reach the study hypotheses. Next, the discussion section explains how the findings contribute to organization and theory. Finally, the conclusion section shows to what extent the study objectives were achieved, study limitations, and future guidelines for professionals, academicians, and researchers.

2. The Literature Review

This section discusses the theoretical background in measuring the connection between the compensation system and employee motivation for the study.

2.1. Compensation System

All returns employees receive due to their job are referred to as employee compensation (Dessler 2015; Cabanas et al. 2020). The literature on self-determination theory (SDT) claims that compensation systems serve as significant external triggers (Ryan and Deci 2017; Tepliuk et al. 2021). There is no doubt that compensation is an important component of the management control system (Hong 2017; Terepyshchyi and Khomenko 2019). Additionally, compensation is the total amount given to employees for services provided in connection with particular employment (Eliopoulos 2019; Bangun 2012; Sutrisno 2020; Gorgenyi-Hegyes et al. 2021).
The compensation system pushes employees to concentrate on both individual and group goals (Chakrabarty 2021). Employees can be compensated in two ways, according to their input or output. Employees’ input-based compensation focuses on their ability and potentiality, and output-based compensation focuses on their productivity. In the neoclassical principal–agent theory, it is noteworthy that the alignment effect is achieved either by performance-based or equity-based payments (Obermann and Velte 2018; Aranibar et al. 2022). Although most studies favor compensation based on output, several have highlighted the challenges in measuring productivity (Türk 2008; Stashevsky and Weisberg 2006; McClune 2005; Holbeche 2005).

2.2. Elements of the Compensation System

The compensation system consists of payments such as rental housing, transportation, relative benefits, overtime, risk pay allowances, etc. Rewards comprise performance rewards, employment rewards, year-end bonuses for perfect attendance, and proposal bonuses. Compensation packages include four aspects, namely: salary, allowance, gratuity, and pension (Salisu et al. 2015). Salary, benefits, and employee bonuses such as paid vacations, insurance, parental leave, free tour opportunities, provident fund, and others are provided as compensation (Pepra-Mensah et al. 2017). In other words, salary and perks are incorporated into the basic remuneration package.
Cascio (2006) stated that the broad goal of designing a pay system is to give a monetary value (a standard rate) to each position in the organization and a mechanism for upgrading the standard rate (e.g., based on merit and inflation). However, individual and group incentive schemes, if well-designed, can be a powerful motivator. Holidays, life insurance, personal accident insurance, workplace vehicle schemes, mobile phone packages, and shop vouchers are frequently included in benefits packages (Bateman and Snell 1996; Beech et al. 2006). Thus, compensation is classified into monetary and non-monetary advantages (Baqi and Indradewa 2021).

2.3. Employee Motivation

The process of encouraging individuals to engage in activities in an effort to successfully and efficiently accomplish the intended goals or targets is known as motivation. Work motivation is a need to take action toward a certain objective that might occur in a person consciously or unintentionally (Riyanto et al. 2021). Employee motivation is the process through which an organization encourages workers through incentives such as salary, bonuses, and rewards to meet organizational objectives (Pudjiastuti and Sijabat 2022). Employee motivation is now acknowledged as one of the key factors in an organization’s success in such a competitive market (Khuong and Hoang 2015; Muñoz-Pascual and Galende 2017; Yang et al. 2020).
Maslow’s needs hierarchy, Herzberg’s two-factor, Vroom’s expectation, Adams’ equity, and Skinner’s reinforcement theories are the five main theories that have contributed to our knowledge of motivation, according to Safiullah (2015). While motivation is a broad concept with numerous definitions, it may be defined in the workplace as “a collection of energetic factors that arise both within and beyond an individual’s self, to trigger work-related behaviour and to govern its shape, direction, intensity, and duration (Pinder 1998).” Employee motivation is essential to the operation and performance of businesses (Greenberg 2011); therefore, managers inspire their staff with the expectation that they would perform in a specific desirable manner (Watson 2006).

2.4. Employee Satisfaction

Employee satisfaction is described in various ways, and there is unlikely to be a unified definition for the phrase. Employees are essential resources in any firm since they are the ones who carry out goals (Rodzoś 2019; Egerová and Rotenbornová 2021). Employees will exhibit enjoyable, positive attitudes when they are happy with their jobs. As a result, intense job satisfaction will boost an organization’s productivity and overall performance (Rynkevich 2020; Petrova et al. 2020). A company’s main source of power is its workforce (Ali et al. 2021). According to Hashim and Mahmood (2011), job satisfaction is an emotional response to a person’s employment condition. Consequently, work satisfaction refers to how content employees are with their jobs (Furnham et al. 2009; Alwali and Alwali 2022).
“Job satisfaction” is another name for “employee satisfaction” (Wang 2005). According to Locke (1976), employee satisfaction is linked to people’s wants, desires, or values rather than necessities. Employees will be content if they are adequately compensated, work in a pleasant atmosphere, and have prospects for advancement that align with their values. However, employees’ capacity to do their formally assigned activities is crucially fueled by their level of job satisfaction or enthusiasm for their work (De Clercq et al. 2019; Rayton and Yalabik 2014; Jiang et al. 2009; Sun and Pan 2008). One of the primary reasons for a company to reach a respectable level of performance at work is collective satisfaction (Oteshova et al. 2021).

2.5. Compensation, Employee Motivation and Employee Satisfaction

Compensation is a parameter to measure an employee’s motivation and job satisfaction. A person’s mindset regarding their task in order to feel satisfied with their output is known as motivation (Herzberg 1966). One of the most complicated topics, job satisfaction, includes a wide range of emotions and circumstances. Job satisfaction at work is influenced by compensation, motivation, an efficient chain of command, and general working circumstances (Uddin et al. 2016; Bilge et al. 2021). Employee work happiness is affected by wages, benefits, and motivation since they are frequently cited as two of the top three elements affecting employee job satisfaction (Society for Human Resource Management 2012). Several aspects influence employee motivation, most notably pay for work and opportunities for self-development, interpersonal interactions, particularly successful communication (Stachowska and Czaplicka-Kozłowska 2017; Miri and Macke 2022). The motivated employee directly impacts employee happiness in the workplace (Klopotan et al. 2018).
Additionally, extrinsic and intrinsic motivation produce positive job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and employee activity, according to previous studies (Çınar et al. 2011; Silic et al. 2020; Peñalba-Aguirrezabalaga et al. 2021). Furthermore, compensation and benefits appear to have a favorable link with employee job satisfaction from this perspective (Leonova et al. 2021). According to empirical research, a properly designed compensation and incentive system can also increase satisfaction and recruit and retain outstanding people, which results in a competitive advantage (Elrehail et al. 2019). The one result that may be most useful to decision-makers and educators relates to pay packages influencing motivation to one’s work and job satisfaction (Ashraf 2020). Employees are happier when they are driven by receiving expected pay from the firm.
However, the negative correlation between compensation and job satisfaction undoubtedly exists. Individual income is highly inversely connected with work satisfaction and is used to compute relative compensation (Clark and Oswald 1996; Song and Whang 2020). Despite the debate, the compensation provided by employers, such as salary or benefits, and other work facilities, such as motivation for their well-being, might be considered in the discussion of job satisfaction (Darma and Supriyanto 2017). Compensation is one of the most important variables influencing employee motivation (Kubo and Saka 2002; Chinyio et al. 2018). Moreover, investigations are rare regarding the relationship between motivation and satisfaction in the relevant field of study. However, perceptions of the motivating features of such recognition programs are the third lens through which firms assess satisfaction with their HR initiatives (Kotlyar and Karakowsky 2014).
Under the motivation-hygiene theory, paying cash payments (i.e., salary, bonus, and other cash payments), ensuring employee satisfaction, and fostering a positive corporate culture are hygiene factors for reducing workplace dissatisfaction (Herzberg 1968; Chen and Hassan 2022). It is critical to understand if job motivation mediates the link between pay and work satisfaction (Ahmat et al. 2019). These studies are solid evidence of a link between the compensation system and employee job satisfaction through the mediating role of employee motivation. Therefore, this area of study needs to be measured empirically. As a result, the following four hypotheses were developed for the current investigation.
H1. 
Compensation system positively influences employee motivation.
H2. 
Employee motivation directly impacts employee satisfaction.
H3. 
The compensation system significantly affects employee satisfaction.
H4. 
Employee motivation mediates in the causal effect of compensation on employee satisfaction.

3. Materials and Methods

Employees of the Jiban Bima Corporation (JBC) who work inside the respective organizations served as the population for this study. A self-administered questionnaire survey was directed to 103 JBC employees in different departments. The sample size (n) was 103, which was calculated using the formula of finite population where the population (N) was 1104, population portion (p) was 92%, the confidence level was 95% (z-score was ±1.96), and margin of error (e) was 5%. The random sampling technique was utilized to acquire data, and 100 employees were given back the questionnaire after completion. Since starting their positions, all respondents received one official performance review and one salary rise, and they were all entitled to bonuses and other incentives. The data collection period was held from 1st August to 30th September in 2021. There were two sections to the questionnaire. The questionnaire’s first part contained basic information on the respondents, while the second part contained the measuring factors on a five-point Likert scale from 5 (strongly satisfied) to 1 (strongly dissatisfied). The compensation system was measured by nine items, whereas employee motivation and employee satisfaction were measured by only one item each. The questionnaire was supplied to the employees of the JBC in different regions of the country, such as Dhaka, Rajshahi, Khulna, Chittagong, Rangpur, Sylhet, and Mymensingh. The descriptive statistics, alpha value, correlation test, direct effect, indirect effect and total effect analysis were used to examine and interpret after collecting data. The processed results in the tabular form through running SPSS Vs 26 were interpreted clearly to specify the findings. In addition, we also employed the process macro from Hayes (2018) to test four hypotheses. Likewise, 5000 bootstrap samples were used to find the indirect impact, producing results with greater statistical power than the Sobel (1982) test (Edeh et al. 2022; Kreiseder and Mosenhauer 2022; Ha and Lee 2022; Zhao et al. 2010). Due to the quantitative research design, the SPSS software was chosen because of its competence, variety, and flexibility in analyzing the vast amounts of data obtained (Adefulu and Adebowale 2019).

4. Results

The findings of the study first revealed the participants’ demographic profiles. Then, the descriptive analysis for knowing the trends of responses and the reliability analysis for the consistency of measurement scales were reported, respectively. Next, a correlation test was performed to measure the association between the compensation system, employee motivation, and employee satisfaction. Finally, the direct, indirect, and total effect analysis was conducted. Particularly, the total effect analysis was performed due to the combined direct and indirect effect in the model.

4.1. Demographic Analysis

The demographic profile of respondents is shown in Table 1. The proportion of male employees (86 percent) was close to six times higher than female employees (14 percent). This means that male employees dominated JBC’s workforce. According to age, the most considerable percentage (40%) corresponded to the age range of 40–50 years, and the lowest section was occupied by those 50 years and above. The other two age groups possessed slightly more than two-fifths of the total portion. This shows that most of the experienced persons were considered to have high work productivity with the company. In the case of marital status, more than three-fifths of the participants were married, whereas less than two-fifths were unmarried. The highest response in terms of income level (monthly) was between BDT 20,000–40,000, which was almost half of the respondents of this study. Very few respondents had a monthly income of BDT 60,000 and above, but an exact two-fifths of the respondents had a monthly income below BDT 20,000 in this study. Thus, the diverse compensation structure groups helped the study generate valid study predictors for employee satisfaction. Based on organizational position, 45 officers were marked in the survey; nearly half of the respondents and one-fifth of the respondents were managers who were also being considered to cover different job positions. Based on work experience, more than one-third of respondents fell between 10–15 years, the highest portion. The respondents who had work experience of less than 5 years showcased the second highest portion, and the lowest portion, around one-sixth of the respondents, had long work experience in the organization. Therefore, most of the respondents had long work experience in this study.

4.2. Descriptive Analysis

Table 2 shows the result of descriptive statistics such as mean, standard deviation (SD), skewness, and kurtosis to describe the participants or a population sample and to measure the normal distribution of collected data. It is observed that the mean of the responses for the compensation system is 3.32 (SD = 1.30), employee motivation is 3.42 (SD = 1.30), and employee satisfaction is 3.31 (SD = 1.35). That means respondents’ opinions were satisfactory regarding employee motivation but somehow impartial regarding compensation and satisfaction. Moreover, the SD value for compensation system, employee motivation, and employee satisfaction indicates responses are close to the mean. The calculated skewness and kurtosis values for three variables in the current investigation were within the threshold ranges. On the other hand, the normal distribution has skewness and kurtosis values equal to zero (Field 2009; Malhotra et al. 2007). However, for psychometric purposes, it is proposed that data be deemed normal when both the skewness and kurtosis scores are between −2 and +2 (Khan 2015; Hair et al. 2010; George and Mallery 2010). Hence, it was claimed that the responses are positively skewed and light-tailed distribution according to the absolute value of skewness and kurtosis, respectively, for all the variables. Grounded on this analysis, the distribution of the collected data specifies normality in the sample.

4.3. Reliability Analysis

Table 3 expresses Cronbach’s Alpha for three variables. Although values over 0.6 are also acceptable, 0.7 is the recognized value for Cronbach’s Alpha (Taber 2018). The calculated value is 0.992, which means that the scale achieved higher reliability through the internal consistency measure. Therefore, all the constructs are eligible for testing four hypotheses for this study.

4.4. Correlations Test

The overall Pearson correlation coefficient value are displayed in Table 4. It is statistically significant (0.000 < 0.01) that the independent variable and dependent variable have a positive correlation (r) of 0.980. Moreover, a positive and significant (0.000 < 0.01) correlation (r) of 0.979 was found between the independent variable and the mediator variable. Likewise, the coefficient of correlation (r) is 0.973 between the mediator and dependent variable, which is significant statistically (0.000 < 0.01). It is advisable to use plus one (+1) to denote a perfectly positive connection; when one variable’s value grows, the other variable does so by an absolute linear equation (Ratner 2009). Consequently, there is a high degree of positive statistical association between the compensation system and employee satisfaction, the compensation system and employee motivation, and employee motivation and employee satisfaction as the value of r is close to plus one (+1).

4.5. Direct Effect, Indirect Effect and Total Effect Analysis

A bootstrapping approach was conducted using 5000 iterations to identify the path relationships. The results of the direct effect analysis reveal the impact of the compensation system on employee motivation; employee motivation on employee satisfaction, and the compensation system on employee satisfaction (see Table 5). The value of unstandardized beta shows favorable compensation system towards employee motivation (β = 0.98, t-value = 47.16, and p-value < 0.01). Furthermore, the positive employee motivation escalates employee satisfaction from the outcomes (β = 0.33, t-value = 3.47, and p-value < 0.01). Finally, the compensation system significantly impacts employee satisfaction, indicated by the findings (β = 0.69, t-value = 7.16, and p-value < 0.01). Therefore, H1, H2, and H3 are accepted. The determination coefficient (R2) measures how well an exogenous variable can account for the endogenous variable (Ghozali 2016; Pimentel and Pereira 2022). According to the model summary, the value of R-square (R2) is 0.958 for employee motivation, and the value of R-square (R2) is 0.965 for employee satisfaction, which is exhibited in Table 6. This clarifies the impact of the compensation system (independent variable) on employee motivation at 95.8% (mediator variable). Similarly, the compensation system (independent variable) and employee motivation (mediator variable) account for 96.5% of changes in employee satisfaction (dependent variable). Substantial effect size is often deemed to exist when the R-squared value is more than or equal to 0.7 (Moore et al. 2013). It identifies a high positive contribution to increasing employee motivation and satisfaction. Hence, the values of R-square are highly acceptable in this model.
In this study, we investigated how employee motivation mediated the relationship between the compensation system and employee satisfaction. Results showed that employee motivation had a substantial positive mediation influence on the compensation system to employee satisfaction connection since there is no zero value within the bootstrapping lower and upper limit confidence interval (i.e., 0.06 and 0.61) (see Table 7). The indirect analysis enables the execution of significant hypothesis tests to identify the mediator variable influencing the experiment’s outcome (Kaufmann and Schering 2014). In this study, the direct path between the compensation system and employee satisfaction is found to be significant. It is concluded that the overall compensation system has a statistically significant influence on employee satisfaction through the partial mediation effect of employee motivation.
Only the direct and indirect effect between the compensation system and employee satisfaction were examined in previous research. The total effect, including direct and indirect effects, was another aspect of this study that we were interested in. We found the total effect of the compensation system including motivation on employees’ satisfaction, which is statistically significant (see Table 8). The compensation system changed employee satisfaction level by 96% (see Table 9). However, only 4% of the differences were found due to other variables not considered in this model. Interestingly, the total effect of the compensation system on employee satisfaction also remains significant, similar to the direct effect due to the partial indirect effect of employee motivation.

5. Discussion

This study examined the effect of JBC’s compensation system on satisfaction with the mediating effect of employee motivation, and the findings indicate a strong link between the compensation system and staff satisfaction through the partial mediation impact of employee motivation. The study findings were supported by the study of Uppal (2005), who discovered that employee compensation (fringe benefits) was positively connected to employee job satisfaction. However, in the link between compensation and employee satisfaction, employee performance was discussed rather than the role of motivation as mediator (Candradewi and Dewi 2019). Furthermore, Odunlade (2012) identified a connection between compensation and job satisfaction. However, the compensation and motivation found a positive relationship with job satisfaction separately, whereas the authors did not measure the mediation effect of motivation in the relationship between compensation and satisfaction, which is demonstrated in our study findings (Pudjiastuti and Sijabat 2022). According to Sousa-Poza and Sousa-Poza (2000), compensation influences how happy employees are at their jobs. However, there is still disagreement over how compensation could affect employee job satisfaction (Tian et al. 2020).
On the other hand, the working environment directly impacts employee satisfaction, whereas compensation does not (Rojikinnor et al. 2022; Dietz et al. 2022). Setyorini et al. (2018) also confirmed a comparable finding, showing that compensation had a favorable and substantial influence on employee work satisfaction where motivation did not focus as a direct or indirect factor. Furthermore, another study found all the direct relationships between compensation and satisfaction, compensation and motivation, motivation and satisfaction; conversely, it was not considered the mediation effect of employee motivation in the connection between compensation and satisfaction as in this study (Sudiardhita et al. 2018). Additionally, it was discovered that remuneration had a favorable and considerable impact on work satisfaction, whereas benefits had no such impact (Mabaso and Dlamini 2017; Kowalski et al. 2022). Overall, this study mostly agrees with other findings where all the factors such as salaries, incentives, benefits packages, leave-related benefits, health benefits, retirement benefits, dismissal benefits, and staff welfare programs had a substantial impact on employees’ satisfaction (Nane 2019; Dinter et al. 2022), except for motivation as a mediation impact. Despite having the prior evidence, modern organizations today view compensation with motivation as the pivotal element to achieve better returns in the form of improved employee satisfaction, competitiveness, or other financial measures.

6. Conclusions

Human resources are increasingly viewed as a corporation’s most significant resource for achieving competitive advantage in the business sector. Recruiting and retaining the proper employees is one of the most challenging tasks for any company. The findings of this study looked into and identified the partial indirect effect of motivation on the relationship between overall compensation and employee satisfaction. The findings also implied that JBC’s remuneration structure directly impacts employee pleasure via partial mediating of motivation. Employees will feel valued and have high motivation and job satisfaction. This could boost employees’ morale and cause employees to be inspired and happy. Otherwise, everyone will admit that a group of dissatisfied employees will not be able to work appropriately for the company due to insufficient compensation and reluctance. It was discovered that compensation, motivation, and employee satisfaction enabled JBC to use its human resources more productively and efficiently. In addition, policy should be revised to upgrade the compensation system so that employees are more encouraged and committed to the organization. The high satisfaction of employees helps the firm meet its aim and target on time. Furthermore, compensation system practice and employees’ inner desires vary considerably by age, gender, educational capacity, and employees’ experiences, which needs to be considered.
Additionally, this study outcome will help all of the Bangladesh insurance and financial industries to understand the significant factors or elements of compensation along with motivation, which leads to employee satisfaction. Furthermore, this investigation gives some benefits such as commitment, loyalty, and less turnover of employees for a long time. The insurance industries might also realize or understand the relevance of employee satisfaction and motivation in terms of the payment scheme they offer. Employees will provide their best effort to optimize the organization’s long-term performance and reputation if they are stirred and content with their salary. The primary drawbacks are both direct and indirect compensation categories considered. However, in future studies, it would be wise to take these two categories as individual variables to measure employee turnover intention, employee performance, and commitment. Likewise, future research should also be comparative, adding more human resource functions. Perhaps the impact of motivation and satisfaction as a mediation or moderation construct on different industrial factors in an explanatory research framework can be investigated in any other financial and non-financial organizations.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.M.R. and M.F.-E.-A.; methodology, M.F.-E.-A., M.M.R. and N.M.Z.; software, M.F.-E.-A.; validation, N.M.Z., V.N. and S.D.; formal analysis, M.M.R., N.M.Z. and V.N.; investigation, M.F.-E.-A., M.M.R. and K.M.A.I.; resources, S.D., K.M.A.I., and V.N.; data curation, S.D. and K.M.A.I.; writing—original draft preparation, M.M.R. and M.F.-E.-A.; writing—review and editing, S.D., N.M.Z., and V.N.; visualization, M.M.R. and V.N.; supervision, V.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Adefulu, A. D., and I. S. Adebowale. 2019. Compensation Management and Employee Job Satisfaction of Selected Insurance Companies in Lagos State, Nigeria. International Journal of Advanced Research 7: 955–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Ahmat, Nur Hidayah Che, Susan Wohlsdorf Arendt, and Daniel Wayne Russell. 2019. Examining work factors after Malaysia’s minimum wage implementation. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 31: 4462–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ali, Md Chapol, KM Anwarul Islam, Soo-Jin Chung, Nurul Mohammad Zayed, and Mohammad Rakibul Islam. 2021. The correlation between job-hopping attitude and turnover behavior: A job satisfaction perspective in Bangladesh. International Journal of Business and Management Future 5: 14–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Alwali, Joather, and Wafaa Alwali. 2022. The relationship between emotional intelligence, transformational leadership, and performance: A test of the mediating role of job satisfaction. Leadership and Organization Development Journal 43: 928–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Aranibar, Mónica Fernanda, Yolanda Baez-Lopez, Jorge Limon-Romero, María Concepción Ramírez-Barón, Blanca Rosa García Rivera, Melina Ortega-Pérez Tejada, and Jacqueline Hernández Bejarano. 2022. The Impact of Social Benefits on Work Commitment and Organizational Socialization in the Manufacturing Industry. Sustainability 14: 10807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Armstrong, Michael. 2016. A handbook of Human Resource Management Practice, 11th ed. Philadelphia: Kopan Page Limited. [Google Scholar]
  7. Ashraf, Mohammad Ali. 2020. Demographic factors, compensation, job satisfaction and organizational commitment in private university: An analysis using SEM. Journal of Global Responsibility 11: 407–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bangun, Wilson. 2012. Human Resource Management. Jakarta: PT. Glora Aksara Pratama. [Google Scholar]
  9. Baqi, Fuad Abdul, and Rhian Indradewa. 2021. The Effect of Compensation on Job Satisfaction of Permanent Employees and Contract Employees. American International Journal of Business Management 4: 144–51. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bateman, Thomas S., and Scott A. Snell. 1996. Building Competitive Advantage, 3rd ed. Chicago: Irwin. [Google Scholar]
  11. Beech, John G., John Beech, and Simon Chadwick. 2006. The Business of Tourism Management. London: Prentice-Hall. [Google Scholar]
  12. Bilge, Hurriyet, Florina Oana Virlanuta, Deniz Zungun, Nicoleta Barbuta-Misu, Pinar Comuk, and Emine Turkan Ayvaz Guven. 2021. Generation Y’s Perception of Servant Leadership and Job Satisfaction. Economies 9: 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bilyk, Valentyna, and Inesa Sheremet. 2019. A New View of the Nature of Reality and the Teaching Higher-Level Cognitive Strategies. Philosophy and Cosmology 22: 92–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bustamam, Farah Liyana, Sze Sook Teng, and Fakhrul Zaman Abdullah. 2014. Reward management and job satisfaction among frontline employees in hotel industry in Malaysia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 144: 392–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Cabanas, Sara, Teresa Proença, and Mauro Carozzo-Todaro. 2020. Pay for Individual Performance: Aiding or Harming Sustainable Intrinsic Motivation? Sustainability 12: 6322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Candradewi, Intan, and I. Gst A. Manuati Dewi. 2019. Effect of compensation on employee performance towards motivation as mediation variable. International Research Journal of Management, IT and Social Sciences 6: 134–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Cascio, Wayne F. 2006. Managing Human Resources. Boston: McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar]
  18. Chakrabarty, Subrata. 2021. Intrapreneurship in teams/groups: Self-determination theory and compensation. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 28: 45–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chen, Chenxuan, and Abeer Hassan. 2022. Management gender diversity, executives compensation and firm performance. International Journal of Accounting and Information Management 30: 115–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Chinyio, Ezekiel, Subashini Suresh, and Jamilu Bappa Salisu. 2018. The impacts of monetary rewards on public sector employees in construction: A case of Jigawa state in Nigeria. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology 16: 125–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Çınar, Orhan, Çetin Bektaş, and Imran Aslan. 2011. A motivation study on the effectiveness of intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Economics & Management 16: 690–95. [Google Scholar]
  22. Clark, Andrew E., and Andrew J. Oswald. 1996. Satisfaction and comparison income. Journal of Public Economics 61: 359–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Darma, Prayoga Setia, and Achmad Sani Supriyanto. 2017. The effect of compensation on satisfaction and employee performance. Management and Economics Journal (MEC-J) 1: 69–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. De Clercq, Dirk, Inam Ul Haq, and Muhammad Umer Azeem. 2019. Why happy employees help: How meaningfulness, collectivism, and support transform job satisfaction into helping behaviours. Personnel Review 48: 1001–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Dessler, Gary. 2015. Fundamentals of Human Resource Management, 4th ed. Global Edition. Boston: Pearson International. [Google Scholar]
  26. Dietz, Carolin, Pauline Bauermann, and Hannes Zacher. 2022. Relationships between ICT Use for Task and Social Functions, Work Characteristics, and Employee Task Proficiency and Job Satisfaction: Does Age Matter? Merits 2: 224–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Dinter, Martin, Sandra Grässle, and Moritz Mosenhauer. 2022. The Effect of Fragile Self-Esteem on Course Completion in Business Studies. European Journal of Management Issues 30: 131–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ducharme, Mary Jo, Parbudyal Singh, and Mark Podolsky. 2005. Exploring the links between performance appraisals and pay satisfaction. Compensation and Benefits Review 37: 46–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Edeh, Friday Ogbu, Nurul Mohammad Zayed, Iryna Perevozova, Halyna Kryshtal, and Vitalii Nitsenko. 2022. Talent Management in the Hospitality Sector: Predicting Discretionary Work Behaviour. Administrative Sciences 12: 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Egerová, Dana, and Lucie Rotenbornová. 2021. Towards understanding of workplace conflict: An examination into causes and conflict management strategies. Problems of Management in the 21st Century 16: 7–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Eliopoulos, Panos. 2019. From the Moral Limits of Personal Interest to the Derogation of Individual Identity: Colonialism and Oppression. Ukrainian Policymaker 4: 4–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Elrehail, Hamzah, Ibrahim Harazneh, Mohammad Abuhjeeleh, Amro Alzghoul, Sakher Alnajdawi, and Hussein M. Hussein Ibrahim. 2019. Employee satisfaction, human resource management practices and competitive advantage: The case of Northern Cyprus. European Journal of Management and Business Economics 29: 125–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Field, Andy. 2009. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS: Introducing Statistical Method, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  34. Furnham, Adrian, Andreas Eracleous, and Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic. 2009. Personality, motivation and job satisfaction: Hertzberg meets the Big Five. Journal of Managerial Psychology 24: 765–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. George, Darren, and Paul Mallery. 2010. SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference, 17.0 Update, 10th ed. Boston: Pearson. [Google Scholar]
  36. Ghozali, Imam. 2016. Multivariate Analysis Application With IBM SPSS 21 Program. Semarang: Diponegoro University. [Google Scholar]
  37. Gorgenyi-Hegyes, Eva, Robert Jeyakumar Nathan, and Maria Fekete-Farkas. 2021. Workplace Health Promotion, Employee Wellbeing and Loyalty during Covid-19 Pandemic—Large Scale Empirical Evidence from Hungary. Economies 9: 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Greenberg, Jerald. 2011. Behaviour in Organizations, 10th ed. Essex: Pearson Education Limited. [Google Scholar]
  39. Ha, Jun-Chul, and Jun-Woo Lee. 2022. Promoting Psychological Well-Being at Workplace through Protean Career Attitude: Dual Mediating Effect of Career Satisfaction and Career Commitment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19: 11528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hair, Joseph F., Rolph E. Anderson, Barry J. Babin, and Wiiliam C. Black. 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis a Global Perspective. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education Inc. [Google Scholar]
  41. Hashim, Raemah Abdullah, and Rosli Mahmood. 2011. What Is The State Of Job Satisfaction Among Academic Staff At Malaysian Universities? Unitar E-Journal 7: 15–26. [Google Scholar]
  42. Hayes, Andrew F. 2018. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression Based Approach, 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  43. Herzberg, Frederick I. 1966. Work and the Nature of Man. Cleveland, NY: World Publishing Company. [Google Scholar]
  44. Herzberg, Frederick. 1968. One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees. Boston: Harvard Business Review, vol. 65. [Google Scholar]
  45. Holbeche, Linda. 2005. The High Performance Organization. Creating Dynamic Stability and Sustainable Success. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  46. Hong, Peidan. 2017. The literature review on compensation system design. Modern Economy 8: 1119–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Ibrahim, Ida Irdawaty, and Ali Boerhaneoddin. 2010. Is job satisfaction mediating the relationship between compensation structure and organisational commitment? A study in the Malaysian power utility. Journal of Global Business and Economics 1: 43–61. [Google Scholar]
  48. Jiang, Bin, Revenor C. Baker, and Gregory V. Frazier. 2009. An analysis of job dissatisfaction and turnover to reduce global supply chain risk: Evidence from China. Journal of Operations Management 27: 169–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kaufmann, Jörg, and A. G. Schering. 2014. Analysis of variance ANOVA. Wiley Stats Ref: Statistics Reference Online. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Khan, Ahmad Faraz. 2015. Assessment of Midlife Career Stress on Indian Managers. Ph.D. thesis, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India. [Google Scholar]
  51. Khuong, Mai Ngoc, and Dang Thuy Hoang. 2015. The effects of leadership styles on employee motivation in auditing companies in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance 6: 210–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Klopotan, Igor, Trina Mjeda, and Petar Kurečić. 2018. Exploring the motivation of employees in a firm: A case-study. Business Systems Research: International Journal of the Society for Advancing Innovation and Research in Economy 9: 151–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Kotlyar, Igor, and Leonard Karakowsky. 2014. Sources of satisfaction with high-potential employee programs: A survey of Canadian HR professionals. Journal of Management Development 33: 1035–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kowalski, Kellyann Berube, Alex Aruldoss, Bhuvaneswari Gurumurthy, and Satyanarayana Parayitam. 2022. Work-From-Home Productivity and Job Satisfaction: A Double-Layered Moderated Mediation Model. Sustainability 14: 11179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kreiseder, Fabian, and Moritz Mosenhauer. 2022. Watching the Watchmen: Assessment-Biases in Waiting List Prioritization for the Delivery of Mental Health Services. European Journal of Management Issues 30: 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kubo, Izumi, and Ayse Saka. 2002. An inquiry into the motivations of knowledge workers in the Japanese financial industry. Journal of Knowledge Management 6: 262–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Leonova, Irina S., Elena V. Pesennikova-Sechenov, Nikolay M. Legky, Valeriy I. Prasolov, Irina A. Krutskikh, and Nurul Mohammad Zayed. 2021. Strategic analysis of the motivation on employees’ productivity: A compensation benefits, training and development perspective. Academy of Strategic Management Journal 20: 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  58. Līduma, Diāna, and Inese Lūsēna-Ezera. 2021. Involvement of employees in operational planning of manufacturing enterprises: Latvia experience. Problems of Management in the 21st Century 16: 87–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Locke, Edwin A. 1976. The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In The Handbook of Organizational Psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally. [Google Scholar]
  60. Mabaso, Calvin Mzwenhlanhla, and Bongani Innocent Dlamini. 2017. Impact of compensation and benefits on job satisfaction. Research Journal of Business Management 11: 80–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Malhotra, Naresh K., Daniel Nunan, and David F. Birks. 2007. Marketing Research: An Applied Approach, 5th ed. New York: Prentice Hall, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  62. Malysheva, Nataliia, and Anna Hurova. 2021. New Frontiers of Sustainable Human’s Activities: Challenges for Legal Order of Space Mining Economy. Advanced Space Law 8: 76–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. McClune, Don. 2005. Designing reward packages. In Top Pay and Performance: International and Strategic Approach, 1st ed. Burlington: Elsevier, pp. 120–56. [Google Scholar]
  64. Miri, Daniel Hank, and Janaina Macke. 2022. Gamification, motivation, and engagement at work: A qualitative multiple case study. European Business Review 34: 263–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Mitsel, Artur, Aleksandr Shilnikov, Pavel Senchenko, and Anatoly Sidorov. 2021. Enterprise Compensation System Statistical Modeling for Decision Support System Development. Mathematics 9: 3126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Moore, David S., William I. Notz, and Michael A. Fligner. 2013. The Basic Practice of Statistics, 6th ed. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company. [Google Scholar]
  67. Muguongo, Mary Makena, Andrew T. Muguna, and Dennis K. Muriithi. 2015. Effects of compensation on job satisfaction among secondary school teachers in Maara Sub-County of Tharaka Nithi County, Kenya. Journal of Human Resource Management 3: 47–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Muñoz-Pascual, Lucía, and Jesús Galende. 2017. The impact of knowledge and motivation management on creativity: Employees of innovative Spanish companies. Employee Relations 39: 732–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Nane, Million. 2019. Impact of Compensation Practices on Employee Job Satisfaction: Case of Private Banks in Sodo Town. International Journal of Research in Economics and Social Sciences (IJRESS) 9: 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  70. Obermann, Jörn, and Patrick Velte. 2018. Determinants and consequences of executive compensation-related shareholder activism and say-on-pay votes: A literature review and research agenda. Journal of Accounting Literature 40: 116–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Odunlade, R. O. 2012. Managing Employee Compensation and Benefits for Job Satisfaction in Libraries and Information Centres in Nigeria. Available online: http://unllib.unl.edu/LPP/ (accessed on 5 May 2022).
  72. Onukwube, Henry Ndubuisi. 2012. Correlates of job satisfaction amongst quantity surveyors in consulting firms in Lagos, Nigeria. Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building 12: 43–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Oteshova, Almagul Kairgalievna, Aigul Amangeldyevna Niyazbayeva, Natalia Alekseevna Prodanova, Rysty Kuandikovna Sabirova, and Nurul Mohammad Zayed. 2021. The Effect of Teamwork on Employee Productivity. Academy of Strategic Management Journal 20: 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  74. Peñalba-Aguirrezabalaga, Carmela, Josune Sáenz, Paavo Ritala, and Mika Vanhala. 2021. Putting knowledge to work: The combined role of marketing and sales employees’ knowledge and motivation to produce superior customer experiences. Journal of Knowledge Management 25: 2484–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Pepra-Mensah, Josephine, Luther Ntim Adjei, and Albert Agyei. 2017. Effect of compensation on basic school teachers’ job satisfaction in the northern zone: The case of Ghana. Global Journal of Management and Business Research 17: 50–59. [Google Scholar]
  76. Petrova, Mariana, Viktor Koval, Milena Tepavicharova, Anastasiia Zerkal, Andrii Radchenko, and Nataliia Bondarchuk. 2020. The interaction between the human resources motivation and the commitment to the organization. Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues 9: 897–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Pimentel, Duarte, and Ana Pereira. 2022. Emotion Regulation and Job Satisfaction Levels of Employees Working in Family and Non-Family Firms. Administrative Sciences 12: 114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Pinder, C. C. 1998. Work Motivation in Organizational Behavior. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall Inc. [Google Scholar]
  79. Pudjiastuti, S. B. Diah, and Rosdiana Sijabat. 2022. Analysis of the Effect of Compensation, Motivation, and Job Satisfaction to Employee Perfromance: Case Study at Customer Interaction Division of PT XYZ. Budapest International Research and Critics Institute (BIRCI-Journal): Humanities and Social Sciences 5: 4130–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Ratner, Bruce. 2009. The correlation coefficient: Its values range between+ 1/− 1, or do they? Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing 17: 139–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Rayton, Bruce A., and Zeynep Y. Yalabik. 2014. Work engagement, psychological contract breach and job satisfaction. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 25: 2382–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Reza, Mohammad Nasim, and Md Faisal-E-Alam. 2022. HRM Practices and Operational Performance at Jute Spinning Mills in Bangladesh. Asia-Pacific Journal of Management and Technology (AJMT) 2: 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Riyanto, Setyo, Endri Endri, and Novita Herlisha. 2021. Effect of work motivation and job satisfaction on employee performance: Mediating role of employee engagement. Problems and Perspectives in Management 19: 162–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Rodzoś, Jolanta. 2019. The Concept of Human Needs in Sustainable Development of Cities. Problemy Ekorozwoju 14: 91–99. [Google Scholar]
  85. Rojikinnor, Rojikinnor, Abdul Juli Andi Gani, Choirul Saleh, and Fadillah Amin. 2022. The Role of Compensation As a Determinant of Performance and Employee Work Satisfaction: A Study at the PT Bank Rakyat Indonesia (Persero) Tbk. Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Ryan, Richard M., and Edward L. Deci. 2017. Self-determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. New York: Guilford Publications. [Google Scholar]
  87. Rynkevich, Natalya. 2020. Development of organizational culture in the management system of the food industry enterprises. Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal 6: 123–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Safiullah, Ayesha Binte. 2015. Employee motivation and its most influential factors: A Study on the telecommunication industry in Bangladesh. World Journal of Social Sciences 5: 79–92. [Google Scholar]
  89. Salisu, Jamilu B., Ezekiel Chinyio, and Subashini Suresh. 2015. The impact of compensation on the job satisfaction of public sector construction workers of jigawa state of Nigeria. The Business and Management Review 6: 282–96. [Google Scholar]
  90. Setyorini, RR Wahyu, Anik Yuesti, and Nengah Landra. 2018. The Effect of Situational Leadership Style and Compensation to Employee Performance with Job Satisfaction as Intervening Variable at PT Bank Rakyat Indonesia (Persero), Tbk Denpasar Branch. International Journal of Contemporary Research and Review 9: 20974–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Shil, Mrittika, Rajib Chandra Barman, Nurul Mohammad Zayed, Shahiduzzaman Khan Shahi, and Arafat Hosain Neloy. 2020. Global transition of HR practices in covid-19 pandemic situation: A systematic review through 5P’s model of HRM. Management and Human Resource Research Journal 9: 50–57. [Google Scholar]
  92. Silic, Mario, Giacomo Marzi, Andrea Caputo, and P. Matthijs Bal. 2020. The effects of a gamified human resource management system on job satisfaction and engagement. Human Resource Management Journal 30: 260–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Sobel, Michael E. 1982. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology 13: 290–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Society for Human Resource Management. 2012. Employee Job Satisfaction and Engagement. A Research Report by SHRM. Available online: https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/trends-and-forecasting/research-and-surveys/Documents/12-0537%202012_JobSatisfaction_Figures.pdf (accessed on 21 January 2022).
  95. Song, Ki Kyung, and Eunyoung Whang. 2020. Pay inequality and job satisfaction of law firms: The role of strategic positioning. Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change 16: 189–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Sousa-Poza, Alfonso, and Andres A. Sousa-Poza. 2000. Well-being at work: A cross-national analysis of the levels and determinants of job satisfaction. The Journal of Socio-Economics 29: 517–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Stachowska, Sylwia, and Iwona Zofia Czaplicka-Kozłowska. 2017. Motivating employees of the public organization: Case study of the higher education institution. Management Theory and Studies for Rural Business and Infrastructure Development 39: 100–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Stashevsky, S., and J. Weisberg. 2006. Wage determination antecedents and outcomes on employees attitudes, Work Values and Behavior. Paper presented at ISSWOV 10th Bi-Annual Conference, Tallinn, Estonia, June 25–29; pp. 341–50. [Google Scholar]
  99. Stringer, Carolyn, Jeni Didham, and Paul Theivananthampillai. 2011. Motivation, pay satisfaction, and job satisfaction of front-line employees. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management 8: 161–79. [Google Scholar]
  100. Sudiardhita, Ketut I. R., Saparuddin Mukhtar, Budi Hartono, Tuty Sariwulan, and Sri Indah Nikensari. 2018. The effect of compensation, motivation of employee and work satisfaction to employee performance Pt. Bank Xyz (Persero) Tbk. Academy of Strategic Management Journal 17: 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  101. Sun, Li-Yun, and Wen Pan. 2008. HR practices perceptions, emotional exhaustion, and work outcomes: A conservation-of-resources theory in the Chinese context. Human Resource Development Quarterly 19: 55–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Sutrisno, Sugeng. 2020. Analysis of Compensation and Work Environment on Turnover Intention with Employee Satisfaction as Intervening Variable in PT. Hartono Istana Technology at Semarang. Serat Acitya 9: 13–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Taber, Keith S. 2018. The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education 48: 1273–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Tepliuk, Mariia, Tetiana Shkoda, Volodymyr Kukoba, T. Chebakova, and S. Petrovska. 2021. Organizational culture in cooperation of business and education in Ukraine. Naukovyi Visnyk Natsionalnoho Hirnychoho Universytetu 3: 184–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Terepyshchyi, Serhii, and Hleb Khomenko. 2019. The Dialectics of Humanism and Pragmatism as a Basis for the Formation of Higher Education Strategy Development. Ukrainian Policymaker 5: 98–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Tian, Hongyun, Brice Berinyuy Fonjong, Maxwell Kongkuah, and Richard Barfi. 2020. Impacts of Job Stress and Overall Compensation Benefits on Employees’ Job Satisfaction with Moderation Effect of Leadership: An Empirical Study in the Telecommunication Industry of Cameroon. Open Journal of Business and Management 9: 44–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Türk, Kulno. 2008. Performance appraisal and the compensation of academic staff in the University of Tartu. Baltic Journal of Management 3: 40–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Uddin, Mohammad Jashim, Md Masud Chowdhury, Masuma Yasmin, and Aklima Akter. 2016. Job satisfaction of the employees of the general insurance companies in Bangladesh. Global Disclosure of Economics and Business 5: 7–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Uppal, Sharanjit. 2005. Disability, workplace characteristics and job satisfaction. International Journal of Manpower 26: 336–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Wang, S. 2005. A Study of the Correlation of Employees’ Job Satisfaction and Customer Satisfaction: An Empirical Analysis of Seven Taiwanese Hospitals. Master’s thesis, Graduate Institute of Business Administration, National Taipei University, Taipei, Taiwan. [Google Scholar]
  111. Watson, Tony J. 2006. Organising and Managing Work, 2nd ed. Essex: Pearson. [Google Scholar]
  112. Yang, Bo, Lulu Wang, and Bayan Omar Mohammed. 2020. Improving the organizational knowledge sharing through online social networks: The mediating role of employee motivation. Kybernetes 49: 2615–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Zhao, Xinshu, John G. Lynch Jr., and Qimei Chen. 2010. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research 37: 197–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Economies 10 00290 g001 550
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework.
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework.
Economies 10 00290 g001
Table
Table 1. Demographic profile of the respondents.
Table 1. Demographic profile of the respondents.
CategoryFrequencyPercentage
GenderMale8686%
Female1414%
AgeBelow 30 2525%
30 Years–40 Years2020%
40 Years–50 Years4040%
50 Years and above1515%
Marital statusMarried6565%
Unmarried3535%
Income level (Monthly)Below BDT 20,000 4040%
BDT 20,000–BDT 40,0004646%
BDT 40,000–BDT 60,0001010%
BDT 60,000 and above44%
PositionAssistants3535%
Officers4545%
Managers2020%
ExperienceLess than 5 Years2929%
5 Years–10 Years2020%
10 Years–15 Years3535%
15 Years and above1616%
Source: Primary Data, 2021.
Table
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics.
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics.
NMeanStd. DeviationSkewnessKurtosis
StatisticStatisticStatisticStatisticStd. ErrorStatisticStd. Error
Compensation System (9 Items)1003.321.30−0.320.24−1.120.48
Employee Motivation (1 Item)1003.421.30−0.440.24−0.980.48
Employee Satisfaction (1 Item)1003.311.35−0.310.24−1.100.48
Valid N (listwise)100
Source: Primary Data, 2021.
Table
Table 3. Reliability Statistics.
Table 3. Reliability Statistics.
Cronbach’s AlphaCronbach’s Alpha Based on Standardized ItemsN of Items
0.9920.9923
Source: Primary Data, 2021.
Table
Table 4. Correlation Coefficient.
Table 4. Correlation Coefficient.
CSEMES
CS (9 Items)Pearson Correlation10.979 **0.980 **
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.0000.000
EM (1 Item)Pearson Correlation0.979 **10.973 **
Sig. (2-tailed)0.000 0.000
ES (1 Item)Pearson Correlation0.980 **0.973 **1
Sig. (2-tailed)0.0000.000
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Source: Primary Data, 2021.
Table
Table 5. Results of Direct Effect.
Table 5. Results of Direct Effect.
HypothesisCausal RelationshipβT Stat. P-V LLCI ULCI Result
H1CS-EM0.9847.160.000.941.02Supported
H2EM-ES0.333.470.000.140.53Supported
H3CS-ES0.697.160.000.500.88Supported
Source: Primary Data, 2021.
Table
Table 6. Results of R and R-square (model summary of direct effect).
Table 6. Results of R and R-square (model summary of direct effect).
RR-Square
EM0.9790.958
ES0.9820.965
Source: Primary Data, 2021.
Table
Table 7. Result of Indirect Effect Analysis.
Table 7. Result of Indirect Effect Analysis.
HypothesisPathIndirect EffectBootLLCIBootULCIResult
H4CS-EM-ES0.330.060.61Supported
Source: Primary Data, 2021.
Table
Table 8. Result of Total Effect Analysis.
Table 8. Result of Total Effect Analysis.
RelationshipβT Stat. P-V LLCI ULCI
CS-ES1.0248.730.000.981.06
Source: Primary Data, 2021.
Table
Table 9. Results of R and R-square (Model summary of total effect).
Table 9. Results of R and R-square (Model summary of total effect).
RR-Square
ES0.980.96
Source: Primary Data, 2021.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zayed, N.M.; Rashid, M.M.; Darwish, S.; Faisal-E-Alam, M.; Nitsenko, V.; Islam, K.M.A. The Power of Compensation System (CS) on Employee Satisfaction (ES): The Mediating Role of Employee Motivation (EM). Economies 2022, 10, 290. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies10110290

AMA Style

Zayed NM, Rashid MM, Darwish S, Faisal-E-Alam M, Nitsenko V, Islam KMA. The Power of Compensation System (CS) on Employee Satisfaction (ES): The Mediating Role of Employee Motivation (EM). Economies. 2022; 10(11):290. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies10110290

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zayed, Nurul Mohammad, Md. Mamunur Rashid, Saad Darwish, Md. Faisal-E-Alam, Vitalii Nitsenko, and K. M. Anwarul Islam. 2022. "The Power of Compensation System (CS) on Employee Satisfaction (ES): The Mediating Role of Employee Motivation (EM)" Economies 10, no. 11: 290. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies10110290

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop