Coca-Cola & Pepsi: A Dissertation Project Report ON "Employee Job Satisfaction Comparative Analysis Between"

A DISSERTATION
PROJECT REPORT
ON
“EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN”
COCA-COLA & PEPSI

Chapter -I
Introduction
1. INTRODUCTION:
Job satisfaction in regards to one’s feeling or state of mind regarding nature of their work. Job
can be influenced by variety of factors like quality of one’s relationship with their supervisor,
quality of physical environment in which they work, degree of fulfillment in their work, etc.
Positive attitude towards job are equivalent to job satisfaction where as negative attitude towards
job has been defined variously from time to time. In short job satisfaction is a person’s attitude
towards job. Job satisfaction is an attitude which results from balancing & summation of many
specific likes and dislikes experienced in connection with the job- their evaluation may rest
largely upon one’s success or failure in the achievement of personal objective and upon
perceived combination of the job and combination towards these ends.
According to pestonejee, Job satisfaction can be taken as a summation of employee’s feelings in

four important areas. These are:
Job-nature of work (dull, dangerous, interesting), hours of work,fellow workers,
opportunities on the job for promotion and advancement (prospects), overtime regulations,
interest in work, physical environment, and machines and tools.
Management- supervisory treatment, participation, rewards and punishments, praises and
blames, leaves policy and favoritism.
Social relations- friends and associates, neighbors, attitudes towards people in
community, participation in social activity socialibility and caste barrier.
Personal adjustment- health and emotionality.
Job satisfaction is an important indicator of how employees feel about their job and a predictor of
work behavior such as organizational citizenship, Absenteeism, Turnover.
Job satisfaction benefits the organization includes reduction in complaints and grievances,
absenteeism, turnover, and termination; as well as improved punctuality and worker morale. Job
satisfaction is also linked with a healthier work force and has been found to be a good indicator
of longevity.
Job satisfaction is not synonyms with organizational morale, which the possessions of feeling
have being accepted by and belonging to a group of employees through adherence to common
goals and confidence in desirability of these goals.
1.1 NEED OF THE STUDY
Any organization to be effectively performed should have sound HR policy. A sound job
satisfaction comprises..,
Good relations between employees and employer.
Good relation among staffs and management
Highly developed mechanism for individual development
1.2 RELEVANCE OF STUDY

It is essential for an organization to take essential steps for maintaining proper job satisfaction of the
employees in the organization to make staff’s life more productive and qualitative . The main objective
of the study is to know whether proper activity to increase job satisfaction level is being implemented in
the organization . The primary motive of this survey is to check out the employees requirement , opinion
& feedback and then how to work on these.
Exploratory and descriptive research is concerned with discovering the general form of the problem
situation model the researcher proceeds without fixed plan, although he may have a tentative checklist
guide . His strategy is to follow each clue or idea as far a s it seems profitable .although any approaches of
research tends to rely on secondary data, small scale surveys or simple experiments, case analysis and
subjective evaluation of the result .
1.3 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

Job satisfaction of the employees has been analyzed on the basis of the following job related
factors.
Salary and monetary benefits

Job security
Promotion policy
Working environment
Employees participation in management
Freedom of expressions
Safety
Interest taken by superiors
Superiors and sub-ordinate relationship
1.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The main aim of the study is to analyze and examine level of job satisfaction among the COCA COLA &
PEPSI employees and to know the problems faced by the employees of the various categories. The
specific objectives are as follows: .
o To study the level of satisfaction among of employees relating to the nature of the job and other
factors.
o To study the factors affecting towards the job satisfaction.
o To study the factors affecting to the Demography factor towards the job satisfaction.
1.5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The methodology followed for conducting the study includes the specification of research
design, sample design , questionnaire design, data collection and statically tools used for
analyzing the collected data.
Research design
The research design used for this study is of exploratory type .
Population
The total element of the universe from which sample is selected for the purpose of study is
known as population . The population of my research is the employees of COCA COLA. &
PEPSI
Sample s ize
All the items consideration in any field of inquiry constitutes a universe of population. In this research
only few items can be selected from the population for our study purpose. The item selected constitute
what is technically called sample . Here sample size is 100 employees from total population of COCA
COLA and PEPSI.
Data collection
The data source :- primary data and secondary data
Primary data:-
The primary data required for this project work was collected through questionnaires. This
method consist of preparing detailed questions covering the employee satisfaction standards in
the company. Thereafter it was distributed among 100 employees from total population of
COCA COLA. & PEPSI . And Randomly selected 60 people from there. Further, no names were
sought from those filling in this questionnaire so as to obtain their free and frank opinion as also
to protect their privacy
Secondary data:-
As secondary data is data which has been collected earlier for other proposes, the requirement of
this type of data with respect to this type of report was obtained from the company websites,
advertisements, journals.
The research approach:- survey method
The research instrument:-questionnaire method
The respondents:- COCA COLA. & PEPSI
Questionnaire schedule:-
Questions are framed in an way that answer reflects the ideas and thoughts respondents with
regard to level, of satisfaction of various factors of job satisfaction , the questionnaire has total
31 questions and liker scaling technique has been use for each questions
1. Highly Negative Influence
2. Negative Influence
3. No Influence
4. Influence
5. Highly Influence
1.6 LIMITATIONS
The sample colle cted is ve ry small compare d to the populat ion of the company .
Thus it may not bring out the e xact analysis.
Some of the re sponde nts do not re act favorably to the que stionnaire s.
It is possible that re sponde nts might have trie d to maintain consiste ncy in
te rms of the ir re sponse s.
Chapter – II
Literature Review & Theoretical Background
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Review Of Literature on level of satisfaction among of employees relating
to the nature of the job and other factors.
Hoppock (1935) was of the view that job satisfaction is any combination of
psychological, physiological and environmental circumstances, which cause a person truthfully,
satisfied with his/her job. Locke (1976) defined job satisfaction as” a pleasurable or positive
emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experience
Shoukry and Otis (1964) have indicated that the level of job satisfaction increases in the
earlier period of employment and declines in the terminal periods.
Snyder and Ferguson (1976) investigated the empirical relationship between self-concept
and job satisfaction. The sample consisted of 600 employees of Ohio University and of business
establishments located in or near Athens, Ohio. Sixty nine per cent of the sample were females
and thirty six per cent of the sample were clerical workers. The authors concluded that in job
satisfaction research, self-concept can serve as an independent variables only to a limited degree.
Pestonjee (1979) has reported that the interaction between occupational levels, security
and alienation casts a significant influence on job satisfaction.
According to Mishra (1980), job satisfaction is a feeling accruing out of different

conditions within a job and outside the job.
Pleitner (1982) has pointed out that job satisfaction results from the degree of
correspondence between the individual’s expectations on the one hand and the circumstances of
his job situation on the other, as compared by the individual employee.
Mira and Pestonjee (1990) in their study of bank employees have observed that middle
managers expressed the greatest degree of satisfaction followed by foremen and chiefs and then
by workers.
Rain, Lane & Steiner (1991) states that job satisfaction is correlated to life satisfaction
which means that people who are satisfied with life will tend to be satisfied with the job and
people who satisfied with job will tend to satisfied with their life.
Douglas, Stephen, Michael and Richard (1991) have observed in their study that the least
satisfied workers would be those who experienced autonomous work in the past, and are
frustrated by the lack of autonomy in their current positions.
Thoomkuzhy (1993) has emphasized that complete job satisfaction of the managers and
workers in Kerala cannot be taken at its face value; it must be related to rotation of jobs and
different unfamiliar places of work.
Lakshminarayan and Prabhakaran (1994) states that textile workers with less job
satisfaction have more job stress and who have more job satisfaction have less job stress. Job
satisfaction and job stress are inversely related, i.e., the more job satisfied individual will have
less job stress. They suggested that employee counseling should aim at coping strategies to
reduce job stress.
In a study conducted by Thomas and Sasikumar (2002) to determine factors which are
important in deciding job satisfaction of mangers in co-operative sector, the following were
found to be important – job security, opportunity to use knowledge and skill, opportunity to
participate in decision making connected with job, variety in job and challenge in job.
In a study on work ethics of the industrial work force in selected public and private sector
enterprises in Kerala, Wilson (2003) found that workers in the private sector are not satisfied
with the reward system, as compared to their counterparts in the public sector.
Jha and Pathak (2003) in their study of the nature of differences in the levels of job
satisfaction among executives of four public and private sector organizations of Eastern and
Northern part of India found the differences in different aspects of job satisfaction, viz., job
itself, pay and security were felt by the executives. These aspects were found to be significantly
higher in the case of private sector organizations as compared to public sector organisations.
Yadav (2004) states that nature of work or the job content also influences the level of job
satisfaction of employees in the organization.
Robbins (2004) observed that persons with high level of job satisfaction hold positive
attitudes about their jobs while persons who are dissatisfied hold negative attitudes about their
jobs.
In a study on employee attitude and job satisfaction, Saari and Judge (2004) found that
job dissatisfaction appears to be related to other withdrawal behaviours including lateness,
unionization, grievances, drug abuse and decision to retire.
Wayne, Musisca and Fleeson (2004) found that work to family conflict was negatively
related to job satisfaction, while work family facilitation was positively related to job
satisfaction.
Srivastava (2005) found from his study involving senior and middle managers in two
public sector companies that the changes in work and service conditions are largely positive,
resulting in greater job satisfaction than before.
Sharma and Jyothi (2006) state that level of job satisfaction derived by government
school teachers is modest. The maximum satisfaction is derived from the dimension of
principals’ behaviour and the minimum from pay and rewards, indicating high dissatisfaction
with the pay and rewards packages provided to them. Private School teachers are more satisfied
than government school teachers despite the poor package due to congenial
atmosphere in the private schools.
Kim Soonhee (2009) in his study on IT employees job satisfaction in the public sec tor
indicated that job clarity, effective communication with management, a participatory
management approach, organizational support of career development, opportunity for
advancement and family friendly policies are all significant variables affecting job satisfaction of
IT employees.
Leung and Olivia (2009) indicated negative correlation with job satisfaction across
societies. Results showed that social cynicism correlated negatively with job satisfaction
measurement concurrently, as was predictive of job satisfaction measured subsequently.
Vijaya Krishnan (2009) states that the likelihood of individuals seeking redress for
alleged injustices through external mechanisms could reduce if it perceived that there are
genuine internal attempts at the level of their individual manager to address personal concerns.
Every action taken by the HRM will be held irresponsible if they do not comply with the ethical
standards. As it is important for employees to adhere to ethics, it is equally
important for the HRM to build the standards for ethics.
Kaur (2010) in her study aimed at finding the level of job satisfaction of college teachers
of Punjab with respect to area, gender and type of institution. The study revealed that rural
college teachers were more satisfied as compared to urban college teachers, because of their low
expectations. Furthermore, government owned college teachers were more satisfied than
government aided and self-financed college teachers. She also states that higher socio economic
status and level of life satisfaction too encourage the college teacher for higher level of job
satisfaction.
Austin (2010) have investigated and presented the findings of twenty working
professionals to determine how workplace friendships influence career advancement and job
satisfaction. The data suggested that vital friendship is important, friendship matters in the
workplace, and vital friends influence job satisfaction and career advancement.
Review Of Literature on the factors affecting towards the job satisfaction
Inflow (1951) has stated that employees are dissatisfied in the earlyphase of their service
and that the first two years of service have the greatest depressing influence on job satisfaction.
Talachi (1960) has observed that lower job satisfaction should increase both labour
turnover and absenteeism.
Blum and Naylor (1968) have indicated that the level of job satisfaction and commitment
to work are the results of various attitudes an employee holds towards his job, towards factors
related to his job and towards life in general.
Ronan (1970) has studied the relative importance of eighteen job characteristics in
relation to job satisfaction and found that job security is not important to salaried workers but it
is important to both managerial and hourly workers.
Starcevich (1972) has identified certain job related factors such as feelings of
achievement, use of best abilities, challenging assignments, growth on the job and recognition
and ranked them among the most important factors for both job satisfaction and job
dissatisfaction regardless of the respondents’ occupational level.
Orpen and Pinshaw (1975) involved a sample of 100 insurance clerks. An individual’s
hierarchy of needs influences the relationship between job factors and job satisfaction. The
findings indicated that the correlation between job context or job content factors and overall job
satisfaction were not significant.
Prakasam (1976) has found that occupational level has some influence over the satisfiers
and dissatisfiers of employees. In higher level occupations, motivator factors act as satisfiers but
in lower level occupations both motivators and hygienic factors seem to act as satisfiers and
dissatisfiers.
Pathak (1977) has found that the most important job characteristics sought by the high
job satisfied group belonging to both the higher and the lower hierarchies and the low job
satisfied group belonging to the lower hierarchy is the opportunity for advancement.
Ali (1978) has revealed that management levels are fertile grounds for job satisfaction
and work motivation.
Rahman (1994) in his study of job satisfaction of supervisors in the garment industry
suggest that open communication, job security, supervisory status, recognition for good work
and overtime are considered more important for job satisfaction than job status, working
environment and autonomy in work.
Rothausen (1994) argued that depending upon one’s parental status the factors that
influence or determine job satisfaction would differ. Rothausen reported unique factors do
appear to determine overall job satisfaction for parent workers.
Thomas and Ganster (1995) examined the effects of two contextual elements, family
supportive policies and family supportive supervisors on work family conflict and individual
level strain variables. They found direct and indirect support for the effect of family supportive
supervisors on job satisfaction. Their findings indicate work family conflict and control partially
mediated the relationship between the contextual elements and job satisfaction.
Ilies and Judge (2003) attempted to identify personality traits that might mediate the
relationship between genetics and job satisfaction. They found that personality traits only
partially mediated this relationship and suggested that perhaps other heritab le traits, such as
intelligence, may better explain this relationship.
Rao (2004) in his article stated that reward systems have undergone a sea change since
globalization. In today’s talent market place, one can retain one’s best people only by
differentiating in their favour and by offering a mix of monetary and non-monetary rewards. The
key though is not to reward high, but to reward the right people in the right way.
Shyam (2004) states that among health professionals working in public sector, there are
enough reasons to experience dissatisfaction. There is disparity in income/salary, between those
working in public sector and private sector.
Sharma and Kumari (2004) found that public sector employees are in a position in terms
of their job satisfaction than the employees of private sector organisations. Top management
employees are more satisfied than the middle and lower level employees. It was also revealed
that the public sector employees are more dissatisfied with their working conditions and
incentives than the employees of the private sector.
Chakraborty (2004) in a case study on job satisfaction among teachers in educational
institutions of Katwa Muncipality in the district of Burdwan, in West Bengal found that teachers’
job satisfaction not only depends on nature of job but also on institutional scenario, facilities,
salaries and standard of the students.
Clark and Tamara (2008) have revealed that there was strong correlation between
opportunities for promotions and job satisfaction. The results indicate that external needs,
opportunities for promotions, and pay contribute to job satisfaction and reduction of turnover
among employees within insurance organizations. The problem with job satisfaction and
turnover is a concern within insurance industry.
Bennet (2009) examined the relationship between the subordinates’ perception of the
leadership style of IT managers and one of three dependent measures predicting subordinate
extra effort, manager effectiveness and satisfaction with management.
Wu and Wang (2010) suggest the importance of taking personality variables into
consideration during the process of evaluating job satisfaction. Job satisfaction should not only
be related to extrinsic factors but also associated with individual differences of dispo sitional
tendency. Nurses with positive evaluation and expectation towards self and others tend to report
higher job satisfaction.
Jain (2010) analysed the impact of liberalization on HRM practices in public sector banks
over a period of almost two decades. Variables were measured and conclusions were drawn
striking a blend between micro level changes and their consequent impact on banking operations.
Majority of the respondents agreed that the primary reasons for improved productivity post
liberalization were use of IT, Infrastructure, competition in the market place and outsourcing
back office functions.
Review of literature on the factors affecting to the demography factor

towards the job satisfaction
Centers and Cantril (1946) have conducted their studies on job satisfaction in relation to
the marital status of workers and found that married workers like their jobs more than unmarried
workers do.
Gannon and Hendrickson (1967) conducted an exploratory study of the career orientation
and job satisfaction of wives employed in retailing businesses as either clerks or officer workers.
The findings showed that the women were more satisfied with their jobs when job involvement
was high.
Seybolt (1976) explored the relationship between three characteristics of the work
environment (pay, job variety and task complexity) and job satisfaction and the moderating
effect of level of education on these relationships. The results showed that individuals with grade
school education in jobs with low variety were significantly more satisfied with their work than
those with high school or college education in low variety jobs
Renu, Harveen and Renu (1984) have revealed that higher the age and the greater the
number of dependents, the lesser will be the job satisfaction.
Mendhi (1985) has examined the need satisfaction and job attitudes of managers and
observed that job dissatisfaction is highest for those public sector managers who have never
changed their jobs.
Irene and Albert (1989) have indicated that sex and educational level cannot significantly
account for differences in job satisfaction levels, where as occupation, age and length of service
have a significant impact as some of the satisfaction dimensions.
Dayanandan (1997) in his study of Human Resource Management in co-operative banks
found that satisfaction with co-employees was favourable among both the senior and junior level
employees. He also states that increased satisfaction was noticeable among the senior level
employees with regard to environment and working conditions of banks in comparison with
junior level employees.
Thomas (2001) in his study found that job satisfaction level is much higher in managers
of non-credit co-operatives. They also found that majority of managers in co-operatives are
unsatisfied with the present salary structure.
Bruck (2002) examined whether there would be differential relationship across the job
satisfaction facets. These tests revealed no significant differences across facets for any of the
conflict measures. These results provide important implications for practitioners who are
implementing organizational interventions designed to combat work family conflict.
Huang and Evert (2004) state that job level is positively related to job satisfaction in
individualistic countries but not in collectivist countries. Moreover, the positive relationship
between job level and job satisfaction holds only for jobs with much opportunity to use one’s
skills and abilities especially in individualistic countries. Job level is even nega tively related to
job satisfaction in jobs with little opportunity to use one’s skills and abilities in collectivist
countries.
Sizer (2008) examined the effect of mentoring relationship on job satisfaction and
examined faculty members’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the mentoring relationship.
Findings suggest that faculty members with mentors have higher levels of job satisfaction than
faculty members without mentors.
Judge, Heller and Klingir (2008) indicated that the traits from all three taxonomie s
generally were significantly related to job satisfaction, even when the traits and job satisfaction
were measured with independent sources. However when all three typologies were examined
concurrently the core self evaluation typology was the only typology that was significantly
related to job satisfaction.
Edwards, Bell and Arthur (2008) indicate that the relationship between overall job
satisfaction and task and contextual performance were the same. There was a stronger
relationship between satisfaction with supervision and contextual performance compared to task
performance. This also states the importance of considering different facts with job satisfaction
and job performance relationship, as well as the importance of matching predictors and criteria in
terms of their levels of specificity
Chopra and Khan (2010) states that job satisfaction is a complex and multifaceted
concept, which can mean different things to different people.The Link between job satisfaction
and performance may prove to be a spurious relationship, instead, both satisfaction and
performance are the result of personality. Hence the behavioural aspect of HRM has to be kept in
mind by the organizational decision makers.
2.1 THEORETICAL ANALYSIS

There are vital differences among experts about the concept of job satisfaction. Basically, there
are four approaches/ theories of job satisfaction.
They are:
1) Fulfillment theory
2) Discrepancy theory
3) Equity theory
4) Two-factor theory
(1) Fulfillment theory

The main aim of this theory is to measure satisfaction in terms of rewards a person receives or
the extent to which his needs are satisfied. Job satisfaction cannot be regarded merely as a
function of how much a person receives from his job but it is the strength of the individual’s
desire of his level of aspiration in a particular area.
The main difficulty in his approach as observed by willing is that job satisfaction is not only a
function of what a person receives but also what he feels he should receive, as there would be
considerable difference in the actual and expectations of persons.
(2) Discrepancy Theory
The proponents of this theory is that satisfaction is the function of what a person actually
receives from his job satisfaction and what he thanks receives or expects to receive.
This approach does not make it clear whether or not over satisfaction is a part of dissatisfaction
and if so, how it differs from dissatisfaction.
(3) Equity Theory
The proponents of this theory are of the view that a persons satisfaction determined by
his perceived equity which in from is determined by his input-output balance when compared to
others input-output balance. Input-output balance is the perceived ratio of what a person received
from his job relative to what he contributes to the job.
(4) Two-Factor Theory
This theory was developed by Herzberg, Manusner, Paterson and COCA COLAwell who
identified certain factors as satisfiers and dissatisfies.
Factors such as achievement, recognition responsibility etc., are satisfiers, the presence of which
causes satisfaction but their absence does not result in dissatisfaction on the other hand the
factors such as supervision salary, working conditions etc are dis-satisfiers the absence of which
cause dissatisfaction however their presence does not result in job satisfaction.This theory is
considered invalid as a person can get both satisfaction and dissatisfaction at the same time.
Again Job satisfaction theories have a strong overlap with theories explaining human motivation.
The most common and prominent theories in this area include: Maslow’s needs hierarchy
theory[; Herzberg’s motivator-hygiene theory; the Job Characteristics Model; and the
dispositional approach . These theories are described and discussed below.
Hierarchy of needs
Although commonly known in the human motivation literature, Maslow’s needs hierarchy theory
was one of the first theories to examine the important contributors to job satisfaction. The theory suggests
that human needs form a five-level hierarchy (Figure 1) consisting of: physiological needs,
safety, belongingness/love, esteem, and self-actualisation. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs postulates
that there are essential needs that need to be met first (such as, physiological needs and safety),
before more complex needs can be met (such as, belonging and esteem).
Maslow’s Five-level hierarchy
Maslow’s needs hierarchy was developed to explain human motivation in general. However, its
main tenants are applicable to the work setting, and have been used to explain job satisfaction.
Within an organisation, financial compensation and healthcare are some of the benefits which
help an employee meet their basic physiological needs. Safety needs can manifest itself through
employees feeling physically safe in their work environment, as well as job security and/ or
having suitable company structures and policies. When this is satisfied, the employee’s can focus
on feeling as though they belong to the workplace. This can come in the form of positive
relationships with colleagues and supervisors in the workplace, and whether or not they feel they
are a part of their team/ organisation. Once satisfied, the employee will seek to feel as though
they are valued and appreciated by their colleagues and their organisation. The final step is
where the employee seeks to self-actualise; where they need to grow and develop in order to
become everything they are able of becoming. Although it could be seen as separate, the
progressions from one step to the next all contribute to the process of self-actualisation.
Therefore, organisations looking to improve employee job satisfaction should attempt to meet
the basic needs of employees before progressing to address higher-order needs. However, more
recently this approach is becoming less popular as it fails to consider the cognitive process of the
employee and, in general, lacks empirical supporting evidence. In addition, others have found
fault with the final stage of self-actualisation. The lack of a clear definition and conceptual
understanding of self-actualisation, paired with a difficulty of measuring it, makes it difficult to
measure what the final goal is or when it has been achieved.
Motivator-Hygiene Theory
Herzberg’s motivator-hygiene theory suggests that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction are not
two opposite ends of the same continuum, but instead are two separate and, at times, even
unrelated concepts. ‘Motivating’ factors like pay and benefits, recognition and achievement need
to be met in order for an employee to be satisfied with work. On the other hand, ‘hygiene’ factors
(such as, working conditions, company policies and structure, job security, interaction with
colleagues and quality of management) are associated with job dissatisfaction.
Graphical Representation of Herzberg’s Description of Satisfiers and Dissatisfiers
Because both the hygiene and motivational factors are viewed as independent, it is possible that
employees are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. This theory postulates that when hygiene factors
are low the employee is dissatisfied, but when these factors are high it means the employee is not
dissatisfied (or neutral), but not necessarily satisfied. Whether or not an employee is satisfied is
dependent on the motivator factors. Moreover, it is thought that when motivators are met the
employee is thought to be satisfied. This separation may aid in accounting for the complexity of
an employee’s feelings, as they might feel both satisfied and dissatisfied at the same time; or
neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
Whilst the Motivator-Hygiene theory was crucial in first distinguishing job satisfaction from
dissatisfaction, the theory itself has received little empirical support. Herzberg’s original study
has been criticised for having been conducted with a weak methodology . As a result, subsequent
attempts to test this theory have obtained mixed results with some researchers supporting it and
others not.
Job Characteristics Model

The Job Characteristics Model (JCM explains that job satisfaction occurs when the work
environment encourages intrinsically motivating characteristics. Five key job characteristics:
skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy and feedback, influence three
psychological states (Figure 3). Subsequently, the three psychosocial states then lead to a numbe r
of potential outcomes, including: job satisfaction. Therefore from an organisations’ point of
view, it is thought that by improving the five core job dimensions this will subsequently lead to a
better work environment and increased job satisfaction.
Job Characteristics Model [9]
Unlike the Maslow or Herzberg’s theories, the JCM has received more empirical support.
However, it has also drawn criticism as many studies utilising this model investigate the direct
impact core job dimensions have on personal and work outcomes, completely disregarding the
critical psychological states . Despite this, the JCM and its impact on job satisfaction has been
the subject of three reviews , which further lend support to the model. Further to this, Behson and
colleagues’ meta-analysis of 13 studies specifically focused on the role of critical psychological
states, and found these psychological states to play a crucial practical and theoretical role within
the JCM.
Dispositional approach
This dispositional approach suggests that job satisfaction is closely related to personality. It
postulates that an individual has a strong predisposition towards a certain level of satisfaction,
and that these remain fairly constant and stable across time . The evidence for this approach can
be divided into indirect studies and direct studies. Judge and colleagues have reviewed these
areas in greater detail.
The indirect evidence comes from studies that do not explicitly measure personality. Data from
the National Longitudinal Studies in the United States found that measures of job satisfaction
tend to remain fairly stable over 2, 3 and 5 year periods . This even includes significant
employment changes, such as: changes in employer or occupation. Interestingly, a twin based
study ] examined 34 twins whom had been raised independently of one another. This study found
genetic factors accounted for 30% of job satisfaction levels when assessed in later life.
The indirect studies, however, are vulnerable to a number of important criticisms, namely that
other unaccounted factors might be contributing to job satisfaction levels. This highlights the
respective importance of studies directly assessing the role of personality. Most prominently,
there is research evidence that self-esteem, self-efficacy, emotional stability and locus of control
comprise a broad personality construct, which contribute to how an individual sees themselves .
A review of 169 correlations between each of four affective constructs (i.e., self-esteem, self-
efficacy, emotional stability and locus of control) and job satisfaction, found that as self-reported
levels of self-esteem, self-efficacy, emotion stability and locus of control increased so did job
satisfaction . Similarly, investigations into the link between the five factor model of personality
and job satisfaction revealed neuroticism, conscientiousness and extraversion to have a moderate
relationships with job satisfaction .
2.2 DETERMINANTS OF JOB SATISFACTION

According to Abraham A. Kumar there two types of variables, which determine the job satisfaction of an
individua l. These are:
1. Organization Variables
2. Personal Variables
1. Organization variable s :
i. Occupational Le ve l : The higher the level of the job, the greater the satisfaction of the
individuals. This is because, higher level of jobs carry greater prestige and self -control.
This relationship between occupational level and job satisfaction stems from social
reference group theory in our society values some jobs more than others. Hence people in
values like them more than those who are in non-valued jobs. The relationship may also
stem from the need fulfillment theory.
ii. Job conte nt: Greater the variation in job content and less the repetitiveness with which
the tasks must be performed, the greater the satisfaction of the individuals involved.
Since job content in terms of variety and nature of tasks called for is a function of
occupational level. The theoretical arguments given above apply here also.
iii. Cons ide rate Le ade rs hip: People to be treated with consideration. Hence considerate
leadership results in higher job satisfaction than in considerate leadership.
iv. Pay and Promotional opportunitie s : All other things being equal these two variables
are positively related to job satisfaction.
v. Inte raction among Employe es: Here the question is, when interaction in the work group
is a source of job satisfaction and when it is not.
Inte raction is more satisfying whe n:
a) It results in the cognition that other persons attitudes are similar to ones own since,
this permits are ready calculability of the others behavior and constitutes a validation
of ones self.
b) It results in being accepted by other and
c) It facilitates and achievement of goals.
2. Pe rs onal Variable s
For some people, it appears that most jobs will be dissatisfying irrespective of the
organizational conditions, where for other most jobs will be satisfying personal variable for this
difference.
i) Age
ii) Educational Level

iii) Role perception
iv) Sex
2.3 MEASUREMENT OF JOB SATISFACTION

Type of measurement
The measurement of job satisfaction can be classified into three different methods ] : single
question, global measurement, and facet measurement.
The single question asks only one question as an indication of how satisfied an employee is at
work. This is commonly found in large surveys, such as: the US National Longitudinal Survey.
The Survey asks ‘How do you feel about the job you have now?’, and requires respondents to
answer on a scale (like it very much, like it fairly well, dislike it somewhat, dislike it very
much) . Despite the assumption that having more questions can obtain more objective and
accurate results as well as being less prone to error, research has shown that asking a single
question, either on overall job satisfaction or on individual facets of job satisfaction can be
equally as effective . Proponents of this approach believe that employees generally know how
happy they are, and, therefore, there is little point in asking them multiple questions about the
same thing.
The global measurement seeks to obtain a single score representing the overall job satisfaction an
employee has . Several questions or statements are provided relating to different aspects of the
job (such as, pay, work activities, working conditions and career prospects), but combines them
to provide an overall score. On the other hand, facet measurements have questions or items for
these different areas and provides one score to represent each area. Established global measures
include the Job Satisfaction Scales and the Overall Job Satisfaction Scale ; whilst the Job
Description Index (JDI)] is one established facet measure.
The availability of diverse job satisfaction measurements means those intending to measure this
concept have the option of choosing a particular measure which best fits their purpose. However,
the multiple options can make comparisons difficult, while a poor choice of measurement can
lead to unreliable or invalid outcomes .
Issues with measurements
Despite the availability of questions and measures for assessing job satisfaction, there are a few
issues that need to be taken into consideration when selecting a suitable measure and when
interpreting the results. The prolific number of measures of job satisfaction has raised issues
surrounding the reliability and validity of them. This is further complicated when assessing
across different cultures, languages and ages as they can all confound the results obtained.
Reliability and validity

The popularity of job satisfaction has lead to numerous measures being created for this concept.
Unfortunately, many of them, including some by academics and practitioners, are simply not
sufficiently valid or reliable . This means the measure might not accurately measure job
satisfaction, or that it is not able to provide consistent results. Van Saane and
colleagues reviewed 29 commonly used job satisfaction measures they found in the academic
literature: examining the validity (i.e., does it measure what it is supposed to) and reliability (i.e,
how consistent are the results on the measure) of the reviewed measures. The study found that
only seven of the measures were found to have adequate validity and reliability. Consequently,
those intending to measure job satisfaction have to ensure that the measure being used has been
shown to be both reliable and valid.
Cross cultural issues

Organisations and practitioners that work across different national and cultural boundaries have to be
aware of the suitability of the chosen measure to a particular workforce . Using a different measure for
each workforce makes comparison more difficult . However, the use of the same measure across different
countries can be problematic as different workforces interpret it differently.
The use of any scales across national boundaries raises various issues, and users of job satisfaction scales
should bear in mind how two particular issues, language and culture, might affect their results. Language
has a powerful influence on how individuals perceive their reality, as various languages bring about
different labels for concepts and objects. When using a scale in two separate countries which speak the
same language (i.e. the United Kingdom and Australia) there are fewer issues than when the measure is
presented in a different language. Not only does the similar language imply similar understanding, but the
one language used means translation is not required. This avoids having discrepancy between the original
and the translated version, which can affect the meaning of the measure; either due to a lack of
compatible vocabulary or because of poor translation . However, when a scale of the same language is
administered in two different cultures it can lead to respondents with different values understanding the
scale differently . Alternatively, how rating scales are interpreted is impacted by culture. Riodan and
Vanderberg found a rating of ‘4’ on a 1-7 point scale had different meaning to Koreans and Americans.
Despite these issues there are job satisfaction measures that have been demonstrated to be
reliable and valid across different languages and cultures. For example, Ryan and
colleagues found similar satisfaction scores when respondents from the US and Australia
completed the same measure in English. Across languages, the Nordic Employee
Index consistently assesses job satisfaction across the Nordic nations. Similarly, Liu and
colleagues examined the German Job Satisfaction Survey filled out by employees in 18
countries, in German, English and Spanish. They found similarities across countries, which have
the same language or a similar cultural background.
Age
The relationship between job satisfaction and age has been shown to have either a ‘U’ or positive
relationship. In the ‘U’ relationship , high satisfaction in early and latter career is separated with
a dip in the middle. Using a sample of over 5000 employees in the UK, Clarke and
colleagues found that job satisfaction was high amongst those in their teens, and then went down
when they were between 20 and 30, increased again in their 40s to the same level as those in
their teens, and progressing higher in their 50s and 60s. Alternatively, some have shown a
gradual increase in satisfaction as age increased [.
Both approaches demonstrate higher satisfaction in older age, which could be due to a number of
reasons, including that :
Older employees might have lowered their expectations over time and learnt to be more
satisfied.
Unhappy older employees may be more likely to take early retirement and leave the
workforce, leaving the more satisfied older employees.
Older employees would have had more time to change jobs and end up in a position in which
they are happy with.
Due to a lack of longitudinal studies, the differences between younger and older employees
might be due to a generational difference.
2.4 FACTOR AFFECTING JOB SATISFACTION

Hoppock the Earliest investigator in the field in , 1935 suggest that there are six major
components of job satisfaction. These are as under:
o The way the individual reacts to unpleasant situations,

o The facility with which he adjusted himself with other person The relative status
in the social and economic group with which he identifies himself
o The nature of work in relation to abilities, interest and preparation of
worker
o Security
o Loyalty
Herberg, mausaer, Peterson and capwell in 1957 reviewed more than 150 studies and listed
various job factors of job satisfaction. These are briefly defined one by one as follows:
1. Intrinsic aspect of job
It includes all of the many aspects of the work, which would tend to be constant for the work
regardless of where the work was performed. 2.Supervision
This aspect of job satisfaction pertains to relationship of worker with his immediate superiors.
Supervision, as a factor, generally influences job satisfaction.
3. Working conditions
This includes those physical aspects of environment which are not necessary a part of the work.
Hours are included this factor because it is primarily a function of organization, affecting the
individuals comfort and convenience in much the same way as other physical working
conditions.
4. Wage and salaries

This factor includes all aspect of job involving present monitory remuneration for work done
5. Opportunities for advancement
It includes all aspect of job which individual sees as potential sources of betterment of
economic position, organizational status or professional experience.
6. Security
It is defined to include that feature of job situation, which leads to assurance for continued
employment, either within the same company or within same type of work profession.
7. Company & management
It includes the aspect of worker’s immediate situation, which is a function of organizational

administration and policy. It also involves the relationship of employee with all company
superiors above level of immediate supervision.
8. Social aspect of job
It includes relationship of worker with the employees specially those employees at same or
nearly same level within the organization.
9. Communication
It includes job situation, which involves spreading the information in any dire ction within the
organization. Terms such as information of employee’s status, information on new
developments, information on company line of authority, suggestion system, etc, are used in
literature to represent this factor.
10. Benefits
It includes those special phases of company policy, which attempts to prepare the worker for
emergencies, illness, old age, also. Company allowances for holidays, leaves and vacations are
included within this factor.
Chapter – III
COMPANY PROFILE
COMPANY PROFILE OF PEPSI
PepsiCo Inc. is an American multinational food, snack and beverage corporation headquartered
in Purchase, New York, United States, with interests in the manufacturing, marketing, and
distribution of grain-based snack foods, beverages, and other products. PepsiCo was formed in
1965 with the merger of the Pepsi-Cola Company and Frito-Lay, Inc. PepsiCo has since
expanded from its namesake product Pepsi to a broader range of food and beverage brands, the
largest of which includes an acquisition of Tropicana in 1998 and of Quaker Oats in 2001, which
added the Gatorade brand to its portfolio.
As of January 26, 2012, 22 of PepsiCo's brands generated retail sales of more than $1 billion
apiece, and the company's products were distributed across more than 200 countries, resulting in
annual net revenues of $43.3 billion. Based on net revenue, PepsiCo is the second largest food
and beverage business in the world. Within North America, PepsiCo is the largest food and
beverage business by net revenue.
Indra Krishnamurthy Nooyi has been the chief executive of PepsiCo since 2006. The company's
beverage distribution and bottling is conducted by PepsiCo as well as by licensed bottlers in
certain regions. Approximately 274,000 employees [3] generated $66.415 billion in revenue as of
2014.
COMPANY PROFILE OF COCA-COLA
Coca-Cola is a carbonated soft drink.[1] It is produced by The Coca-Cola Company of Atlanta,

Georgia, and is often referred to simply as Coke (a registered trademark of The Coca-Cola
Company in the United States since March 27, 1944). Originally intended as a patent medicine
when it was invented in the late 19th century by John Pemberton, Coca-Cola was bought out by
businessman Asa Griggs Candler, whose marketing tactics led Coke to its dominance of the
world soft-drink market throughout the 20th century. The name refers to two of its original
ingredients: kola nuts, a source of caffeine, and coca leaves. The current formula of Coca-Cola
remains a trade secret, although a variety of reported recipes and experimental recreations have
been published.
The company produces concentrate, which is then sold to licensed Coca-Cola bottlers throughout
the world. The bottlers, who hold exclusive territory contracts with the company, produce
finished product in cans and bottles from the concentrate in combination with filtered water and
sweeteners. A typical 12 oz (355 ml) can contains 38g of sugar (usually in the form of HFCS).
The bottlers then sell, distribute and merchandise Coca-Cola to retail stores, restaurants and
vending machines. The Coca-Cola Company also sells concentrate for soda fountains to major
restaurants and food service distributors.
The Coca-Cola Company has, on occasion, introduced other cola drinks under the Coke brand
name. The most common of these is Diet Coke, with others including Caffeine-Free Coca-Cola,
Diet Coke Caffeine-Free, Coca-Cola Cherry, Coca-Cola Zero, Coca-Cola Vanilla, and special
versions with lemon, lime, or coffee. In 2013, Coke products could be found in over 200
countries worldwide, with consumers downing more than 1.8 billion company beverage servings
each day.
Based on Interbrand's best global brand study of 2015, Coca-Cola was the world's third most
valuable brand.
Chapter -IV
ANALYSIS
4 .ANALYSIS ON FREQUENCIES:-
Frequencies on Age
Age
Frequenc Percent Valid Cumulative
y Percent Percent
21-30 32 53.3 53.3 53.3
31-40 22 36.7 36.7 90.0
40 above 6 10.0 10.0 100.0
Total 60 100.0 100.0
Interpretation:-
On this two Factory maximum no of person working in Age between 21-30.And very less person
are working on above 40 as an senior executive officers. And 22% Persons Working as
executive officers.
Frequencies on Gender
Ge nde r
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
male 40 66.7 66.7 66.7
Female 20 33.3 33.3 100.0
Total 60 100.0 100.0
Interpretation:-
Here Large no of workers are male And few persons are Female Members working on various
source. This is the factory may be the female persons are not interested to do work on here.
Frequencies on Marital Status
Marital Status
Percent
Married 30 50.0 50.0 50.0
unmarried 26 43.3 43.3 93.3
Widow 1 1.7 1.7 95.0
widower 1 1.7 1.7 96.7
Separate/Divorced 2 3.3 3.3 100.0
Total 60 100.0 100.0
Interpretation:-
Large no of Married People are Working on there Large No of Married peoples are male and
Few Female .And 43% workers are Unmarried On their majority age between 21 -30.And very
less no of widow and divorced working there.
Frequencies on Distances
Dis tance in KM
Percent
upto 10 9 15.0 15.0 15.0
11-20 36 60.0 60.0 75.0
21-30 15 25.0 25.0 100.0
Total 60 100.0 100.0
Interpretation:-
Very Few workers are living near industry i.e. in between 10 km. Few Persons are coming to
Industry 21-30 KM and Large no of Workers are coming to industry from 21-30 KM.
Frequencies on Educational Qualification
Educational Qaualification
Frequenc Percent Valid Cumulative
y Percent Percent
sslc 5 8.3 8.3 8.3
+2 11 18.3 18.3 26.7
Graduat 29 48.3 48.3 75.0
e
Pg 10 16.7 16.7 91.7
Other 5 8.3 8.3 100.0
Total 60 100.0 100.0
Interpretation:-
Large no Of Employee are Graduate .those are posting in Officer Post .and PG employee are
posting on Senior Executive Post. Some people are come by the dong special course and their
percentage is 5.And some of employees are also Just Pass SSLC and +2.
Frequencies of PresentPosition
Pre s e ntPos ition

Percent
Officer 30 50.0 50.0 50.0
Clerk 19 31.7 31.7 81.7
Sub staff 11 18.3 18.3 100.0
Total 60 100.0 100.0
Interpretation:
Maximum no of employee are Officers are here few no of clerks are present to support them and
very few no of sub staff employees are present to help and give the information around them.
Frequencies of Experience
Expe rie nce

Percent
below 5 28 46.7 46.7 46.7
5-10 21 35.0 35.0 81.7
11-15 7 11.7 11.7 93.3
16-20 3 5.0 5.0 98.3
21-25 1 1.7 1.7 100.0
Total 60 100.0 100.0
Interpretation:
Maximum employees have experience below 5 years and some persons have experience in 5 -10
yrs. few persons have work experience is 16-20years and very few persons are in between in 21-
25 yrs.
Frequencies of Monthly Income
Monthly Income
Percent
upto 10000 11 18.3 18.3 18.3
10001-20000 17 28.3 28.3 46.7
20001-30000 18 30.0 30.0 76.7
30001-40000 9 15.0 15.0 91.7
above 40000 5 8.3 8.3 100.0
Total 60 100.0 100.0
Interpretation:-
Maximum employee are getting monthly salary between 20001-30000 on the basis of experience
and qualification. Those are having very low qualification with less no of work experience
getting salary between 10001-20000.New fresher and less qualified employees are getting salary
10000.And few high Qualification with experience get salary between 30001 -40000.Very few
person High Qualification with more experience getting salary on above 40000.
4.1 MEAN
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Salary & allowances 60 1 5 3.22 1.462
Benefits and services 60 1 5 2.97 1.314
Risk 60 1 5 3.47 1.241
Provides freedom 60 1 5 3.25 1.348
Challenging 60 1 5 3.20 1.471
Provided training 60 1 5 2.97 1.402
Opportunities 60 1 5 3.37 1.377
Enhances social status 60 1 6 3.38 1.316
Monotonous duties 60 1 5 2.97 1.365
Recognition gained 60 1 5 2.95 1.431
Give prizes & awards 60 1 5 3.10 1.537
Relationship with
60 1 5 2.98 1.295
public
Organizational policies 60 1 5 3.45 1.199
Recreational facilities 60 1 5 3.07 1.326
delegated to do work 60 1 5 3.18 1.384
Social concern 60 1 5 3.13 1.359
Union activities 60 1 5 3.08 1.510
relationship among co-
60 1 5 3.25 1.257
worker
Opportunity for
60 1 5 3.38 1.354
submitting suggestions.
working climate 60 1 5 3.37 1.473
Relationship for
60 1 5 3.17 1.428
encourages the work
safety 60 1 5 2.78 1.329
opportunity for
60 1 5 3.37 1.390
creativity
Problems 60 1 5 3.20 1.286
Psychological stress 60 1 5 3.33 1.298
Physical inabilities 60 1 5 3.32 1.359
Work load 60 1 5 3.18 1.347
Grievance redressal 60 1 5 3.05 1.512
Transfer policy 60 1 5 3.17 1.342
Promotion opportunity 60 1 5 3.52 1.269
Job security 60 1 5 3.52 1.321
60
Interpretation:-
Those Mean has come 3 or more than 3 employee are influence by that Non compensation and
benefits. Some of the mean has come below than 3 that Indicate that employees are less
influence By that Non compensation and benefits given by industry.
4.2 ANNOVA
Age
ANOVA
Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
Between Groups 7.131 2 3.566 1.707 .191
QJSV1 Within Groups 119.052 57 2.089
Total 126.183 59
Between Groups 2.518 2 1.259 .722 .490
Total 101.933 59
Between Groups .600 2 .300 .189 .828
Total 90.933 59
Between Groups .451 2 .225 .120 .887
Total 107.250 59
Between Groups 4.457 2 2.229 1.032 .363
Total 127.600 59
Between Groups 6.827 2 3.414 1.783 .177
Total 115.933 59
Between Groups 4.215 2 2.107 1.115 .335
Total 111.933 59
Between Groups .395 2 .198 .111 .895
Total 102.183 59
Between Groups 4.601 2 2.300 1.245 .296
Total 109.933 59
Between Groups .093 2 .047 .022 .978
Total 120.850 59
.348 2 .174 .071 .931
Between Groups
QJSV11 2.440
Within Groups 139.052 57
Total 139.400 59
Between Groups 2.911 2 1.456 .864 .427
Total 98.983 59
Between Groups 6.744 2 3.372 2.461 .094
Total 84.850 59
Between Groups 13.977 2 6.988 4.438 .016
Total 103.733 59
Between Groups 1.184 2 .592 .302 .741
Total 112.983 59
Between Groups 3.509 2 1.755 .949 .393
Total 108.933 59
Between Groups 1.690 2 .845 .363 .698
Total 134.583 59
Between Groups 3.451 2 1.725 1.095 .341
Total 93.250 59
Between Groups 5.717 2 2.859 1.590 .213
Total 108.183 59
Between Groups 16.692 2 8.346 4.276 .019
Total 127.933 59
Between Groups 3.524 2 1.762 .860 .429
Total 120.333 59
Between Groups 3.601 2 1.800 1.020 .367
Total 104.183 59
Between Groups 8.452 2 4.226 2.284 .111
Total 113.933 59
Between Groups 6.131 2 3.066 1.910 .157
Total 97.600 59
Between Groups 5.061 2 2.530 1.530 .225
Total 99.333 59
Between Groups 8.431 2 4.216 2.390 .101
Total 108.983 59
Between Groups 1.909 2 .954 .518 .599
Total 106.983 59
Between Groups .980 2 .490 .209 .812
Total 134.850 59
Between Groups 6.761 2 3.381 1.935 .154
Total 106.333 59
Between Groups .863 2 .432 .261 .771
Total 94.983 59
Between Groups .029 2 .014 .008 .992
Total 102.983 59
Interpretation:-
There is Significance differences occurs in Recreational Facilities ,Opportunity for submitting
suggestions and job security According to Difference Age Group. Experience persons are not
give it importance but the Fresher May give the importance to it.
GENDER
ANOVA
Squares
Between Groups 1.008 1 1.008 .467 .497
Total 126.183 59
Between Groups .008 1 .008 .005 .945
Total 101.933 59
Between Groups .033 1 .033 .021 .885
Total 90.933 59
Between Groups .075 1 .075 .041 .841
Total 107.250 59
Between Groups .000 1 .000 .000 1.000
Total 127.600 59
Between Groups .533 1 .533 .268 .607
Total 115.933 59
Between Groups .208 1 .208 .108 .743
Total 111.933 59
Between Groups 4.408 1 4.408 2.615 .111
Total 102.183 59
Between Groups .008 1 .008 .004 .947
Total 109.933 59
Between Groups .300 1 .300 .144 .705
Total 120.850 59
.075 1 .075 .031 .860
Between Groups
139.325 58 2.402
QJSV11 Within Groups
Total 139.400 59
1.408 1 1.408 .837 .364
QJSV12 Between Groups
Within Groups 97.575 58 1.682
Total 98.983 59
Between Groups .675 1 .675 .465 .498
Total 84.850 59
Between Groups 1.008 1 1.008 .569 .454
Total 103.733 59
Between Groups .208 1 .208 .107 .745
Total 112.983 59
Between Groups .008 1 .008 .004 .947
Total 108.933 59
Between Groups .533 1 .533 .231 .633
Total 134.583 59
Between Groups 1.200 1 1.200 .756 .388
Total 93.250 59
Between Groups 2.133 1 2.133 1.167 .285
Total 108.183 59
Between Groups .008 1 .008 .004 .951
Total 127.933 59
Between Groups .008 1 .008 .004 .950
Total 120.333 59
Between Groups .208 1 .208 .116 .734
Total 104.183 59
Between Groups .133 1 .133 .068 .795
Total 113.933 59
Between Groups .675 1 .675 .404 .528
Total 97.600 59
Between Groups .133 1 .133 .078 .781
QJSV25
Total 99.333 59
Between Groups .533 1 .533 .285 .595
Total 108.983 59
Between Groups .208 1 .208 .113 .738
Total 106.983 59
Between Groups .675 1 .675 .292 .591
Total 134.850 59
Between Groups 1.633 1 1.633 .905 .345
Total 106.333 59
Between Groups .133 1 .133 .082 .776
Total 94.983 59
Between Groups 2.133 1 2.133 1.227 .273
Total 102.983 59
Interpretation:-
There is no significance occurs. Because all employees have give same statement according to
provide Non compensation Benefit and other facilities.
MARITIAL STATUS
ANOVA
Squares
Between Groups 20.101 4 5.025 2.605 .046
Total 126.183 59
Between Groups 7.105 4 1.776 1.030 .400
Total 101.933 59
Between Groups 3.528 4 .882 .555 .696
Total 90.933 59
QJSV4 Between Groups 6.545 4 1.636 .894 .474
Total 107.250 59
Between Groups 2.433 4 .608 .267 .898
Total 127.600 59
Between Groups 8.733 4 2.183 1.120 .356
Total 115.933 59
Between Groups 12.151 4 3.038 1.674 .169
Total 111.933 59
Between Groups 2.517 4 .629 .347 .845
Total 102.183 59
Between Groups 5.528 4 1.382 .728 .577
Total 109.933 59
Between Groups 8.368 4 2.092 1.023 .404
Total 120.850 59
Between Groups 9.495 4 2.374 1.005 .413
Total 139.400 59
Between Groups 3.117 4 .779 .447 .774
Total 98.983 59
Between Groups 1.945 4 .486 .323 .862
Total 84.850 59
Between Groups 1.849 4 .462 .249 .909
Total 103.733 59
Between Groups 5.978 4 1.495 .768 .551
Total 112.983 59
Between Groups 2.313 4 .578 .298 .878
Total 108.933 59
Between Groups 8.422 4 2.105 .918 .460
QJSV17
Total 134.583 59
Between Groups 1.845 4 .461 .278 .891
Total 93.250 59
Between Groups 3.099 4 .775 .405 .804
Total 108.183 59
Between Groups 2.928 4 .732 .322 .862
Total 127.933 59
Between Groups 5.813 4 1.453 .698 .597
Total 120.333 59
Between Groups 2.778 4 .695 .377 .824
Total 104.183 59
Between Groups 2.979 4 .745 .369 .830
Total 113.933 59
Between Groups 15.979 4 3.995 2.692 .040
Total 97.600 59
Between Groups 10.351 4 2.588 1.600 .187
Total 99.333 59
Between Groups 3.863 4 .966 .505 .732
Total 108.983 59
Between Groups 7.568 4 1.892 1.047 .392
Total 106.983 59
Between Groups 6.945 4 1.736 .747 .564
Total 134.850 59
Between Groups 6.621 4 1.655 .913 .463
Total 106.333 59
Between Groups 3.899 4 .975 .589 .672
Total 94.983 59
Between Groups 6.299 4 1.575 .896 .473
Total 102.983 59
Interpretation:-
There is Significance occurs in Salary & allowances and Opportunity for submitting suggestions
According to Married Status Group. Married Employee are Give more importance to the
company policy and facility than Unmarried employees. It affect to the marital status.
DISTANCES IN KM
ANOVA
Squares
Between Groups .056 2 .028 .013 .988
Total 126.183 59
Between Groups 1.889 2 .944 .538 .587
Total 101.933 59
Between Groups .361 2 .181 .114 .893
Total 90.933 59
Between Groups 1.122 2 .561 .301 .741
Total 107.250 59
Between Groups 3.028 2 1.514 .693 .504
Total 127.600 59
Between Groups 3.894 2 1.947 .991 .378
Total 115.933 59
Between Groups 3.006 2 1.503 .786 .460
Total 111.933 59
Between Groups 3.406 2 1.703 .983 .381
Total 102.183 59
QJSV9 Between Groups 1.644 2 .822 .433 .651
Total 109.933 59
Between Groups 4.144 2 2.072 1.012 .370
Total 120.850 59
Between Groups 9.094 2 4.547 1.989 .146
Total 139.400 59
Between Groups .806 2 .403 .234 .792
Total 98.983 59
Between Groups 2.961 2 1.481 1.031 .363
Total 84.850 59
Between Groups 3.556 2 1.778 1.012 .370
Total 103.733 59
Between Groups 1.300 2 .650 .332 .719
Total 112.983 59
Between Groups 5.444 2 2.722 1.499 .232
Total 108.933 59
Between Groups .100 2 .050 .021 .979
Total 134.583 59
Between Groups 3.872 2 1.936 1.235 .299
Total 93.250 59
Between Groups 1.228 2 .614 .327 .722
Total 108.183 59
Between Groups 1.111 2 .556 .250 .780
Total 127.933 59
Between Groups 2.178 2 1.089 .525 .594
Total 120.333 59
Between Groups 2.056 2 1.028 .574 .567
QJSV22
Total 104.183 59
Between Groups 3.756 2 1.878 .971 .385
Total 113.933 59
Between Groups 1.156 2 .578 .341 .712
Total 97.600 59
Between Groups 2.094 2 1.047 .614 .545
Total 99.333 59
Between Groups 3.494 2 1.747 .944 .395
Total 108.983 59
Between Groups 4.056 2 2.028 1.123 .332
Total 106.983 59
Between Groups 4.056 2 2.028 .884 .419
Total 134.850 59
Between Groups 8.822 2 4.411 2.579 .045
Total 106.333 59
Between Groups .872 2 .436 .264 .769
Total 94.983 59
Between Groups 2.189 2 1.094 .619 .542
Total 102.983 59
Interpretation:-
There is Significance occurs in Transfer policy .According to people coming from different
distance .They may be not provide Good transfer facility to employee the female persons or
those get salary below 10000are may affected by the transfer policy .
EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION
ANOVA
Squares
Between Groups 13.881 4 3.470 1.700 .163
Total 126.183 59
Between Groups 5.787 4 1.447 .828 .513
Total 101.933 59
Between Groups 3.656 4 .914 .576 .681
Total 90.933 59
Between Groups 15.813 4 3.953 2.378 .053
Total 107.250 59
Between Groups 2.171 4 .543 .238 .916
Total 127.600 59
Between Groups 7.398 4 1.850 .937 .449
Total 115.933 59
Between Groups 15.724 4 3.931 2.247 .046
Total 111.933 59
Between Groups 1.445 4 .361 .197 .939
Total 102.183 59
Between Groups 13.878 4 3.470 1.987 .109
Total 109.933 59
Between Groups 5.105 4 1.276 .606 .660
Total 120.850 59
5.929 4 1.482 .611 .657
Between Groups
133.471 55 2.427
Total 139.400 59
3.612 4 .903 .521 .721
QJSV12 Between Groups
Total 98.983 59
Between Groups 2.881 4 .720 .483 .748
Total 84.850 59
Between Groups 2.922 4 .731 .399 .809
Total 103.733 59
Between Groups 4.347 4 1.087 .550 .700
Total 112.983 59
Between Groups 3.835 4 .959 .502 .735
Total 108.933 59
Between Groups 14.142 4 3.535 1.614 .184
Total 134.583 59
Between Groups 3.403 4 .851 .521 .721
Total 93.250 59
Between Groups 3.129 4 .782 .410 .801
Total 108.183 59
Between Groups 4.966 4 1.241 .555 .696
Total 127.933 59
Between Groups 9.562 4 2.391 1.187 .327
Total 120.333 59
Between Groups 11.100 4 2.775 1.640 .177
Total 104.183 59
Between Groups 4.656 4 1.164 .586 .674
Total 113.933 59
Between Groups 9.022 4 2.256 1.401 .246
Total 97.600 59
Between Groups 6.965 4 1.741 1.037 .397
QJSV25
Total 99.333 59
Between Groups 2.691 4 .673 .348 .844
Total 108.983 59
Between Groups 3.886 4 .972 .518 .723
Total 106.983 59
Between Groups 19.161 4 4.790 2.277 .053
Total 134.850 59
Between Groups 7.759 4 1.940 1.082 .374
Total 106.333 59
Between Groups 10.354 4 2.588 1.682 .167
Total 94.983 59
Between Groups 9.756 4 2.439 1.439 .234
Total 102.983 59
Interpretation:-
There is Significance occurs on Provides of freedom, Benefits & services and Grievance
redressal .According to people coming from different Educational Qualification .There may be
not provide freedom to employee to work. and the Provide Benefits & services and Grievance
redressal may not accepted by all employees.
PRESENT POSITION
ANOVA
Squares
Between Groups .154 2 .077 .035 .966
Total 126.183 59
Between Groups 1.627 2 .813 .462 .632
Total 101.933 59
QJSV3 Between Groups 2.799 2 1.399 .905 .410
Total 90.933 59
Between Groups 8.917 2 4.459 2.585 .084
Total 107.250 59
Between Groups .575 2 .288 .129 .879
Total 127.600 59
Between Groups 1.698 2 .849 .424 .657
Total 115.933 59
Between Groups 1.780 2 .890 .460 .633
Total 111.933 59
Between Groups .866 2 .433 .244 .785
Total 102.183 59
Between Groups 6.232 2 3.116 1.713 .190
Total 109.933 59
Between Groups 3.957 2 1.978 .965 .387
Total 120.850 59
Between Groups 6.969 2 3.485 1.500 .232
Total 139.400 59
Between Groups .285 2 .142 .082 .921
Total 98.983 59
Between Groups .824 2 .412 .280 .757
Total 84.850 59
Between Groups 6.059 2 3.029 1.768 .180
Total 103.733 59
Between Groups 10.359 2 5.179 2.877 .065
Total 112.983 59
Between Groups 1.686 2 .843 .448 .641
QJSV16
Total 108.933 59
Between Groups 1.580 2 .790 .339 .714
Total 134.583 59
Between Groups 8.092 2 4.046 2.708 .075
Total 93.250 59
Between Groups 12.633 2 6.316 3.768 .029
Total 108.183 59
Between Groups 4.267 2 2.133 .983 .380
Total 127.933 59
Between Groups 1.124 2 .562 .269 .765
Total 120.333 59
Between Groups 5.433 2 2.716 1.568 .217
Total 104.183 59
Between Groups 3.193 2 1.596 .822 .445
Total 113.933 59
Between Groups 2.059 2 1.029 .614 .545
Total 97.600 59
Between Groups 3.809 2 1.905 1.137 .328
Total 99.333 59
Between Groups 4.654 2 2.327 1.271 .288
Total 108.983 59
Between Groups .533 2 .266 .143 .867
Total 106.983 59
Between Groups 10.129 2 5.064 2.315 .108
Total 134.850 59
Between Groups .562 2 .281 .151 .860
Total 106.333 59
Between Groups .598 2 .299 .181 .835
Total 94.983 59
Between Groups .340 2 .170 .094 .910
Total 102.983 59
Interpretation:-
There is Significance occurs on Provides Provide freedom, Delegated to do work and

Opportunity for submitting suggestions..According to Employee present position. There may be
not provide freedom to employee to work. So they are may be not give 100 percent effort to
Delegated to do work .and not give the chance to submitting suggestions .
EXPERIENCE IN YEAR
ANOVA
Squares
Between Groups 4.743 4 1.186 .537 .709
Total 126.183 59
Between Groups 7.933 4 1.983 1.160 .338
Total 101.933 59
Between Groups 3.171 4 .793 .497 .738
Total 90.933 59
Between Groups 5.619 4 1.405 .760 .556
Total 107.250 59
Between Groups 6.255 4 1.564 .709 .589
Total 127.600 59
Between Groups 2.600 4 .650 .315 .866
Total 115.933 59
QJSV7 Between Groups 12.886 4 3.221 1.789 .144
Total 111.933 59
Between Groups 4.517 4 1.129 .636 .639
Total 102.183 59
Between Groups 7.314 4 1.829 .980 .426
Total 109.933 59
Between Groups 1.755 4 .439 .203 .936
Total 120.850 59
Between Groups 6.448 4 1.612 .667 .618
Total 139.400 59
Between Groups 2.400 4 .600 .342 .849
Total 98.983 59
Between Groups 6.183 4 1.546 1.081 .375
Total 84.850 59
Between Groups 24.448 4 6.112 4.240 .005
Total 103.733 59
Between Groups 3.650 4 .912 .459 .765
Total 112.983 59
Between Groups 4.029 4 1.007 .528 .716
Total 108.933 59
Between Groups 12.250 4 3.063 1.377 .254
Total 134.583 59
Between Groups 12.667 4 3.167 2.161 .085
Total 93.250 59
Between Groups 12.267 4 3.067 1.758 .150
Total 108.183 59
Between Groups 11.505 4 2.876 1.359 .260
QJSV20
Total 127.933 59
Between Groups 5.464 4 1.366 .654 .626
Total 120.333 59
Between Groups 9.279 4 2.320 1.344 .265
Total 104.183 59
Between Groups 4.695 4 1.174 .591 .671
Total 113.933 59
Between Groups 3.683 4 .921 .539 .707
Total 97.600 59
Between Groups 12.274 4 3.068 1.938 .117
Total 99.333 59
Between Groups 5.067 4 1.267 .670 .615
Total 108.983 59
Between Groups 2.745 4 .686 .362 .835
Total 106.983 59
Between Groups 3.945 4 .986 .414 .798
Total 134.850 59
Between Groups 12.571 4 3.143 1.844 .134
Total 106.333 59
Between Groups 7.638 4 1.910 1.202 .320
Total 94.983 59
Between Groups 3.257 4 .814 .449 .773
Total 102.983 59
Interpretation:-
There is Significance occurs on Provides Recreational facilities and relationship among co -

worker. According to Employee experience. There may not be provide freedom to employee to
work. So their relationship may not good with the other Employee.
INCOME
ANOVA
Squares
Between Groups 5.619 4 1.405 .641 .636
Total 126.183 59
Between Groups 2.793 4 .698 .387 .817
Total 101.933 59
Between Groups 8.110 4 2.028 1.346 .265
Total 90.933 59
Between Groups 6.923 4 1.731 .949 .443
Total 107.250 59
Between Groups 4.813 4 1.203 .539 .708
Total 127.600 59
Between Groups 3.571 4 .893 .437 .781
Total 115.933 59
Between Groups 11.795 4 2.949 1.620 .182
Total 111.933 59
Between Groups 1.523 4 .381 .208 .933
Total 102.183 59
Between Groups 1.353 4 .338 .171 .952
Total 109.933 59
Between Groups 10.580 4 2.645 1.319 .274
Total 120.850 59
13.338 4 3.335 1.455 .228
Between Groups
126.062 55 2.292
Total 139.400 59
3.102 4 .775 .445 .776
Between Groups
QJSV12 1.743
Within Groups 95.882 55
Total 98.983 59
Between Groups 3.472 4 .868 .587 .674
Total 84.850 59
Between Groups 8.725 4 2.181 1.263 .296
Total 103.733 59
Between Groups 9.238 4 2.309 1.224 .311
Total 112.983 59
Between Groups 8.225 4 2.056 1.123 .355
Total 108.933 59
Between Groups 9.072 4 2.268 .994 .419
Total 134.583 59
Between Groups 5.142 4 1.286 .803 .529
Total 93.250 59
Between Groups 14.863 4 3.716 2.190 .082
Total 108.183 59
Between Groups 6.288 4 1.572 .711 .588
Total 127.933 59
Between Groups 2.323 4 .581 .271 .896
Total 120.333 59
Between Groups 2.993 4 .748 .407 .803
Total 104.183 59
Between Groups 22.621 4 5.655 3.406 .015
Total 113.933 59
Between Groups 4.034 4 1.009 .593 .669
Total 97.600 59
Between Groups 15.134 4 3.784 2.471 .055
Total 99.333 59
Between Groups 4.276 4 1.069 .562 .692
Total 108.983 59
Between Groups 3.445 4 .861 .457 .767
Total 106.983 59
Between Groups 5.586 4 1.396 .594 .668
Total 134.850 59
Between Groups 10.291 4 2.573 1.473 .223
Total 106.333 59
Between Groups 2.935 4 .734 .438 .780
Total 94.983 59
Between Groups 3.867 4 .967 .536 .709
Total 102.983 59
Interpretation:-
There is Significance occurs on Provides of Opportunity for submitting suggestions. and
Psychological stress. According to Employee Income. Their may not get good salary according
to their physical stress. and may not be get chance to give suggestion to develop the creativity.
INDUSTRY
ANOVA
Squares
Between Groups 2.817 1 2.817 1.324 .255
Total 126.183 59
Between Groups 3.267 1 3.267 1.920 .171
Total 101.933 59
Between Groups .600 1 .600 .385 .537
Total 90.933 59
QJSV4 Between Groups .817 1 .817 .445 .507
Total 107.250 59
Between Groups 4.267 1 4.267 2.006 .162
Total 127.600 59
Between Groups 2.400 1 2.400 1.226 .273
Total 115.933 59
Between Groups .267 1 .267 .139 .711
Total 111.933 59
Between Groups .017 1 .017 .009 .923
Total 102.183 59
Between Groups .600 1 .600 .318 .575
Total 109.933 59
Between Groups 6.017 1 6.017 3.039 .087
Total 120.850 59
Between Groups 5.400 1 5.400 2.337 .132
Total 139.400 59
Between Groups .017 1 .017 .010 .922
Total 98.983 59
Between Groups 1.350 1 1.350 .938 .337
Total 84.850 59
Between Groups 2.400 1 2.400 1.374 .246
Total 103.733 59
Between Groups 2.817 1 2.817 1.483 .228
Total 112.983 59
Between Groups 6.667 1 6.667 3.781 .057
Total 108.933 59
Between Groups 4.817 1 4.817 2.153 .148
QJSV17
Total 134.583 59
Between Groups 4.817 1 4.817 3.159 .081
Total 93.250 59
Between Groups .150 1 .150 .081 .778
Total 108.183 59
Between Groups 2.400 1 2.400 1.109 .297
Total 127.933 59
Between Groups 1.067 1 1.067 .519 .474
Total 120.333 59
Between Groups 2.017 1 2.017 1.145 .289
Total 104.183 59
Between Groups .000 1 .000 .000 1.000
Total 113.933 59
Between Groups 1.067 1 1.067 .641 .427
Total 97.600 59
Between Groups .267 1 .267 .156 .694
Total 99.333 59
Between Groups .150 1 .150 .080 .778
Total 108.983 59
Between Groups .817 1 .817 .446 .507
Total 106.983 59
Between Groups .417 1 .417 .180 .673
Total 134.850 59
Between Groups .000 1 .000 .000 1.000
Total 106.333 59
Between Groups .817 1 .817 .503 .481
Total 94.983 59
Between Groups .417 1 .417 .236 .629
Total 102.983 59
Interpretation:-
There is Significance occurs on Recognition gained, delegated to do work& Union activities ..

According to Industrial Basis. There may not identify Recognition gained, and not give the
100% effort to the work due to company policy And Union activities.
But on other questions in two industry agree and their employee give same answer.
COMPARISION BETWEEN COCA-COLA AND PEPSI
Mean of COCA –COLA
N Minim um Maxim um Mean Std. Deviation

Risk 30 1 5 3.37 1.245
Challenging 30 1 5 3.47 1.332
Provided training 30 1 5 3.17 1.510
Opportunities 30 1 5 3.30 1.393
Enhances social
30 1 6 3.40 1.453
status
Relationship with
30 1 5 3.00 1.203
public
Organizational
30 1 5 3.60 1.221
policies
Re cre ati onal faci lities 30 1 5 3.27 1.285
relationship among
30 1 5 3.53 1.252
co-worker
Opportunity for
submitting 30 1 5 3.33 1.470
suggestions.

Relationship for
30 1 5 3.30 1.291
encourages the work
safety 30 1 5 2.97 1.450

opportunity for
30 1 5 3.37 1.450
creativity
Problem s 30 1 5 3.33 1.269

Work load 30 1 5 3.30 1.236
Promotion
30 1 5 3.63 1.159
opportunity
Job security 30 1 5 3.50 1.333
Mean of PEPSI
N Minim um Maxim um Mean Std. Deviation
Risk 30 1 5 3.57 1.251
Challenging Provided 30 1 5 2.93 1.574
training Opportunities 30 1 5 2.77 1.278
Enhances social status 30 1 5 3.43 1.382
Relationship with 30 1 5 2.80 1.495
public
30 1 5 2.97 1.402
Organizational policies
Re cre ati onal faci lities 30 1 5 3.30 1.179
30 1 5 2.87 1.358
relationship among co-
30 1 5 2.97 1.217
worker
Opportunity for
submitting 30 1 5 3.43 1.251
suggestions.

Relationship for
30 1 5 3.03 1.564
encourages the work
safety 30 1 5 2.60 1.192

opportunity for
30 1 5 3.37 1.351
creativity
Problem s 30 1 5 3.07 1.311

Work load 30 1 5 3.07 1.461
Promotion opportunity 30 1 5 3.40 1.380
Job security 30 1 5 3.60 1.303
Interpretation:-
From the analysis shows that Employee of the coca-cola are more influenced or satisfaction than
the Employee of the Pepsi because the on the Coca-cola industry the large number of mean
comes 3 point scale so they are more influenced or satisfaction on work.
Chapter –V
Findings,Conclusion,Suggestions
FINDINGS
Most of the employee in this two industry are not more satisfied because this branch has not
provide extra benefit than other industry. Almost same response found in this two industry
because this two industry are belongs from private sector.
On the Mean calculation If the mean value comes 3 ore more than 3 it shows that Employees are
Influenced by that Factors. If the Mean value comes less than 3 it shows that it is not influenced
to the Employee.
Employees are more satisfied or influenced by Promotion opportunity and Job security.
Employees are very less satisfied or influenced by safety of the company
Employees are satisfied or influenced by Salary & allowances.
Employees are less satisfied or less influenced by Benefits and services of the company.
Employees are satisfied or influenced by Risk .or low risk available there.
Employees are satisfied or influenced by Provides freedom.
Employees are satisfied or influenced by Challenging work..
Employees are less satisfied or less influenced by Provided training.
Employees are satisfied or influenced by give Opportunities.
Employees are satisfied or influenced by Enhances social status.
Employees are less satisfied or less influenced by Monotonous duties.
Employees are less satisfied or less influenced by Recognition gained.
Employees are satisfied or influenced by Give prizes & awards.
Employees are less satisfied or less influenced by Relationship with public.
Employees are satisfied or influenced by Recreational facilities.
Employees are satisfied or influenced by Organizational policies.
Employees are satisfied or influenced by delegated to do work.
Employees are satisfied or influenced by Social concern.
Employees are satisfied or influenced by Union activities.
Employees are satisfied or influenced by relationship among co-worker.
Employees are satisfied or influenced by Opportunity for submitting suggestions..
Employees are satisfied or influenced by working climate.
Employees are satisfied or influenced by Relationship for encourages the work.
Employees are satisfied or influenced by opportunity for creativity.
Employees are satisfied or influenced by Psychological stress.
Employees are satisfied or influenced by working Load.
Employees are satisfied or influenced by Grievance redressal..
Employees are satisfied or influenced by working Transfer policy
SUGGESTIONS
Company should increase the Safety of the employee.

Award, reward, recognition, salary and benefit facilities should be raised for deserving
Employees
Strongly recommended to revise HR policies.
Increasing the Very High quality of the training on regular Basis.
There should more priorities towards employee’s social security and wellbeing’s.
Team building exercises’ and awareness programmed to be conducted.
Start for employee grievances cell for better Management.
Township facility to be provided to the employees for project cost saving & employee
time is saving which will indirectly help all to maintain proper work life balance.
Accommodations should be provided at nearby place of site.
Technical and managerial training should be provided for each interval of time for
growth of employee as well as in a great manner.
Co-curricular activities and social event need to be organized more after to improve
harmony.
Organization policy for better employee retention, welfare, security and facilitation.
The company needs to start motivational provision policies and employee friendly
welfare policies in the corporate office so that high motivated employee can deliver high
output.
To motivate the employees management can take into consideration some proper
suggestions given by the employees. It will help to increase the motivation and ultimately
the Job satisfaction of the employees
CONCLUSION
The Employee of this two industry are give Moderate response by the company provide to them
compensation and non compensation benefit .In two industries Response of the employee are
same because they are belongs to same sector and same Area.
All the statutory and non-statutory measures are provided to the employees as per the
standard measures, which improves employee’s satisfaction and increases productivity. Any
organization success and growth depends on employees. The company may have rich resources
of capital, material, infrastructure, machines and technology but if the quality of manpower is not
good, theorganization cannot succeed.
It is necessary for the organization to provide promotion to the employees based on their
merit, experience and qualification, which improve their self-actualization. Employee will be
highly satisfied when their opinions are taken into consideration, which creates self-respect and
enthusiasm.
.
ANNEXURE
QUESTIONNAIRE
[Tick (√) at the appropriate box]
PART I - GENERAL
1.1 Name :
1.2 Age :
21-30 31-40 41-60
1.3 Gender :
Male Female
1.4 Marital status :
Married Unmarried Widow
Widower Separated/Divorced
1.5 Distance in K.M from work place :
Upto 10 11-20 21-30 Above 30
1.6 Educational qualification :
S.S.L.C P.U.C / Plus2 Graduate
P.G Others [Specify]
1.7 Present position :
Officer Clerk Sub Staff
1.8 Experi ence in years :
Be low 5 5-10 11-15
16-20 21-25 Above 25
1.9 Monthly income :
Upto 10000 10001-20000 20001-30000
30001-40000 Above 40000

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. David A.De cenzo, Stephe n P. Robbins (2002), Human Resources Management John Wiley &
Sons, Seventh edition.
2. Kothari C.R. (1990), Research Methodology Methods & Techniques published by Wishwa
prakasan
3. Ste phe n P.Robbins (October 2000), Organisational Behavior, Prentice-Hall of India Private
Limited, Ninth edition, New Delhi.
4. P.Sunna Rao (2000), Personnel/ Human Resource Management, Kumar Publishers Private
Limited.
5. Tripathi P.C. (1978), Personnel Management and Industrial relations published by
Sultan Chand and Sons, New Delhi.
6. Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: separating evaluations, beliefs
and affective experiences. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 173-194, p.174
7. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Peterson, R. and Campwell, D . (1959). Job attitude:
Review of research and opinion. Pitsberg: Psychological Services of Pitsberg.
8. Bhatti, K., & Qureshi, T. (2007). Impact of employee participation on job satisfaction,
employee commitment and employee productivity. International Review of Business
Research Papers, 3(2), 54 – 68.
9. Employee satisfaction and opinion surveys. (n.d.). Retrieved
1. February 25, 2011, fromhttp://www.infoquestcrm.co.uk/employee_surveys.html

Coca-Cola & Pepsi: A Dissertation Project Report ON "Employee Job Satisfaction Comparative Analysis Between"

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Coca-Cola & Pepsi: A Dissertation Project Report ON "Employee Job Satisfaction Comparative Analysis Between"

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Coca-Cola & Pepsi: A Dissertation Project Report ON "Employee Job Satisfaction Comparative Analysis Between"

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A DISSERTATION

COCA-COLA & PEPSI

According to pestonejee, Job satisfaction can be taken as a summation of employee’s feelings in

Good relations between employees and employer.

Good relation among staffs and management

Highly developed mechanism for individual development

1.2 RELEVANCE OF STUDY

1.3 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

Salary and monetary benefits

The research design used for this study is of exploratory type .

The research approach:- survey method

The research instrument:-questionnaire method

The respondents:- COCA COLA. & PEPSI

1. Highly Negative Influence

According to Mishra (1980), job satisfaction is a feeling accruing out of different

Review of literature on the factors affecting to the demography factor

2.1 THEORETICAL ANALYSIS

(1) Fulfillment theory

(2) Discrepancy Theory

(4) Two-Factor Theory

Graphical Representation of Herzberg’s Description of Satisfiers and Dissatisfiers

Job Characteristics Model

Job Characteristics Model [9]

2.2 DETERMINANTS OF JOB SATISFACTION

b) It results in being accepted by other and

c) It facilitates and achievement of goals.

ii) Educational Level

2.3 MEASUREMENT OF JOB SATISFACTION

Reliability and validity

Cross cultural issues

2.4 FACTOR AFFECTING JOB SATISFACTION

components of job satisfaction. These are as under:

o The way the individual reacts to unpleasant situations,

1. Intrinsic aspect of job

4. Wage and salaries

7. Company & management

It includes the aspect of worker’s immediate situation, which is a function of organizational

8. Social aspect of job

COMPANY PROFILE OF COCA-COLA

Coca-Cola is a carbonated soft drink.[1] It is produced by The Coca-Cola Company of Atlanta,

Frequencies on Marital Status

Frequencies on Educational Qualification

Pre s e ntPos ition

Expe rie nce

There is Significance occurs on Provides Provide freedom, Delegated to do work and

There is Significance occurs on Provides Recreational facilities and relationship among co -

There is Significance occurs on Recognition gained, delegated to do work& Union activities ..

COMPARISION BETWEEN COCA-COLA AND PEPSI

Mean of COCA –COLA

N Minim um Maxim um Mean Std. Deviation

Salary & allowances 30 1 5 3.43 1.357

working climate 30 1 5 3.57 1.357

safety 30 1 5 2.97 1.450

Problem s 30 1 5 3.33 1.269

Job security 30 1 5 3.50 1.333

working climate 30 1 5 3.17 1.577

safety 30 1 5 2.60 1.192

Problem s 30 1 5 3.07 1.311

Company should increase the Safety of the employee.