







































 
 

19 
© 2020 by the authors; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

Asian Business Research Journal 
Vol. 5, 19-27, 2020 
ISSN : 2576-6759 
DOI: 10.20448/journal.518.2020.5.19.27 
© 2020 by the authors; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 
 

 

 
Mediated Effect of Employee Job Satisfaction on Employees’ Happiness at Work 
and Analysis of Motivational Factors: Evidence from Telecommunication Sector 

 
Rehan Sohail Butt1 
Xuezhou Wen2 
Rana Yassir Hussain3  
 

 
( Corresponding Author) 

 
 

 

1,3School of Management, Jiangsu University, China. 

 
2School of Management, Jiangsu University, China/School of Business, Jiangnan University, China. 

 
 

 
Abstract 

Happiness at the workplace is an important ingredient in improving productivity at any 
organization. This study, therefore, sought to examine the effect of employee job satisfaction on 
employee’s happiness at work among telecommunication workers in Pakistan. The study was 
anchored on the motivation theory and includes some factors that influence motivation at the 
work place. The motivational factors include job inspiration, job security, benefits/salary, work 
environment and leadership. These motivational factors are expected to influence the dependent 
variable (happiness at work) through a mediating variable (employee job satisfaction). Employee 
job satisfaction functioning as an independent variable is also expected to influence the exogenous 
variable (happiness at work). Data for the study was obtained from a sample of 515 telecoms 
workers from Pakistan using a structured questionnaire. The data was analyzed through 
Structural Equation Modeling via SPSS 22 and SmartPLS 3.0. Findings from this study indicate 
factors that determine or influence employees' job satisfaction are job inspiration, benefits, job 
security, and leadership in that order. The study further found a positive and significant 
relationship between the independent variables (job inspiration and benefits) and employee job 
satisfaction. Also, the study found that employee job satisfaction has a positive and significant 
influence on happiness at work. The study builds on the empirical findings on factors influencing 
employee job satisfaction by linking it with happiness at work in the telecoms sector This study 
contributes to the extant literature on happiness at work and makes valuable contribution to 
future research in this area. 

 
Keywords: Employee job satisfaction, Job inspiration, Job security, Leadership, Happiness at work, Work environment. 

JEL Classification: L29. 

 
1. Introduction 

Satisfied employees would work hard and put much effort their work in order to be more productive and 
efficient. When employees are satisfied with the work they do, they become happy and produce better results than 
when they are unhappy. Employee job satisfaction according to Gu, Zhen, Song, and Xu (2019) is “a measure of 
people’s contentedness with their job and an assessment of their work experience”. One of the earliest definitions of 
job satisfaction as “a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from one’s work or work experiences” (Gu et 
al., 2019).  

Job satisfaction would thus influence how employees work and the level of involvement and commitment they 
put in their work.  mentioned four dimensions that have a great impact on employee job satisfaction as salary, 
efficiency in work, fringe supervision (Khuong & Tien, 2013). 

Satisfaction is a term that has been frequently used interchangeably with happiness. According to the Oxford 
English Dictionary, happiness is “a state of mind or feeling comprising contentment, satisfaction, pleasure or joy”. 
Happiness has been used in the literature frequently and interchangeably with other terms such as “subjective 
wellbeing” “psychological wellbeing”, and “satisfaction” (Ryff & Singer, 2008; Wright & Cropanzano, 2007). Achor 
(2010)opine that happy people create successful careers for themselves due to the fact that they find happiness in 
the workplace. 

Wesarat, Sharif, and Abdul Majid (2015) are also of the opinion that happiness at the workplace means the 
satisfaction employees obtain with the nature of work and their personal lives. This idea is related to individual’s 
subjective well-being; i.e. how satisfied people are with their work environment. Being happy at the workplace is an 
important factor for improving an organization’s performance (Wesarat et al., 2015). Happy people would thus be 
more productive and efficient at the work they do compare with unhappy employees.  

Asiyabi and Mirabi (2012) suggest that being happy for employees could mean that employees would transfer 
their happiness from office to home and vice versa. A happy employee would thus make a productive and efficient 

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.20448/journal.518.2020.5.19.27&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2017-01-14
http://ecsenet.com/index.php/2576-6759/article/view/73


Asian Business Research Journal, 2020, 5: 19-27 

20 
© 2020 by the authors; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

 

workforce for the firm. Despite the importance of happiness to individuals and organizations, the concept is 
however still vague. Researchers are yet to come to an agreement with regards to what constitutes happiness in the 
workplace. The concept has been a subject of debate from earliest times within philosophy (Cahn & Vitrano, 2008).  

Additionally, although there is a considerable amount of literature on the subject, it appears however that only 
a handful of scientific theory research has been undertaken thus far from organisational perspective (McGonagle, 
2015). Also, “a robust framework for application in the work setting is still missing”(Tasnim, 2016) and this calls 
for extensive research in that regard to fill the gap in theory. This study, therefore, aims at bridging the gap in 
theory and literature. Thus, this study focuses on finding out factors influencing employees’ job satisfaction and 
how does job satisfaction influence happiness in the workplace. The main objective of this study, therefore, is to 
explore factors influencing employee job satisfaction among telecommunication workers in Pakistan. This study 
thus seeks to achieve the following objectives; 

1. Identify factors that influence employee job satisfaction among telecommunication workers in Pakistan. 
2. Assess the effect of  employee job satisfaction on employees’ happiness at work. 

 

2. Theoretical Underpinnings  
2.1. Employee Job Satisfaction  

Brief (1998) defined job satisfaction as “an internal state that was expressed by effectively or cognitively 
evaluating an experienced job with some degree of favour or disfavor”. Spector (1997) on the other hand defined 
employee job satisfaction to mean an individual’s satisfaction with his/her job, indicating whether or not he or she 
likes the job. Motivating and retaining qualified employees thus is very important in ensuring the success of 
organizations (Sohail & Jang, 2017). The Oxford dictionary also defines satisfaction as “the feeling of pleasure that 
arises when you have the things you want or need or when the things you want to happen”. 

Rice, McFarlin, and Bennett (1989) opined that satisfaction is determined by comparing current job 
experiences against some personal set standards and then evaluating whether one is satisfied with the current job 
or not (Khuong & Tien, 2013). Herzberg (1968) provided the earliest known investigation into the factors that lead 
to job satisfaction. In his study, Herzberg interviewed a group of employees to determine what made them satisfied 
or dissatisfied with their job. He classified these factors as motivators and hygiene factors (Herzberg, 1968). 
Motivators-hygiene factors theory revealed that factors determining job satisfaction were distinct from factors 
influencing job dissatisfaction (Khuong & Tien, 2013). Hygiene factors also known as job ‘dissatisfies’ include 
company policy, administration, supervision, salary, interpersonal relations, and working conditions. Motivators, 
on the other hand, known as job ‘satisfiers’ included achievement, recognition, work itself, and responsibility 
(Sowmya & Panchanatham, 2011). 

With the turn of the 21st century, various scholars have provided new definitions and constituents of employee 
job satisfaction. Pearson (1991) for instance mentioned the factors that influence employee job satisfaction as 
payment, promotion, and autonomy. Arsic, Nikolic, Zivkovic, Urosevic, and Mihajlovic (2012) on their part using 
the elements of TQM practice mentioned that factors that influenced employee job satisfaction are top management 
commitment, employee empowerment, teamwork, job evaluation, employee compensation (Khuong & Tien, 2013). 
Jun, Cai, and Shin (2006) also using the TQM added that factors influencing employee job satisfaction included 
employee empowerment, teamwork, and employee compensation. 
 

2.2. Materials and Hypotheses 
2.2.1. Benefits/Salaries  

Compensation or benefits has been identified as one of the key influencing factors of employee job satisfaction. 
Compensation management is a fundamental content of human resources management in organizations (Hee, Yi, 
Ping, Kowang, & Fei, 2019). Strategy development and human resource development of organizations have been 
closely related to compensation management. According to Hee et al. (2019) six different employee compensation 
systems paid by companies are job-based pay, skill or experience-based pay, broad banding with salary arrays, 
team-based pay, variable compensation, and executive compensation. Empirical findings have linked employee job 
satisfaction with benefits or salaries. Nguyen, Taylor, and Bradley (2003) concluded that job satisfaction is the 
result of promotion opportunities in the organization. Tessema and Soeters (2006) also reported positive 
relationship between promotion practices and employee performance. Khan., Nawaz, Aleem, and Hamed (2012) also 
found that factors such as pay and promotion influence employee job satisfaction and performance. Based on the 
above, we formulate the hypothesis: 

H1:Benefits/Salaries have a positive influence on employee job satisfaction. 
 

2.2.2. Job Inspiration   
Job inspiration implies that employees are satisfied with their assigned jobs, and are able to achieve goals. 

Meaningful activity, including work (Warr, 2007) and philanthropic activity, including volunteering jobs, has been 
shown to impact happiness positively (Meier & Stutzer, 2008). Much of the studies on employee happiness at work 
reveal that factors such as stable job, challenging, and interesting work enhance work attitudes and improves 
employee happiness (Fisher, 2010). Available evidence shows that the above-mentioned factors are positively 
related to employee happiness, and jointly explain job satisfaction in organizations (Fisher, 2010).   

Wesarat et al. (2015) mentioned that work activities are job undertakings engaged in by employees. Whiles 
some employees are excited about their job or task others are not which leads to negative experiences at work 
(Siegall & McDonald, 2004). Employees thus could have different satisfaction levels at work doing various work 

activities which would result in happiness at work (Tadić, Bakker, & Oerlemans, 2013). Employees engage in 
meaningful work activities when they feel excited or happy in their job. Managers must, therefore, identify source 
of meaningful work and ensure that employees get satisfaction in their work (Cleavenger & Munyon, 2013; 
Vasconcelos, 2008). If employees recognize reasons or inspirations in carrying out meaningful work, they may be 
happy to do their work (Dimitrov, 2012; MacMillan, 2009). We hypothesis that:  

H2: Job inspiration has a positive and significant effect on employee’s job satisfaction. 



Asian Business Research Journal, 2020, 5: 19-27 

21 
© 2020 by the authors; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

 

2.2.3. Job Security  
Job security refers to employees’ assurance or belief that they will keep their current job. Employees with “a 

high level of job security have a low probability of losing their job in the near future” (Sageer, Rafat, & Agarwal, 
2012). Employees are always on the edge fearing the possibility of their employment being terminated. This fear 
puts them in a rather defensive position and are not happy at work due to the uncertainty about their future. As a 
result, employees might display a certain level of unhappiness with their work. Past studies have been conducted to 
find out whether or not job security has a negative influence on employees ‘happiness. Khan, Nawaz, Aleem, and 
Hamed (2015) found a positive relationship between job security and employee satisfaction among medical staff in 
Pakistan. We propose the hypothesis that: 

H3: Job security would have a significant and positive influence on employee job satisfaction at the workplace. 
 

2.2.4. Leadership 
Organizations promote and create happiness for employees through motivation, awareness, and being 

dedicated to employees’ welfare. Good leaders engage in 2-way, transparent communication with their staff as well 
as ensuring conducive work atmosphere for their staff. Employee happiness at work therefore is dependent on the 
leader’s behavior. As Warr (2007) noted, “a positive leader’s behavior is one that includes willingness to listen to 
employees, showing support, respect and concern for employees’ welfare, and a tendency to show appreciation for 
employees and their work well done” (Stoi, 2016).  Thus, a good leader must consider employees feelings and 
provide inspiration, that would encourage and give meaning to employees' work (Cleavenger & Munyon, 2013; 
Vasconcelos, 2008). Stoi (2016) argues that employees achieve some level of satisfaction when the organisation 
places some importance to the work they do (Dimitrov, 2012; MacMillan, 2009). Thus employees who are satisfied 
with their leadership would be satisfied with their work and eventually find happiness.   

Orthodoxia, Kourtesopoulou, and Kriemadis (2019) examined the relationship between leadership behaviors 
and job satisfaction and found a significant positive relationship between transformational and transactional 
leadership behaviors and employee job satisfaction. Also, investigating leadership style in Dutch firms, Vermeeren, 
Kuipers, and Steijn (2014) found a positive relationship between leadership style and employees’ satisfaction. We 
hypothesis thus:  

H4: Leadership would have a positive influence on employee’s job satisfaction. 
 

2.2.5. Work Environment  
Working environment according to Raziq and Maulabakhsh (2015) involves two broader dimensions, work and 

context. Work accordingly to them includes different characteristics and tasks such as “training, control one’s own 
job-related activities, a sense of achievement from work, variety in tasks and the intrinsic value for a task” (Raziq & 
Maulabakhsh, 2015). Context on the other hand comprises the physical working conditions and the social working 
conditions (Gazioglu & Tansel, 2006; Skalli, Theodossiou, & Vasileiou, 2008). Spector (1997) also explained the 
working environment as consisting of “safety to employees, job security, good relations with co-workers, 
recognition for good performance, motivation for performing well and participation in the decision-making process 
of the firm”. He further explained that when employees realize how high in esteem the firm holds them, they will 
have a high level of commitment and a sense of ownership for their organization (Raziq & Maulabakhsh, 2015). 
Available literature has suggested a positive and direct link between work environment and job satisfaction. Buhai, 
Cottini, and Nielseny (2008) found that firms’ productivity can be increased by improving the physical dimensions 
of the work environment (Raziq & Maulabakhsh, 2015). Bakotic and Babic (2013) also found a positive relationship 
between working conditions and employee job satisfaction. They mentioned the working condition as an important 
factor for job satisfaction, and which might also lead to employees ‘dissatisfaction. A study by Tariq, Ramzan, and 
Riaz (2013) in telecom sector revealed that factors such as workload, salary, stress, and conflicts with family due to 
job would lead to employee dissatisfaction.  We hypothesize thus; 

H5: Working environment would have a positive or negative influence on employee job satisfaction at the workplace. 
 

2.2.6. Relationship between Employee Job Satisfaction and Happiness at Work 
Satisfaction is a term that has been frequently used interchangeably with happiness. There is an “affective 

component” to satisfaction as well as “a cognitive evaluative component” which involves making a judgment with 
regards to individual needs wants and if these have been achieved (McGonagle, 2015). De Witte et al. (2010) 
investigated the relationship between job insecurity and happiness and found that there is a significant negative 
impact of job insecurity on happiness. Wegge, Van Dick, Fisher, Wecking, and Moltzen (2006) also investigated 
the relationship between organizational identity, job satisfaction, and employee’s well-being and found that 
organizational identity predicted job satisfaction and employee’s well-being (Wegge et al., 2006).  

H6: Employee job satisfaction has a positive and significant effect on happiness at work. 
 

 
Figure-1. Mediating role of EJS in the HAW-Motivational Factors Relationship. 

 



Asian Business Research Journal, 2020, 5: 19-27 

22 
© 2020 by the authors; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

 

3. Methodology 
The survey method was utilized in this study to assess factors that influence employees’ job satisfaction as well 

as the effect of job satisfaction on employees’ happiness at work. The survey method was chosen because it suited 
the purpose and nature of this research. A convenient sampling technique was used to sample 515 
telecommunication workers in Pakistan see Table 2. Data for the study was obtained through a structured 
questionnaire developed using previous scale. The questionnaire was pre-tested and self-administered to the 
respondents by the researcher and trained field researchers. The respondents were all well informed about the 
study and their approval was sought before distributing the questionnaire to them. Also, the researchers assured 
the respondents of anonymity and confidentiality of their responses. A five-point Likert scale which option ranging 
from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) was used to measure variables for the research constructs as 
recommended in previous studies. The questionnaire consisted of 54 multi measurement items and six demographic 
questions see Table 2.  

The collected data was cleaned, sorted and coded using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS V.22). 
An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was then performed via SPSS to assess the factor loadings of the individual 
constructs in the conceptual model. The EFA was thus carried out for these three reasons: “(1) Assess the 
suitability of the data for factor analysis, (2) Factor extraction, and (3) Factor rotation and interpretation” 
(Ozdamar, 2017).  A confirmatory factor analysis was then carried out and the result transferred to SmartPLS 3 
software for further analysis.  
 

4. Results of the Study 
4.1. Reliability and Validity of Scales 

The data was first analyzed to ensure instrument quality by convergent and discriminant validity. Applying 
SPSS, the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to measure the underlying dimension associated with 
49 items. The Bartlett’s test of Sphericity and Kaiser–Mayer–Olkin (KMO) measure of the sampling adequacy were 
used to measure the construct. To perform factor analysis, the KMO score should be 0.6 or above  (Ozdamar, 
2017). The result of the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity and KMO shows that the scales adopted for the study are 
suitable for the factor analysis Table 1. It shows a Chi-square value of 27607.538 and significant value (p > 0.000).  
 

Table-1. KMO and Bartlett's test. 

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .763 

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 27607.538 
Df 1176 
Sig. .000 

 

 

4.2. Demographic Characteristics of Respondents 
Some demographic variables were collected in this study. These include gender, age, level of education, 

department, work experience, salary and marital status see Table 2. 
 

Table-2. Demographics of respondents. 

Variable Category No (%) 

Gender Male 392(76.1) 
Female 123(23.9) 

Age (years) 20 - 30 219(42.5) 
31 – 40 246(47.8) 
41 – 50 50(9.7) 

Level of 
education 

Bachelor’s Degree 216(46.9) 

Master’s level 291(56.5) 
PhD degree 8(1.6) 

 
 
 

Department 

HR 35(6.8) 
Financial 8(1.6) 

Sales & Marketing 218(42.3) 
Administration 45(8.7) 

Others 209(40.6) 
Work 

experience 
1 to 5 years 127(24.7) 

6 to 10 years 260(50.5) 
11 to 15 years 125(24.3) 

16 years and above 3(0.6) 
Salary below 20,000 11(2) 

20,000 To 40,000 177(34) 
40,000 To 60,000 159(31) 

Above 60,000 168(33) 
Marital status Married 340(66) 

Single 175(34) 

 
Table 2 shows the demographics of respondents; 76.1% of the respondents are males and 23.9% are females. In     

terms of gender, 42.5% of the respondents were between 20 and 30 years; 47.8 % are between 31 and 40 years; and 
9.7% are between the ages of 41 and 50. With regards to the educational qualification of the respondents,46.9% of 
the respondents have a bachelor’s degree; 56.5% have master’s level qualification; and 1.6% have Ph.D. 
qualifications. Table 2 further shows that 6.8% of the respondents work in the HR department; 1.6% work in the 
financial department; 42.3% in the marketing & sales department; 8.7% work in the administration; and 40.6% work 
in other departments. Also, 24.7% of the respondents have worked in the company between 1 to 5 years; 50.5% 



Asian Business Research Journal, 2020, 5: 19-27 

23 
© 2020 by the authors; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

 

between 6 to 10 years; 24.3% also worked between 11 to 15 years; and 0.6 have worked for over 16 years. With 
regards to the salary of respondents 2% receive below 20,000; 34% 20,000 to 40,000; 31% receive 40,000 to 60,000; 
and 33% receive more than 60,000. Also, regarding the marital status of respondents, 66% are married; and 34% are 
single see Table 2.  
 

Table-3. Factor loading and Construct Reliability. 

 FL  CA  rho_A  CR  AVE CA rho_A CR AVE 

BS_1 0.781  
 

0.880 

 
 

0.888 
 
 

 
 

0.909 

 
 

0.626 
BS_2 0.802 
BS_3 0.760 
BS_4 0.838 
BS_5 0.843 
BS_6 0.715 
EJS_1 0.836  

 
0.855 

 
 

0.857 
 

 
 

0.902 

 
 

0.696 
EJS_2 0.822 
EJS_3 0.861 
EJS_4 0.818 

HAW_1 0.927  
0.901 

 
0.905 

 
0.938 

 
0.835 HAW_2 0.923 

HAW_3 0.891 
JI_1 0.787  

 
 

0.890 

 
 
 

0.892 

 
 
 

0.912 

 
 
 

0.566 

JI_2 0.759 

JI_3 0.761 
JI_4 0.739 
JI_5 0.707 
JI_6 0.745 
JI_7 0.798 
JI_8 0.715 

JSTY_1 0.820 0.838 0.846 0.891 0.672 
JSTY_2 0.852 
JSTY_3 0.840 
JSTY_4 0.765 
LSP_1 0.748  

 
 
 

0.915 

 
 
 
 

     0.922 

 
 
 
 

0.930 

 
 
 
 

0.626 

LSP_2 0.828 
LSP_3 0.782 
LSP_4 0.777 
LSP_5 0.807 
LSP_6 0.786 
LSP_7 0.852 
LSP_8 0.745 

WE_1 0.762  
0.742 

 
0.746 

 
0.854 

 
     0.661 WE_2 0.810 

WE_3 0.864 

 
According to Table 3, all the measured variables had Cronbach’s alphas above 0.70, indicating high reliability 

for the constructs. The validity of the constructs was achieved through the construct validity assessment. It is 
assessed through convergent validity and discriminant validity (Ringle, Wende, & Becker, 2015). Convergent 
validity was considered adequate since the average variance extracted (AVEs) and composite reliability (Wright & 
Cropanzano, 2007) satisfied the minimum of 0.50 and 0.70 respectively (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).  

 
Table-4. Discriminant Validity. 

 BS EJS HW JI JS LSP WE 

BS 0.791       

EJS 0.554 0.835      

HW 0.473 0.573 0.914     

JI 0.473 0.841 0.516 0.752    

JS 0.684 0.536 0.474 0.523 0.820   

LSP 0.351 0.510 0.451 0.585 0.481 0.791  

WE 0.411 0.816 0.514 0.791 0.424 0.514 0.813 

 
Table 4 also shows discriminant validity and requires that the variables load higher than any other constructs 

on its scale. From Table 2, discriminant validity was achieved since the factors loaded higher on their scales. 
Benefits had a value of (0.79), Employee job satisfaction (0.83), Happiness at work (0.9), Job Inspiration (0.75), Job 
security (0.8), Leadership (0.8) and Work environment (0.8).  
 

4.3. Results of Structural Model 
The assessment of the structural model was done using regression weights, t-values, and p-values for the 

significance of t-statistics (Chin, 2010). The results of structural model for testing the research hypotheses are 
presented in Table 5. 
 



Asian Business Research Journal, 2020, 5: 19-27 

24 
© 2020 by the authors; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

 

 
Figure-2. Structural model of relationship between job satisfaction and happiness at work. 

 
Figure 2 the structural model’s assessment regarding the relationship between the variables. The assessment 

includes the path coefficients that estimate the relationship between the variables. From Figure 2, employee job 
satisfaction related positively with job inspiration, benefits, job security, working environment, and leadership. Job 
inspiration had the highest influence on employee job satisfaction (45.4%), followed by work environment (38.8%); 
and benefits (16. 7%). Leadership, on the other hand, had a negative relationship with (-3.1%) respectively. It is 
expected that organizations would focus on these factors to get the result out of  employees as these are the core 
issues influencing employee satisfaction. Also, employee job satisfaction had a positive relationship with happiness 
at work (57.3%). What this means is that, once employees feel satisfied at the workplace, they would find happiness 
which is needed in ensuring employees work hard to achieve targeted goals and objectives thereby ensuring 
organisational performance.   
 

 
Figure-3. Path Analysis of HAW, EJS and Motivational Factors Relationship 

 

4.4. Hypothesis Test 
A test for hypothesis was done using bootstrapping with 5000 samples on factors that influence or determine 

happiness at work. Benefits, Job inspiration, and Work environment had a positive and significant relationship with 



Asian Business Research Journal, 2020, 5: 19-27 

25 
© 2020 by the authors; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

 

Employee Job satisfaction (EJS). Also, Job Satisfaction had a direct positive influence on Happiness at work. 

Benefits had a positive and significant effect on EJS (β = 0.167; t= 5.39; p < 0.001); this led to the acceptance of 
hypothesis 1. The Beta score 0.167 means that, when employee’s benefits increase by 1%, employee job satisfaction 
improves by 16.7%. This means that employee benefit has a positive effect on the satisfaction of employees. Job 

inspiration had a significant and positive effect on EJS (β = 0.455; t= 14.3; p < 0.001); this led to the acceptance of 
hypothesis 2. This means that when employees are inspired by the kind of work they do, they would find 
satisfaction with the work they do see Table 5.  

Job security also had a positive but insignificant relationship with employee job satisfaction (β = 0.034; t = 
1.07; p > 0.05); hypothesis H3 was therefore not accepted.  Leadership also had a negative and insignificant effect 

on employee job satisfaction (β = -0.031; t= 0.03; p > 0.05); H4 was also not accepted (see Table 5). Work 

environment had a positive and significant effect on EJS (β = 0.388; t= 13.89; p < 0.001); this led to the acceptance 

of H5. Employees' job satisfaction also had a positive and significant effect on Happiness at work (β = 0.573; t= 
15.23; p < 0.001); this led to the acceptance of H6. The Beta score means that when employee job satisfaction 
improves by 1%, employees’ happiness at work improves by about 57.3%.  
 

Table-5. Results of hypothesis test. 

Hypothesis Path β STDEV t-value p-value 

HI BS -> EJS 0.167 0.031 5.39 *** 

H2 JI -> EJS 0.455 0.032 14.31 *** 

H3 JS -> EJS 0.034 0.032 1.07 0.29 

H4 LSP -> EJS -0.031 0.031 0.03 0.25 

H5 WE -> EJS 0.388 0.028 13.89 *** 

H5 EJS -> HW 0.573 0.038 15.23 *** 

 
The R squared score shows that, together, the independent variables influenced happiness at work by about 

73%. 
 

Table-6. Indirect effect of BS, JI, JSTY, LSP and WE on Happiness at work. 

Paths B STDEV t-value p-value 

BS -> EJS -> HW 0.103 0.0195 5.526 0.000 
JI -> EJS -> HW 0.270 0.028 9.702 0.000 

JSTY -> EJS -> HW 0.003 0.020 0.166 0.869 
LSP -> EJS -> HW -0.005 0.016 0.285 0.776 
WE -> EJS -> HW 0.207 0.019 11.165 0.000 

 
Table 6 shows the indirect effect in the relationship between the endogenous and exogenous variables. The 

table shows that benefits, job inspiration, and work environment influence Happiness at work indirectly through 

employee job satisfaction. BS had a positive and significant effect on HW (β = 0.103; t= 5.526; p < 0.001). The Beta 
score here means that, when employees benefit improves by 1%, employees’ happiness at work also increases by 

about 10%. Also, JI had a positive and significant effect on HW (β = 0.270; t= 9.70; p < 0.001); WE also had a 

positive and significant effect on HW (β = 0.207; t= 11.165; p < 0.001).  
 

5. Discussion  
First, this study revealed that the factors that determine or influence employees’ job satisfaction are job 

inspiration, benefits, job security, and leadership in that order. Job inspiration contributes more significantly to 
employee job satisfaction (45.5%); followed by work environment (38.8%), benefits (16.7%) and job security (3.4%). 
Leadership, however, contributed negatively to employee job satisfaction (-3.1%). This finding is significant as it 
shows the factors that employers should concentrate or focus on to ensure employee job satisfaction thereby 
increasing employees’ happiness at work.  

Secondly, with regards to the hypotheses stated in this study, the findings show that four out of the six 
hypotheses stated were supported. Thus hypothesis H1, H2, H5, and H6 were all supported by this research’s 
findings. The first hypothesis revealed a positive and significant relationship between Benefits/salaries and 
employee happiness. This finding indicates that the more inspiring work is for employees the satisfied they become 
doing their job. It further implies that when employees are satisfied with their assigned jobs and tasks, they and are 
able to achieve their work goals and output. As noted by Fisher (2010) job characteristics such as stable job, 
challenging and interesting work produce positive work attitudes, which then lead to satisfaction.  

Hypothesis two also revealed a positive relationship between job inspiration and employee job satisfaction. 
This finding indicates that when employees perceive to be offered adequate compensation for their work, they 
would be satisfied with the work they do. It further implies that wages or salaries are very important to the work of 
employees. This finding supports empirical results that state that job inspiration have positive influence on 
employee job satisfaction (Khan. et al., 2012; Nguyen et al., 2003; Tessema & Soeters, 2006).  

Also, the study found a positive but insignificant relationship between job security and employee job 
satisfaction. When employees feel that they are insulated or secured from being fired from their job, nothing comes 
between their satisfaction and the work they do. As noted by Sageer et al. (2012) employees are always on the alert 
fearing the possibility that their employment could be terminated and this would affect their level of satisfaction 
and happiness at the workplace. It is important for management and organisational heads therefore to provide 
guarantee of job tenure for employees to insulate them from premature sack or from the organisation.  

The fourth hypothesis also revealed a positive but insignificant relationship between leadership and happiness 
at work. This finding, however, contradicts earlier findings that found a significant relationship between leadership 
and employee job satisfaction (Orthodoxia et al., 2019; Vermeeren et al., 2014). Perhaps what this study revealed is 



Asian Business Research Journal, 2020, 5: 19-27 

26 
© 2020 by the authors; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

 

that the respondents are not really satisfied with the leadership style operated in their organisation. Leadership is 
about motivating people to move in the desired direction that the organisation wants to move in order to achieve 
the goals and objectives stated. Employees would thus contribute towards the attainment of organizational goals 
and objectives when they are happy with the style of leadership and how they are directed. Effective leaders would 
thus consider employee’s feelings and know how to inspire, stimulate and give meaning to employee's work 
(Cleavenger & Munyon, 2013; Vasconcelos, 2008). Also, as noted by Dimitrov (2012); MacMillan (2009) when 
employees note the importance of their work to management, they can be more motivated and satisfied with their 
work.  

The fifth hypothesis also revealed a positive relationship between the work environment and employees' job 
satisfaction. When employees work in an environment that fosters spirit of togetherness, there is every reason for 
employees to be happy and this happiness might have a positive effect on how they work in the organisation. Also, 
employees need good working conditions with all the necessary tools at their disposal in order to carry on with 
their assigned tasks. Failure to do so would mean that employees would have to compromise and work with the 
available tools and materials which would not lead to their satisfaction.  

Furthermore, this study found a positive and significant relationship between employee job satisfaction and 
happiness at work. When employees are satisfied with the work they do, it influences their happiness at work. It is 
imperative that organisational leaders focus on ensuring employee happiness by making working conditions safe, 
providing needed support for employees in carrying out their work diligently and going the extra mile in showing 
concern about employee well-being. This finding supports what (Lee, Grace, Sirgy, Singhapakdi, & Lucianetti, 
2018) stated that employees’ positive experiences in work-life i.e. job satisfaction and quality of work-life can have a 
positive effect on employee’s satisfaction and happiness.  

Again, the findings show that there is an indirect relationship between benefits, job inspiration, work 
environment, and Happiness at work. Benefits, work environment, and job inspiration positively influence 
employees’ happiness at work through employee job satisfaction. This means that factors influencing employee 
satisfaction could also indirectly influence employees ‘happiness at work. Organizations must, therefore, strive to 
ensure the satisfaction of employees at all times. 
 

6. Conclusions 
This study investigated the effect of  employee job satisfaction on employees’ happiness at work among 

telecommunication workers in Pakistan. Findings from the study show that benefits, job inspiration, and work 
environment influence employee happiness as well as employees’ happiness at work. Thus, ensuring good working 
environment and providing adequate compensation that is commensurate to the work employees do would ensure 
employee satisfaction and by extension employee happiness. Once this is achieved, not only would employees be 
happy, but would go a long way to enhance the productivity of  employees which would lead to organisational 
performance. It is up to management therefore to identify the needs and aspirations of  their employees as well as 
know the source of  employees’ happiness. 

 

References 
Achor, S. (2010). The happiness advantage: The seven principles that fuel success and performance at work. New York: Virgin Books. 
Arsic, M., Nikolic, D., Zivkovic, Z., Urosevic, S., & Mihajlovic, I. (2012). The effect of  TQM on employee loyalty in transition economy, 

Serbia. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 23(5-6), 719-729. Available at: 
https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2012.669930. 

Asiyabi, M., & Mirabi, V. (2012). Investigation of  contributing factors in employees desertion in power engineering consultants (Moshanir) 
company. Interdisciplinary Journal of  Contemporary Research in Business, 4(6), 1183-1199. 

Bakotic, D., & Babic, T. B. (2013). Relationship between working conditions and job satisfaction: The case of  croatian shipbuilding company. 
International Journal of  Business and Social Science, 4(2), 206-213. 

Brief, A. P. (1998). Attitudes in and around organizations. CA: Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 
Buhai, S., Cottini, E., & Nielseny, N. (2008). The impact of  workplace conditions on firm performance. Working Paper No. 08-13. 
Cahn, S., & Vitrano, C. (2008). Happiness: Classic and contemporary readings in philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 
Chin, W. (2010). How to write up and report PLS analyses. In C. W. W. Esposito, V. Vinzi, J. Henseler & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of  partial 

least squares: Concepts, methods and applications (pp. 655 - 690). Heidelberg: Springer. 
Cleavenger, D. J., & Munyon, T. P. (2013). It's how you frame it: Transformational leadership and the meaning of  work. Business Horizons, 

56(3), 351-360. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2013.01.002. 
De Witte, H., De Cuyper, N., Handaja, Y., Sverke, M., Näswall, K., & Hellgren, J. (2010). Associations between quantitative and qualitative job 

insecurity and well-being: A test in Belgian banks. International Studies of  Management & Organization, 40(1), 40-56. Available at: 
https://doi.org/10.2753/imo0020-8825400103. 

Dimitrov, D. (2012). Sources of  meaningfulness in the workplace: A study in the US hospitality sector. European Journal of  Training and 
Development, 36(2/3), 351-371. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/03090591211204788. 

Fisher, C. D. (2010). Happiness at work. International Journal of  Management Reviews, 12, 384-412. Available at: 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00270.x. 

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of  
Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104. 

Gazioglu, S., & Tansel, A. (2006). Job satisfaction in Britain: Individual and job related factors. Applied Economics, 38(10), 1163-1171. 
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840500392987. 

Gu, J., Zhen, T., Song, Y., & Xu, L. (2019). Job satisfaction of  certified primary care physicians in rural Shandong Province, China: A cross-
sectional study. BMC Health Services Research, 19(1), 75. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-3893-8. 

Hee, O. C., Yi, H. S., Ping, L. L., Kowang, T. O., & Fei, G. C. (2019). Factors influencing job satisfaction in the palm oil industry in Malaysia. 
International Journal of  Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 9(2), 516-527. 

Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review, 46(1), 53-62. 
Jun, M., Cai, S., & Shin, H. (2006). TQM practice in maquiladora: Antecedents of  employee satisfaction and loyalty. Journal of  Operations 

Management, 24(6), 791-812. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2005.09.006. 
Khan, A. H., Nawaz, M. M., Aleem, M., & Hamed, W. (2015). Impact of  job satisfaction on employee performance: An empirical study of  

autonomous Medical Institutions of  Pakistan. African Journal of  Business Management, 6(7), 2697-2705. Available at: 
10.5897/AJBM11.2222. 

Khan., H. A., Nawaz, M. M., Aleem, M., & Hamed, W. (2012). Impact of  job satisfaction on employee performance: An empirical study of  
autonomous Medical Institutions of  Pakistan. African Journal of  Business Management, 6(7), 2697-2705. 

Khuong, M. N., & Tien, B. D. (2013). Factors influencing employee loyalty directly and indirectly through job satisfaction–A study of  
banking sector in Ho Chi Minh City. International Journal of  Current Research and Academic Review, 1(4), 81-95. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00270.x


Asian Business Research Journal, 2020, 5: 19-27 

27 
© 2020 by the authors; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

 

Lee, D. J., Grace, B. Y., Sirgy, M. J., Singhapakdi, A., & Lucianetti, L. (2018). The effects of  explicit and implicit ethics institutionalization on 
employee life satisfaction and happiness: The mediating effects of  employee experiences in work life and moderating effects of  
work-family life conflict. Journal of  Business Ethics, 147(4), 855-874. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2984-7. 

MacMillan, S. (2009). Towards an existential approach to the meaning of  work. Unpublished PhD’s Thesis, Saint Mary’s University, Canada.    
McGonagle, C. (2015). Happiness in the workplace: An appreciative inquiry. Unpublished PhD’s Thesis, Dublin City University, Dublin.    
Meier, S., & Stutzer, A. (2008). Is volunteering rewarding in itself ? Economica, 75(297), 39-59. 
Nguyen, A., Taylor, J., & Bradley, S. (2003). Relative pay and job satisfaction: Some new evidence. MPRA Paper No 1382. University Library 

of  Munich, Germany. 
Orthodoxia, P., Kourtesopoulou, E. N., & Kriemadis, A. (2019). The relationship between leadership behaviors and job satisfaction: The case 

of  athens municipal sector. Business & Entrepreneurship Journal, 8(1), 49-62. 
Ozdamar, K. (2017). Scale and test development with application of  structural equation modeling IBM SPSS, IBM SPSS AMOS and Minitab. [Scale 

and test development Structural equation modeling IBM SPSS, IBM SPSS AMOS and Minitab applied]. Eskişehir: Nisan Kitabevi. 
Pearson, C. (1991). An assessment of  extrinsic feedback on participation, role perceptions, motivation, and job satisfaction in a self-managed 

system for monitoring group achievement. Human Relations, 44(5), 517-537. Available at: 
https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679104400506. 

Raziq, A., & Maulabakhsh, R. (2015). Impact of  working environment on job satisfaction. Paper presented at the 2nd Global Conference on 
Business, Economics, Management and Tourism, Prague, Czech Republic.  

Rice, R. W., McFarlin, D. B., & Bennett, D. E. (1989). Standards of  comparison and job satisfaction. Journal of  Applied Psychology, 74(4), 591-
598. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.4.591. 

Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J. M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. Hamburg: SmartPLS. 
Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (2008). Know thyself  and become what you are: A eudaimonic approach to psychological well-being. Journal of  

Happiness Studies, 9(1), 13-39. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9019-0. 
Sageer, A., Rafat, S., & Agarwal, P. (2012). Identification of  variables affecting employee satisfaction and their impact on the organization. 

IOSR Journal of  Business and Management, 5(1), 32-39. Available at: https://doi.org/10.9790/487x-0513239. 
Siegall, M., & McDonald, T. (2004). Person-organization value congruence, burnout and diversion of  resources. Personnel Review, 33(3), 291-

301. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00483480410528832. 
Skalli, A., Theodossiou, I., & Vasileiou, E. (2008). Jobs as Lancaster goods: Facets of  job satisfaction and overall job satisfaction. The Journal 

of  Socio-Economics, 37(5), 1906-1920. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2008.04.003. 
Sohail, M. S., & Jang, J. (2017). Understanding the relationships among internal marketing practices, job satisfaction, service quality and 

customer satisfaction: An empirical investigation of  Saudi Arabia’s service employees. International Journal of  Tourism Sciences, 
17(2), 67-85. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/15980634.2017.1294343. 

Sowmya, K., & Panchanatham, N. (2011). Factors influencing job satisfaction of  banking sector employees in Chennai, India. Journal of  Law 
and Conflict Resolution, 3(5), 76-79. 

Spector, P. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes and consequences (Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks Inc.: CA: Sage Publications. 
Stoi, E. (2016). Happiness and well-being at work. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Universitat Jaume   

Tadić, M., Bakker, A. B., & Oerlemans, W. G. (2013). Work happiness among teachers: A day reconstruction study on the role of  self-
concordance. Journal of  School Psychology, 51(6), 735-750. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2013.07.002. 

Tariq, M., Ramzan, M., & Riaz, A. (2013). The impact of  employee turnover on the efficiency of  the organization. Interdiciplinary Journal of  
Contemporary Research in Business, 4(9), 700-711. 

Tasnim, Z. (2016). Happiness at workplace: Building a conceptual framework. World, 6(2), 66-75. 
Tessema, T. M., & Soeters, J. L. (2006). Challenges and prospects of  HRM in developing countries: Testing the HRM–performance link in 

the Eritrean civil service. The International Journal of  Human Resource Management, 17(1), 86-105. Available at: 
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190500366532. 

Vasconcelos, A. F. (2008). Broadening even more the internal marketing concept. European Journal of  Marketing, 42(11/12), 1246-1264. 
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560810903664. 

Vermeeren, B., Kuipers, B., & Steijn, B. (2014). Does leadership style make a difference? Linking HRM, job satisfaction, and organizational 
performance. Review of  Public Personnel Administration, 34(2), 174-195. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371x13510853. 

Warr, P. (2007). Work, happiness, and unhappiness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 
Wegge, J., Van Dick, R., Fisher, G. K., Wecking, C., & Moltzen, K. (2006). Work motivation, organisational identification, and well-being in 

call centre work. Work & Stress, 20(1), 60-83. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370600655553. 
Wesarat, P., Sharif, Y. M., & Abdul Majid, A. (2015). A conceptual framework of  happiness at the workplace. Asian Social Science, 11(2), 78-88. 

Available at: https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v11n2p78. 
Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (2007). The happy/productive worker thesis revised. In J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel and 

human resource management (Vol. 26, pp. 269-313). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Ltd. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Citation | Rehan Sohail Butt; Xuezhou Wen; Rana Yassir Hussain 
(2020). Mediated Effect of Employee Job Satisfaction on Employees’ 
Happiness at Work and Analysis of Motivational Factors: Evidence 
from Telecommunication Sector. Asian Business Research Journal, 
5: 19-27. 
History:  
Received: 30 June 2020 
Revised: 4 August 2020 
Accepted: 16 August 2020 
Published: 7 September 2020 
Licensed: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons 

Attribution 3.0 License  
Publisher:  Eastern Centre of Science and Education 
 

Acknowledgement: All authors contributed equally to the conception and 
design of the study. 
Funding: This study received no specific financial support.    
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing 
interests. 
Transparency: The authors confirm that the manuscript is an honest, 
accurate, and transparent account of the study was reported; that no vital 
features of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the 
study as planned have been explained. 
Ethical: This study follows all ethical practices during writing.  
 

Eastern Centre of Science and Education is not responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability, etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use 
of the content. Any queries should be directed to the corresponding author of the article. 

 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00483480410528832
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00483480410528832
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

