Employees' social status in Iranian public and governmental organisations: effect of individual, organisational, and social factors.

Rostamy, Ali Asghar Anvary ; Hosseini, Hamid Khodadad ; Azar, Adel 等

Abstract

Employees' social status has strong influences on employees' satisfaction and organisational performance. In spite of several research projects on employees' social status, very few studies have focused on employees' status in public and governmental organisations, especially with regard to different provinces across a country. The purpose of this study is to determine the elements and the effects of individual, organisational, and social factors on the employees' social status in Iranian public and governmental organisations. A conceptual model was developed and tested by Path Analysis Method using Lisrel software. In order to test the model, 5,000 questionnaires were distributed among 30 randomly selected Iranian public and governmental organisations. The results have some useful implications for public policy makers and top management.

Key words: Public and governmental organisations, Employees' social status, Organisational factors, Social factors

**********

Employees have several formal and informal communication and interactions with their organisations as well as with their family members and people in society. When an individual interacts and communicates within a society, an organisation, and different groups, he will get a special rank or value. The rank or value of an employee reflects his status.

According to the literature, social status has great influences on employee satisfaction, self-employment, social power, and economic value. Job status congruence is positively associated with job satisfaction, organisational commitment, employee retention, as well as in-role and extra-role performance. It is well known that employee satisfaction, in turn, was positively related to customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, customer retention, and organisational performance.

Owing to the effects of employees' social status on organisational performance, especially in public and governmental organisations, this research was implemented in Iran. This study aims to determine the effects and the factors which impact on employees' social status and their relations in Iranian public and governmental organisations at the national level--from a perspective which explicitly includes individual as well as organisational and social components in an explanation of status.

Iran, as a large country in west Asia, is divided into several provinces. Most of them have their own social, economic, and cultural characteristics. Unfortunately, very few studies have focused on employees' social status in public and governmental organisations, especially with regard to different provinces. Previous studies showed that cultural, economic, and social situation differences will impact on people's social status in different regions (Ball and Eckel 1998; Fang and Sidanius 1998; Mansfield et al, 1999; and Fredrickson and Jun-chih, 1992). Results of this research have some useful implications for public policy makers and top management.

Literature Review

Zelditch (1972) believed that status is a unit of the social system because it is the most elementary component of the social system which has been studied by sociologists. Furthermore, Vechio (1992) believes that status is a situation which an individual obtains within a group. Accordingly, when the subject of status is an employee, several issues should be considered including the kind of relation that society makes with an employee, a combination of employee's personality and occupation, and the attitude of people in society regarding the employees' status.

An individual will get his status characteristics in two ways: Those characteristics that he is born with (such as family name, race, and wealth) and those characteristics can be obtained and achieved by an individual (such as education and job title). Therefore, many characteristics contribute to demonstrate an individual's status. Koslowsky and Schwarzwald cited in Staheski (1995) that individuals who were perceived to have higher status used a greater variety of influence than those perceived to be of lower status. According to Rosenthal (1987), those having high status are naturally more desirable. These individuals' status has some bearing on how he ranks occupations. This should reflect the characteristics of the work performed rather than the status characteristics of its incumbents. To Hodge (1981), prestige scores can be used for studying status, since prestige scores are independent of the characteristics of an occupation's incumbents.

Nicholson (1995) separated the status term into three types: social, organisational, and occupational prestige. Social status refers to the standing of a person in society, organisational status indicates the position one holds in an organisation, and occupational prestige is the importance of an occupation to society.

Social status is a value that a group determines for a given social role, and social status of a job can be defined as the value that a society determines for a job. Regarding the social status, it should be mentioned that many studies have focused and examined this issue in various ways (Dong and Weisfeld, 1996; Fang and Sidanius, 1998; Fredrickson and Jun-chih, 1992; Kuentzel and Heberlein, 1997, and Stevens and Featherman, 1981). Most of these studies have explored the manner that social status relates to or influences other factors such as satisfaction, self-employment, social power, and economic value. According to Deephouse (1995), social status is a concept with descriptive and evaluative aspects. The descriptive aspect of status refers to the position of social entity in a social system based on a set of relevant dimensions mostly associated with roles (for example, president of an organisation). The evaluative aspect is a ranking of a social entity in terms of the values of a social system when the president of an organisation is regarded important in both the organisation and society.

Accordingly, Waldron (1998) in a study of organisational status indicates that status refers to two interrelated concepts: creation of status, and the striving for the achievement of high-status ranking. The first emphasises on the rankings of individuals in a group within an organisational context. Waldron (1998) thinks that it is important to distinguish between status rankings in the organisational context and the formalised position obtained through organisational chart and title. The effort to achieve high status ranking within the organisational context is obtained through both "dominance" and "prestige". To Waldron (1998), organisational status is the multitude of symbols that individuals use to demonstrate and manipulate their status such as the use of doors to limit access to oneself, nearness to windows, the use of furnishings and space, the use of job title, and so on.

A study by Lee and Tidd (2002) showed that a match or congruence between worker preferences and organisational staffing practices would be associated with positive employee attitudes and behaviours. Results of their study indicate that work status congruence is positively associated with job satisfaction, organisational commitment, employee retention, as well as in-role and extra-role performance.

Creed and Saporta (2003) examined the subject of unmet expectations and the effect of status inconsistency on quitting and internal job changes. Manoux et al (2003) studied subjective social status, its determinants, and its association with measures of ill health in the Whitehall II study. Results of their study indicate that subjective status is a strong predictor of ill health, and that education, occupation, and income do not explain this relationship fully for all the health measures examined. The results support the multidimensional nature of both social inequality and health. Multiple regression shows that subjective status can be determined by occupational position, education, household income, satisfaction with standard of living, and feeling of financial security in the future.

Vough et al (2005) studied the effects of nonstandard work status on work group processes and outcomes. Lawler (2005) believes that status differentials generate corresponding differences in performance expectations which, in turn, produce behaviours that affirm performance expectations. Rosette and Thompson (2005) argue that in many organisational settings, status hierarchies result in the conferral of privileges that are based on achievement. However, status may result in the bestowal of privileges that are unearned. These unearned privileges are often awarded based on ascribed characteristics, but are perceived to be achieved. These misattributions occur because acknowledging that one has benefited from unearned advantages that are awarded in a meritocracy can be threatening to a person's self-identity. They propose that by studying unearned privileges in organisational settings, a more accurate assessment of status hierarchies may result.

Stephanie and Webber (2006) studied the relationship among job satisfaction, affective commitment, service-oriented organisational citizenship behaviours (OCBs), customer satisfaction, and customer loyalty. They found that employee satisfaction was positively related to service-oriented OCBs, customer satisfaction, and customer loyalty, whereas affective commitment was not related to these outcomes. The extent to which the predictor variables interacted with one another and the role of employment status on these relationships was also explored. According to the literature:

* Employees' social status relates to or influences on employees' satisfaction, self-employment, social power, and economic value.

* Work status congruence is positively associated with job satisfaction, organisational commitment, employee retention, as well as in-role and extra-role performance.

* Employee satisfaction, in turn, was positively related to customer satisfaction and loyalty.

* Subjective status itself determines by occupational position, education, household income, satisfaction with standard of living, and feeling of financial security in the future.

* Social status relates to employee's satisfaction, prestige, dominance, ill-health, variety of influence, income/salary, and organisational performance.

* Match or congruence between worker performance and organisational staffing practice relates to employee's attitudes and social status.

Conceptual Model

According to the literature and the Iranian academic professors, top managers, and experts' opinions, the following key research questions were considered:

1. What elements/factors strongly affect employees' social status?

2. What kinds of relationships are there among the effective factors/elements?

3. How do these factors finally affect employees' social status?

A large number of research projects have been reported in the literature to answer these questions. These introduce several classifications of the elements/factors effects on employees' social status. In our study, based on results of the panel of Iranian academic professors, top managers, and experts, three classes of factors (individual, organisational, and social factors) were recognised.

Accordingly, the main research hypothesis can be defined as:

H1: Individual, organisational, and social factors meaningfully affecting employees' social status in public and governmental organisations.

Figure 1 indicates a graphical explanation of the main research hypothesis.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

To answer the first question, we reviewed the literature. To answer the second and third questions, we applied Path Analysis Technique using Lisrel software.

Research Materials and Methodology Questionnaire Development

By reviewing the literature, 57 elements regarding the individual factor, 36 elements regarding the organisation factor, and 41 elements regarding social factor were identified. To reduce the number of influence elements and to determine the most important ones, the following steps were taken:

* First, a panel of three groups was formed including 26 distinguished professors from five universities, 35 outstanding top managers identified from a list that was provided by the Management and Planning Organisation (MPO) of Iran, and 32 experts and consultants from different public and governmental organisations.

* Second, scheduled interviews with above persons were made to explain the purpose of research and the format of completing the developed questionnaire. The interviewees were asked to score each item with regard to individual, organisational, and social status factors, separately.

* Third, the data were collected and classified, the mean and standard divination values for all elements were calculated, a t-test and Friedman test were applied to determine the most important elements of individual, organisational, and social factors. Finally, 28 individual elements, 24 organisational elements, and 18 social elements affecting employees' social status were finalised.

* Fourth, based on the results of the third step, a questionnaire for studying and measuring the employees' status in Iranian public and governmental organisations was developed. To test the validity of the questionnaire, the Delphi method was applied. Also, to test the reliability of the questionnaire, a pilot study was con ducted and 65 employees from four different organisations were randomly selected. The results showed an acceptable level of Cronbach's Alpha Coefficient (0.95). Finally, 10 most effective elements for each of individual, social, and organisational factors were selected for the purpose of path analysis.

Data Collection

To collect data from employees in Iranian public and governmental organisations across the country, the following steps were taken:

1. Based on cultural, social, and administrative similarities, all provinces were classified into six regions. According to the classification, one province from each region was chosen randomly.

2. To select the organisations randomly, based on the categorisation of MPO of Iran, organisations were classified into five categories. Then, one organisation was selected randomly from each category (total of 30 organisations).

3. The number of employees in each randomly selected organisation was counted and the random statistical sampling method was used to identify the total sample size. Then, the statistical method was used to identify portions of each organisation/category from the allocated sample size to each province.

4. Finally, 5,000 questionnaires were distributed among randomly selected organisations' managers, supervisors, and employees in the six provinces. From the 5,000 questionnaires, 3,972 questionnaires were returned. The total response rate was 79.4 per cent.

Experimental Results

With respect to responses from the selected Iranian organisations across the country, the Friedman test using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences, version 13, was applied to determine the most important elements of individual, organisational, and social factors. Tables 1, 2, and 3 demonstrate 10 highly ranked individual elements, 10 highly ranked organisational elements, and 10 highly ranked social elements affecting employees' social status and their related ranks.

Since the elements of individual, organisational and social factors are not independent and have interactions with each other, we studied these interactions and relations by the Path Analysis method using Lisrel (Linear Structural Relations) 8.53 software. Structural equation modeling was used to test the model and to estimate the standardised path coefficients. Structural equations of Lisrel help researchers to know the relative power of the relations between variables.

Figure 2 demonstrates hypothesised model of cause and effects that study the relations among individual, organisational and social factors and employees' social status in Iranian public and governmental organisations.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

At first, the hypothesised measurement model was assessed for its significance and overall fit. The fit of the hypothesised measurement model was assessed using such indicators as [chi square], the goodness of fit index (GFI), the adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI), and the comparative fit index (CFI).

The measurement model is considered to have satisfactory fit if it meets the following criteria: insignificant [chi square] (the smaller [chi square], the better the model fit), GFI above 0.90, AGFI above 0.80, and CFI above 0.90 (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1989; Lee and Xia, 2005). Furthermore, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, RMSEA, which describes the discrepancy between the proposed model and the population covariance matrix, is considered to be lower than the recommended cut-off value of 0.08 (Hong and Zhu, 2006).

The structure of the hypothetical measurement model was supported by chi-square statistics ([chi square]=29411.79 with 0 degree of freedom, p= 1.00). The RMSEA was 0.0 (95 per cent Confidence Intervals, CIS, 0.0; 0.0) with a p-value (for test of close fit RMSEA<0.05) of 1.00. These global goodness of fit statistics suggest an acceptable fit of the data with the model (see Figure 1). The path coefficient estimates were statistically significant with t-values from 12.33 to 37.76, indicating that the variables were linked to the model (a t-value of 1.96 or higher at the significance level of 0.05). In other words, employees' social status is affected 0.65 by individual, 0.90 by organisational factors, and 0.77 by social factors.

Figures 3, 4 and 5 demonstrate the relations and interactions among individual, organisational, and social factors' influence on employees' social status in Iranian public and governmental organisations. The hypothetical model that demonstrates the relationships and interactions among the elements of individual factors is shown in Figure 3.

The structure of the hypothetical model for interactions of individual items was supported by chi square statistics ([chi square]=1.01 with one degree of freedom, p=0.31). The GFI for the individual model was 1.0. The additional index values for the model were 1.00 for the CFI. These statistics suggest a good fit. The RMSEA was 0.0018 (95 per cent CIS 0.0; 0.042) with a p-value (for test of close fit RMSEA<0.05) of 0.98. These global goodness of fit statistics suggest an acceptable fit of the data within the model. The path coefficient estimates were statistically significant with t-values from 2.12 to 20.69, indicating that the variables were linked to the model (a t-value of 1.96 or higher at the significance level of 0.05). Table 4 shows the structural equations, the path coefficients, their t-values and P-values of the model of individual factors.

As shown in Table 4, the JSAT and JSEC have no statistically significant relationship with EM. Remaining path coefficients were found to be statistically significant. Figure 3 summarises the 10 most effective elements of individual factors as follows:

1) Distinguished Professionality (DP),

2) Incumbent's Mental Health (IMH),

3) Employees Morality (EM),

4) Job Security (JSEC),

5) Individuals' Job-Interest (IJI),

6) Self-Confidence (SC),

7) Incentive for High Quality Work (IFHQM),

8) Incumbents' Self-Esteem (ISE),

9) Fitness of Job with Incumbent's Talent (FJIT), and

10) Job Satisfaction (JSAT).

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

The results imply that DP, IMH, IJI, FJIT, and JS have meaningful interactions with each other, and with EM, ISE, SC, JS, IFHQW.

The hypothetical model that explains the relations and interactions among the elements of organisational factor is shown in Figure 4.

The structure of the hypothetical model for interactions of organisational items was supported by chi square statistics ([chi square]=2.31 with one degree of freedom, p=0.13). The GFI for the individual model was 1.0. The additional index values for the model were 1.00 for the CFI. These statistics suggest a good fit. The RMSEA was 0.018 (95 per cent CIS 0.0; 0.050) with a p-value (for test of close fit RMSEA<0.05) of 0.95. These global goodness of fit statistics suggest an acceptable fit of the data within the model. The path coefficient estimates were statistically significant with t-values from 2.97 to 16.32, indicating that the variables were linked to the model (a t-value of 1.96 or higher at the significance level of 0.05). Table 5 explains the structural equations, the path coefficients, the t-values and p-values of the model of organisational factors.

As shown in Table 5, only the element of M had no statistically significant relationship with HSE Remaining path coefficients were found to be statistically significant. In addition, Figure 4 shows that ten effective elements of organisational factor are:

1) Managers' Consideration to Employees' High Performance (MCEHP),

2) Fair and Consistence Criteria to Promote Employees (FCCPE),

3) Job Security (JSEC),

4) Appropriate Management Style with Regard to Organisational Conditions (AMSROC),

5) Providing Facilities to Improve Educational Level (PFIEL),

6) Meritocracy (M),

7) Respecting Incumbents' Skills (RIS),

8) High Salary Payment (HSP),

9) Decision-making Participation by Employees (DMPE), and

10) Proper Job Position within Organisation (PJPO).

The results imply that M, FCCPE, JSEC, RIS, and PFIEL have meaningful interactions with each other and with AMSROC, MCEHP, DMPE, PJPO, HSP.

The hypothetical model that demonstrates the relationships and interactions among the elements of social factor is shown in Figure 5.

The structure of the hypothetical model for interactions of social items was supported by chi square statistics ([chi square]=3.35 with six degrees of freedom, p=0.76). The GFI for the individual model was 1.0. The additional index values for the model were 1.00 for the CFI. These statistics suggest a good fit. The RMSEA was 0.0 (95 per cent CIS 0.0; 0.042) with a p-value (for test of close fit RMSEA<0.05) of 1.00. These global goodness of fit statistics suggest an acceptable fit of the data within the model. The path coefficient estimates were statistically significant with t-values from 2.86 to 37.64, indicating that the variables were linked to the model (a t-value of 1.96 or higher at the significance level of 0.05).

Table 6 demonstrates the structural equations, the path coefficients, the t-values and p-values of the model of social factors.

In Table 6, all path coefficients were found to be statistically significant. As shown in Figure 5, 10 effective elements of organisational factors are:

1) Good Behaviour of Incumbent with Others (GBIO),

2) Positive Attitude of Society to Public Organisation (PASPO),

3) Positive Reputation of Organisation's Performance (PROP),

4) Reputation and Interesting Job (RIJ),

5) High Salary of Public Organisations' Employees (HSPOE),

6) Employee's Care to Religion and Ethic Ordinance (ECREO),

7) Employee's Reputation of their High Job Performance (ERHJP),

8) Providing Welfare/Entertainment Facilities to Employee's Family (PW),

9) Social Acceptance of Job (SAJ), and

10) Having Professional Job (HPJ).

The results imply that RIJ, GBIO, HPJ, ERHJP, HSPOE, and ECREO have meaningful interactions with each others and with PASPO, PROP, SAJ, and PW.

[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]

Conclusion

It is well known that employees' social status has a great influence on employees' satisfaction, organisational commitment, employees' retention, as well as in-role and extra-role performance. Employees' satisfaction, in turn, is positively related to customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, customers' retention, and organisational performance. Determining the factors and the elements affecting employees' social status is regarded as an important and interesting subject of research around the world.

In the literature, very few studies have focused on employees' status in public and governmental organisations especially with regard to different regions across the countries. It is well known that cultural, economical, and social situation differences will have an impact on people's status in different regions.

Results of the statistical tests clearly reveal the complexity and multidimensionality of the nature of employees' social status. Moreover, the results of Path Analysis show that there are meaningful interactions among the factors effecting on employees' social status and among their elements. Results of this research imply that:

* Distinguished Professionality (DP), Incumbent's Mental Health (IMH), Individuals' Job-Interested (IJI), Fitness of Job with Incumbent's Talent (FJIT), and Job Satisfaction (JSAT) have meaningful interactions with each other and with Employees Morality (EM), Incumbents' Self-Esteem (ISE), Self-Confidence (SC), Job Security (JS), and Incentive for High Quality Work (IFHQW).

* Meritocracy (M), Fair, and Consistent Criteria to Promote Employees (FCCPE), Job Security (JSEC), Respecting Incumbents Skills (RIS), and Providing Facilities to Improve Educational Level (PFIEL) have meaningful interactions with each other, and with Appropriate Management Style with regard to Organisational Conditions (AMSROC), Managers' Consideration to Employees' High Performance(MCEHP), Decisionmaking Participation by Employees (DMPE), Proper Job Position within Organisation (PJPO), and High Salary Payment (HSP).

* Reputation and Interesting Job (RIJ), Good Behaviour of Incumbent with Others (GBIO), Having Professional Job (HPJ), Employees' Reputation of their High Job Performance (ERHJP), High Salary of Public Organisations' Employees (HSPOE), and Employee's Care to Religion and Ethic Ordinance (ECREO) have meaningful interactions with each other and with Positive Attitude of Society to Public Organisation (PASPO), Positive Reputation of Organisation's Performance (PROP), Social Acceptance of Job (SAJ), Providing Welfare/Entertainment Facilities to Employee's Family (PW).

The authors believe that the results of this research have useful implications for policy makers and top managers of the public and governmental organisations in formulating their employees' social status improvement programmes.

References

Ball S and CC Eckel, 1998. "The Economic Value of Status", Journal of Socio-economics, Vol 27, pp 495-515.

Douglas C and I Saporta, 2003. "Unmet Expectations: The Effect of Status Inconsistency on Quitting and Internal Job Changing", Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, Vol 20, pp 285-323.

Deephouse DL, 1995. "Status" in N Nicholson, Dictionary of Organisational Behavior. Blackwell Publisher, London.

Dong Q and G Weisfeld, 1996. "Correlates of Social Status among Chinese Adolescents", Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol 27, pp 476-494.

Fang C Y and J Sidanius, 1998. "Romance across the Social Status Continuum", Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol 29, pp 290-306.

Fredrickson RH and G Jun-Chih, 1992. "Social Status Ranking of Occupations in the People's Republic of China, Taiwan, and the United States", Career Development Quarterly, Vol 40, pp 351-361.

Hodge RW, 1981. "The Measurement of Occupational Status", Social Science Research, Vol 10, pp 396-415.

Hong Weiyin, and K Zhu, 2006. "Migrating to Internet-based E-commerce: Factors Affecting E-commerce Adoption and Migration at the Firm Level", Information and Management, Vol 43, pp 204-221.

Joreskog KG and D Sorbom, 1989. LISREL7: A Guide to the Program and Applications, SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL.

Kuentzel WF and TA Heberlein, 1997. "Social Status, Self-development, and the Process Leisure Specialisation", Journal of Leisure Research, Vol 29, pp 300-320.

Lawler EJ, 2005. "Role of Status in Group Processes", Research on Managing Groups and Teams, Vol 7, pp 315-325.

Lee H and Tidd, 2002. "The Relationship between Work Status Congruence and Work-related Attitudes and Behaviors", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 87 No 5, pp 903-915

Lee Gwanhoo and Xia Weidong, 2005. "The Ability of Information Systems Development Project Teams to Respond to Business and Technology Changes: A Study of Flexibility Measures", European Journal of Information Systems, Vol 14, pp 75-92.

Mansfield C J, JL Wilson, EJ Kobrinski and J Mitchell, 1999. American Journal of Public Health, Vol 89, pp 893-899.

Singh M, NE Adlerb and MG Marmota, 2003. "Subjective Social Status: Its Determinants and Its Association with Measures of Ill-health in the Whitehall II Study", Social Science and Medicine, Vol 56 No 6, pp 1321-1333.

Nicholson N, 1995. Dictionary of Organisational Behavior, (ed) Blackwell Publisher, London.

Shelby R and L Thompson, 2005. "The Camouflage Effect: Separating Achieved Status and Unearned Privilege in Organisations", Research on Managing Groups and Teams, Vol 7, pp 259-281.

Rosenthal NH, 1989. "More than Wages at Issue in Job Quality Debate", Monthly Labor Review. 4:8.

Stahelski AJ and CF Paynton, 1995. "The Effect of Status Cues on Choices of Social Power and Influence Strategies", Journal of Social Psychology, Vol 135, pp 553-561.

Stephanie CP and SS Webber, 2006. "Effects of Service Provider Attitudes and Employment Status on Citisenship Behaviors and Customers'Attitudes and Loyalty Behavior", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 91 No 2, pp 365-378.

Stevens G and DL Featherman, 1981. "A Revised Socioeconomic Index of Occupational Status", Social Science Research, Vol 10, pp 364-395.

Vecchio RP, 1992. Organisational Behavior, 2nd ed.

Heather CV, JP Broschak and GB Northcraft, 2005. "Here Today, Gone Tomorrow? Effects of Nonstandard Work Status on Work Group Processes and Outcomes", Research on Managing Groups and Teams, Vol 7, pp 229-257.

Waldron DA, 1998. "Status in Organisations: Where Evolutionary Theory Ranks", Managerial and Decision Economics, Vol 19, pp 505-520.

Zelditch M, 1972. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 15, Macmillan Co and The Free Press.

This research, as a national project, was fully supported by the Management and Planning Organisation (MPO) of Iran.

Ali Asghar Anvary Rostamy

Hamid Khodadad Hosseini

Adel Azar

Ahmad-Ali Khaef-Elahi

Alireza Hassanzadeh

Tarbiat Modares University, Iran Table 1: Most Effective Individual Items Affecting Employees' Social Status Abbre- Rank Score Rank Effective Individual Factors viation Mean Mean 1 Distinguished Professionality (DP) 17.41 4.52 2 Incumbent's Mental Health (IMH) 16.51 4.45 3 Employees Morality (EM) 16.29 4.39 4 Job Security (JSEC) 15.57 4.34 5 Individuals' Job-Interest (IJI) 15.53 4.33 6 Self-Confidence (SC) 15.50 4.33 7 Incentive for High Quality Work (IFHQW) 15.42 4.35 8 Incumbents' Self-Esteem (ISE) 15.36 4.35 9 Fitness of Job with Incumbent's Talent (FJIT) 15.09 4.31 10 Job Satisfaction (JSAT) 14.98 4.30 Table 2: Most Effective Organisational Items Affecting Employees' Social Status Effective Organisational Variables on Employees' Abbre- Rank Score Rank Status viation Mean Mean 1 Managers' Consideration to Employees' High Performance (MCEHP) 14.03 4.37 2 Fair and Consistent Criteria to Promote Employees (FCCPE) 13.86 4.35 3 Job Security (JSEC) 13.84 4.36 4 Appropriate Management Style with regard to Organisational Conditions (AMSROC) 13.63 4.36 5 Providing Facilities to Improve Educational Level (PFIEL) 13.44 4.30 6 Meritocracy (M) 13.39 4.29 7 Respecting Incumbents' Skills (RIS) 13.31 4.29 8 High Salary Payment (HSP) 13.27 4.29 9 Decision-making Participation by Employees (DMPE) 13.20 4.31 10 Proper Job Position within Organisation (PJPO) 13.06 4.26 Table 3: Most Effective Social Items Affecting Employees' Social Status Effective Social Variables Abbre- Rank Score Rank on Employees' Status viation Mean Mean 1 Good Behaviour of Incumbent with Others (GBIO) 10.52 4.36 2 Positive Attitude of Society to Public Organisation (PASPO) 10.38 4.37 3 Positive Reputation of Organi- sation Performance (PROP) 10.31 4.40 4 Reputation and Interesting Job (RIJ) 10.27 4.39 5 High Salary of Public Organi- sations' Employees (HSPOE) 9.99 4.29 6 Employee's Care to Religion and Ethic Ordinance (ECREO) 9.95 4.23 7 Employee's Reputation of their High Job Performance (ERHJP) 9.88 4.24 8 Providing Welfare/Entertainment Facilities to Employees's Family (PW) 9.84 4.21 9 Social Acceptance of Job (SAJ) 9.82 4.27 10 Having Professional Job (HPJ) 9.71 4.25 Table 4: Structural Equations, Path Coefficients, t-values, and p-values of Model of Individual Factors (n=3,971) EM = 0.12 * SC + 0.026 * JSAT + 0.036 * IFHQW + 0.16 * DP + 0.32 * IMH + 0.11 * IJI + 0.043 * FJIT + 0.023 * JSEC, P-Values: (0.017) (0.016) (0.017) (0.016) (0.016) T-Values: 6.87 1.61 2.12 9.74 19.55 ISE = 0.25 * EM + 0.089 * JSAT + 0.12 * DP + 0.15 * IMH + 0.087 * IJI + 0.086 * FJIT + 0.072 * JSEC, P-Values: (0.016) (0.016) (0.016) (0.017) (0.016) T-Values: 15.42 5.42 7.26 9.12 5.28 SC = 0.29 * ISE + 0.077 * DP + 0.12 * IMH + 0.13 * IJI + 0.11 * FJIT + 0.082 * JSEC, P-Values: (0.015) (0.015) (0.015) (0.015) (0.015) T-Values: 19.25 4.99 7.87 8.85 7.27 JSAT = 0.098 * SC + 0.19 * IFHQW - 0.013 * DP + 0.087 * DP + 0.087 * IMH + 0.32 * IJI + 0.13 * FJIT + 0.097 * JSEC, P-Values: (0.017) (0.016) (0.016) (0.016) (0.015) T-Values: 5.94 11.24 -0.84 5.49 20.69 IFHQW = 0.12 * SC + 0.057 * DP + 0.065 * IMH + 0.15 * IJI + 0.30 * FJIT + 0.16 * JSEC, P-Values: (0.015) (0.015) (0.015) (0.015) (0.015) T-Values: 7.62 3.67 4.25 9.97 20.63 EM = 0.12 * SC + 0.026 * JSAT + 0.036 * IFHQW + 0.16 * DP + 0.32 * IMH + 0.11 * IJI + 0.043 * FJIT + 0.023 * JSEC, P-Values: (0.016) (0.016) (0.015) (0.014) T-Values: 6.94 2.65 1.52 44.24 ISE = 0.25 * EM + 0.089 * JSAT + 0.12 * DP + 0.15 * IMH + 0.087 * IJI + 0.086 * FJIT + 0.072 * JSEC, P-Values: (0.016) (0.015) (0.014) T-Values: 5.52 4.90 44.41 SC = 0.29 * ISE + 0.077 * DP + 0.12 * IMH + 0.13 * IJI + 0.11 * FJIT + 0.082 * JSEC, P-Values: (0.014) (0.013) T-Values: 5.90 44.45 JSAT = 0.098 * SC + 0.19 * IFHQW - 0.013 * DP + 0.087 * DP + 0.087 * IMH + 0.32 * IJI + 0.13 * FJIT + 0.097 * JSEC, P-Values: (0.016) (0.015) (0.014) T-Values: 7.86 6.57 44.49 IFHQW = 0.12 * SC + 0.057 * DP + 0.065 * IMH + 0.15 * IJI + 0.30 * FJIT + 0.16 * JSEC, P-Values: (0.014) (0.013) T-Values: 11.67 44.52 EM = 0.12 * SC + 0.026 * JSAT + 0.036 * IFHQW + Errorvar. = 0.63, 0.16 * DP + 0.32 * IMH + 0.11 * IJI + 0.043 * FJIT [R.sup.2] = 0.33 + 0.023 * JSEC, ISE = 0.25 * EM + 0.089 * JSAT + 0.12 * DP + 0.15 * Errorvar. = 0.63, IMH + 0.087 * IJI + 0.086 * FJIT + 0.072 * JSEC, [R.sup.2] = 0.35 SC = 0.29 * ISE + 0.077 * DP + 0.12 * IMH + 0.13 * Errorvar. = 0.57, IJI + 0.11 * FJIT + 0.082 * JSEC, [R.sup.2] = 0.35 JSAT = 0.098 * SC + 0.19 * IFHQW - 0.013 * DP + Errorvar. = 0.62, 0.087 * DP + 0.087 * IMH + 0.32 * IJI + 0.13 * [R.sup.2] = 0.40 FJIT + 0.097 * JSEC, IFHQW = 0.12 * SC + 0.057 * DP + 0.065 * IMH + Errorvar. = 0.58, 0.15 * IJI + 0.30 * FJIT + 0.16 * JSEC, [R.sup.2] = 0.37 Table 5: Structural Equations, Path Coefficients, t-values, and p-values of Model of Organisational Factors (n=3,970) AMSROC = 0.091 * DMPE + 0.041 * PJPO + 0.067 * HSP + 0.13 * M + 0.17 * FCCPE + 0.11 * RIS + 0.15 * JSEC + 0.10 * PFIEL, P-Values: (0.015) (0.014) (0.014) (0.019) (0.017) T-Values: 5.96 2.97 4.81 6.97 9.85 MCEHP = 0.24 * AMSROC + 0.14 * DMPE + 0.091 * M + 0.12 * FCCPE + 0.12 * RIS + 0.17 * JSEC + 0.062 * PFIEL, P-Values: (0.014) (0.014) (0.017) (0.016) (0.015) T-Values: 16.32 9.99 5.36 7.58 7.91 DMPE = 0.075 * PJPO + 0.12 * M + 0.11 * FCCPE + 0.088 * RIS + 0.21 * PFIEL, P-Values: (0.014) (0.019) (0.018) (0.017) (0.016) T-Values: 5.37 6.31 6.04 5.1 16.31 PJPO = 0.042 * MCEHP + 0.14 * HSP + 0.096 * M + 0.13 * FCCPE + 0.11 * RIS + 0.080 * JSEC + 0.17 * PFIEL, P-Values: (0.017) (0.016) (0.016) (0.016) (0.015) T-Values: 5.94 11.24 -0.84 5.49 20.69 HSP = 0.054 * DMPE + 0.041 * M + 0.073 * FCCPE + 0.057 * RIS + 0.17 * JSEC + 0.19 * PFIEL, P-Values: (0.018) (0.021) (0.020) (0.019) (0.018) T-Values: 3.00 1.93 3.67 2.98 9.72 AMSROC = 0.091 * DMPE + 0.041 * PJPO + 0.067 * HSP + 0.13 * M + 0.17 * FCCPE + 0.11 * RIS + 0.15 * JSEC + 0.10 * PFIEL, P-Values: (0.017) (0.016) (0.015) (0.014) T-Values: 6.63 9.38 6.86 44.14 MCEHP = 0.24 * AMSROC + 0.14 * DMPE + 0.091 * M + 0.12 * FCCPE + 0.12 * RIS + 0.17 * JSEC + 0.062 * PFIEL, P-Values: (0.014) (0.014) (0.012) T-Values: 11.68 4.55 44.52 DMPE = 0.075 * PJPO + 0.12 * M + 0.11 * FCCPE + 0.088 * RIS + 0.21 * PFIEL, P-Values: (0.015) (0.015) T-Values: 13.81 44.51 PJPO = 0.042 * MCEHP + 0.14 * HSP + 0.096 * M + 0.13 * FCCPE + 0.11 * RIS + 0.080 * JSEC + 0.17 * PFIEL, P-Values: (0.016) (0.015) (0.014) T-Values: 7.86 6.57 44.49 HSP = 0.054 * DMPE + 0.041 * M + 0.073 * FCCPE + 0.057 * RIS + 0.17 * JSEC + 0.19 * PFIEL, P-Values: (0.017) (0.019) T-Values: 11.24 44.51 AMSROC = 0.091 * DMPE + 0.041 * PJPO + 0.067 * HSP Errorvar. = 0.64, + 0.13 * M + 0.17 * FCCPE + 0.11 * RIS + 0.15 * [R.sup.2] = 0.37 JSEC + 0.10 * PFIEL, MCEHP = 0.24 * AMSROC + 0.14 * DMPE + 0.091 * M + Errorvar. = 0.53, 0.12 * FCCPE + 0.12 * RIS + 0.17 * JSEC + 0.062 [R.sup.2] = 0.48 * PFIEL, DMPE = 0.075 * PJPO + 0.12 * M + 0.11 * FCCPE + Errorvar. = 0.68, 0.088 * RIS + 0.21 * PFIEL, [R.sup.2] = 0.37 PJPO = 0.042 * MCEHP + 0.14 * HSP + 0.096 * M + Errorvar. = 0.92, 0.13 * FCCPE + 0.11 * RIS + 0.080 * JSEC + 0.17 * [R.sup.2] = 0.24 PFIEL, HSP = 0.054 * DMPE + 0.041 * M + 0.073 * FCCPE + Errorvar. = 0.85, 0.057 * RIS + 0.17 * JSEC + 0.19 * PFIEL, [R.sup.2] = 0.19 Table 6: Structural Equations, Path Coefficients, t-values, and p-values of Model of Social Factors (n=3,970) PASPO = 0.058 * PW + 0.35 * RIJ + 0.23 * GBIO + 0.056 * HPJ + 0.11 * ERHJP + 0.044 * ECREO, P-Values: (0.013) (0.017) (0.017) (0.015) T-Values: 4.55 20.61 14.03 3.78 PROP = 0.14 * PASPO + 0.23 * RIJ + 0.23 * GBIO + 0.11 * HPJ + 0.12 * ERHJP + 0.044 * HSPO + 0.062 * PFIEL, P-Values: (0.015) (0.017) (0.016) (0.015) T-Values: 8.78 13.21 13.97 7.65 SAJ = 0.18 * PROP + 0.23 * RIJ + 0.068 * GBIO + 0.21 * HPJ + 0.11 * ERHJP + 0.046 * HSPOE, P-Values: (0.016) (0.018) (0.017) (0.015) T-Values: 11.19 13.28 4.03 14.15 PW = 0.047 * SAJ + 0.074 * RIJ + 0.075 * HPJ+ 0.072 * ERHJP + 0.087 * ECREO, P-Values: (0.017) (0.017) (0.016) (0.016) T-Values: 2.86 4.24 4.60 4.44 PASPO = 0.058 * PW + 0.35 * RIJ + 0.23 * GBIO + 0.056 * HPJ + 0.11 * ERHJP + 0.044 * ECREO, P-Values: (0.015) (0.011) (0.014) T-Values: 7.04 4.15 44.51 PROP = 0.14 * PASPO + 0.23 * RIJ + 0.23 * GBIO + 0.11 * HPJ + 0.12 * ERHJP + 0.044 * HSPO + 0.062 * PFIEL, P-Values: (0.015) (0.012) (0.013) T-Values: 8.23 3.69 44.51 SAJ = 0.18 * PROP + 0.23 * RIJ + 0.068 * GBIO + 0.21 * HPJ + 0.11 * ERHJP + 0.046 * HSPOE, P-Values: (0.015) (0.012) (0.014) T-Values: 7.51 3.75 44.51 PW = 0.047 * SAJ + 0.074 * RIJ + 0.075 * HPJ+ 0.072 * ERHJP + 0.087 * ECREO, P-Values: (0.013) (0.011) (0.015) T-Values: 37.64 7.76 44.51 PASPO = 0.058 * PW + 0.35 * RIJ + 0.23 * GBIO + Errorvar. = 0.60, 0.056 * HPJ + 0.11 * ERHJP + 0.044 * ECREO, [R.sup.2] = 0.42 PROP = 0.14 * PASPO + 0.23 * RIJ + 0.23 * GBIO + Errorvar. = 0.57, 0.11 * HPJ + 0.12 * ERHJP + 0.044 * HSPO + 0.062 [R.sup.2] = 0.44 * PFIEL, SAJ = 0.18 * PROP + 0.23 * RIJ + 0.068 * GBIO + Errorvar. = 0.61, 0.21 * HPJ + 0.11 * ERHJP + 0.046 * HSPOE, [R.sup.2] = 0.42 PW = 0.047 * SAJ + 0.074 * RIJ + 0.075 * HPJ+ Errorvar. = 0.69, 0.072 * ERHJP + 0.087 * ECREO, [R.sup.2] = 0.43