Human Resources- Understanding Job Satisfaction, Commitment, & Term Paper

Human Resources- Understanding Job Satisfaction, Commitment, & Employee Retention - Term Paper Example All these three aspects are interrelated to each other. If job satisfaction is positive then it leads to strong organizational commitment and this may result in high level of employee retention. If there is negative job satisfaction, the employees will reduce their commitment towards work and organization which ultimately results in high level of turnover rate. In this paper, details of job satisfaction, organizational commitment along with employee retention have been discussed succinctly. The paper also covers the relationship between the three factors in a precise way. Finally, the paper is enclosed with a few concluding lines about the entire topic. 2.0 Job Satisfaction Job satisfaction is the result of emotional reaction related to the specific job situation. The satisfaction is dependent on the level of outcome of the job that means whether the employees can meet the result or exceed their expectations. Job satisfaction turns to be negative when the rewards are less and this ma y result in negative attitude towards the job (Tella & Et. Al., 2007). Job satisfaction is the affective response of an employee; therefore it can be a source or may be related to high productivity. It is a fact that â€Å"the satisfied worker is the productive worker†. Thus, satisfaction level of the worker is extensively related to the performance and quality of work. However, various studies have shown that satisfaction or dissatisfaction has no relation to the productivity of work. Satisfied workers may or may not be high producers and those employees who are high producers may not be interested in their jobs. Job satisfaction and dissatisfaction may not result in explicit behavior such as positive or negative influence in productivity, grievance, absenteeism, turnover and others. It may depend upon the personal characteristics of an employee that may be his or her personality and prospects for self expression lying on the job (Smith, n.d.). 3.0 Commitment Organizational commitment has been defined in various ways by Beckeri, Randal and Riegel (1995). It is considered as a strong aspiration of the employees to be a member of a particular organization. It is also defined as high level efforts that can be applied by employees for the organization and the employees’ acceptability related to the values as well as goals of the organization. Organizational commitment is associated with several factors such as personal factors, for example, age, professional periods in the organization, external or internal ascription. The other factors are organizational factors and these encompass job design, leadership style; and other non-organizational factors consist of availability of substitutes (Tella & Et. Al., 2007). According to Mowday, Porter and Steer (1982), organizational commitment is considered as an attachment and loyalty. There are three components related to organizational commitment which involve identification related to the goals as well as s tandards of the organization, desire to be associated with the organization and finally, an eagerness to show efforts for the organization (Mowday & Et. Al., 1982). Organizational commitment can also be termed as the power of the recognition of an individual and his attachment within the

Piercing the Corporate Veil Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2750 words

Piercing the Corporate Veil - Essay Example The paper tells that the provision of limited liability to incorporated companies enhanced investments from a large number of small and large investors. It would not be far from the truth to assert that the growth of the modern economy and industrial development can be attributed to this principle of limited liability. Investors are no longer required to harbour apprehensions regarding their investments and from being held accountable for the liabilities of the company in which they had invested. It has been contended by the majority that the proper functioning and growth of stock markets has been affected by limited liability. Moreover, it has simplified the task of evaluating the assets of companies. Furthermore, limited liability has excised the uncertainties, risks, and liabilities experienced by investors in the past. Shareholders can monitor the behaviour of their company to a much greater extent than in the past. Modern economic development requires large – scale capita l inflow. The limited liability effectively ensures the availability of capital from investors. The House of Lords established the doctrine of corporate personality in Salomon v Salomon. Under this principle, private investors and shareholders of companies were permitted to organise their business, via the corporate legal form. It also allowed entrepreneurs and institutional investors to monitor their investment strategies. In the absence of the legal form of the company, shareholders and investors were at the risk of being personally held liable to the creditors of the company (Muchlinski, 2010, p. 918). It has been perceived that this doctrine has increased the influence of shareholders and investors in the functioning of the company and in its business strategies. However, the majority of the people have welcomed the doctrine of limited liability, as it eliminates the direct responsibility of shareholders in the management of the company (Muchlinski, 2010, p. 918). The process of globalisation has substantially increased business activity and the operations of multinational corporations (MNC) at the global level. The separation of legal form of the company from its shareholders and investors has brought about several jurisdictional problems and the domination of MNCs in business (Muchlinski, 2010, p. 920). These problems have come to the fore due to different legal systems in the world. In addition, the state regulatory mechanisms that pertain to the MNCs differ from each other. The limited liability concept externalises the risk from group of investors. Ultimately, it transforms global legal order into national and sub-national jurisdictions. Thus, the corporate veil has assumed the garb of a jurisdictional veil, and the MNCs are using this veil to limit risk of liability (Muchlinski, 2010, p. 920). Moreover, Jurisdiction has emerged as an important aspect of international commercial transactions. The MNCs have established a parent – subsidiary cult ure in international business, which creates ambiguity in determining the appropriate jurisdiction for disputes. The difficulty chiefly arises because the jurisdiction of the parent company and that of its subsidiary are different. Consequently, disputes with a subsidiary cannot be addressed by the legal system of the parent company’s host country, in order to determine liability (Muchlinski, 2010, p. 920). InAdams v Cape Industries, a UK based parent company exported asbestos from its mines in South Africa. It had conducted this export via a sales subsidiary and thereafter through an