What makes people like to stay on their jobs Essay

What makes people like to stay on their jobs - Essay Example Based on developed level of satisfaction and happiness, employees determine whether to continue working for an organization or not. The factors also determine the employees’ productivity level, should they choose to remain in an organization. It is therefore important to investigate conditions that determine employees’ happiness and satisfaction to stay in jobs and reasons why employees may not like their jobs. Non-monetary factors Non-monetary factors are essential determinants of employees’ utility in a workplace. As a result, they are able to make an employee happy or not. An employee will for instance be happy if considered non-monetary factors meet his or her expectations. A match between job descriptions and an employee’s traits or abilities is one of the non-monetary factors that determine a person’s happiness in a job. This is because of the different expertise that each type of job requires and the involved strain in performing a job, shoul d an employee lack the required skills or traits. Matching employees with jobs that require their skills, level of experience and traits therefore eliminates strain in work, improves utility, and induce happiness. Employees in such working conditions like their jobs and would prefer to remain in the jobs and work effectively towards productivity. Mismatching employees’ ability with job requirements however identifies strains and incompetence in work that may discourage employees and lead to job dislike (Gaurav 9). Appreciating and recognizing employees are other non-monetary factors that influence employees’ happiness (Gaurav 9). This is because of the associated self worth that leads to self-confidence and internal motivation among employees. Examples of appreciation include congratulating an employee for an achievement such as meeting set objectives or doing an outstanding work. Recognition is, however, achieved by identifying an employee’s performance or char acteristics before peers. An appreciated or recognized employee therefore develops a self worth into satisfaction and happiness while lack of appreciation and recognition demoralizes employees who may consequently develop negative attitude towards their jobs. Presence of stress in a work environment is another non-monetary factor that determines employees’ happiness and developed attitudes towards a job. Stress primarily reduces people’s level of happiness and utility. Stressed employees will therefore be unhappy and would not like their jobs while employees who work in a stress free environment are likely to be happy and like their jobs (Gaurav 9). Monetary factors Monetary factors define direct financial advancements to employees. Remunerations, rewards, and appraisal-based advancements are examples. Even though not regarded as principal determinant to employees’ satisfaction in a job, money is instrumental. Employees will for example be comfortable when their basic remunerations match their competence and their level of input to an organization. A relatively low remuneration level would therefore not satisfy an employee and would lead to unhappiness. An underpaid employee will also most likely not appreciate the job and would be ready to leave for an opportunity that can match competence with pay. An organization’s reward system is another monetary factor to employees’ satisfaction and happiness that is directly associated with non-monetary aspects of appreciation and recognition. A performance-based reward for example indicates an organization’s appreciation of an employees’ performance and initiates the employees’ satisfaction in the work. Rewarded employees will therefore be happy and satisfied in their work. Similarly, those who have

International Relations (The Caspian Sea Dispute) Essay

International Relations (The Caspian Sea Dispute) - Essay Example The interest encompassing oil extraction in Caspian region are commonly existent in several countries of the world in view of its significance to each individual country's benefit. For instance, the Caspian states regard the extraction of oil as a bonanza of future riches, potency and control. However, Caspian states are not the only ones to conceive these purviews, beside these interests are also cherished by the giant international oil companies such as BP, Amoco and Exxon etc with a view to boosting profitability. Besides, countries like United States, Russia, China, Iran and Turkey. All guided by the objective to gain maximum possible geopolitical advantages out of the region's oil exploration and exploitation. Hence, this paper sharpens the significance of this region for several interested parties and also explores the arousing international level conflicts concerning the geographic expedition and utilization of Caspian Sea's abounding oil resources. The internal and external politics in the Caspian region have led to the enormously growing contention among several countries. The internal importance of oil reserves in the region arises in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, where the oil is expected to free the countries from the claws of poverty, economic backwardness and Russian influence. The other country having substantial concerns for the region is Russia, which regards the exploration of oil in the region to be severely yoked with Russian 'internal security' matters. Finally the Caspian region is of international interest because of the region's potential to have ample reserves of unexplored oil, which can shape the fortune of several countries connected with it. As Frank Viviano (1998, pA1) propounds, "The oil boom in the Caspian basin promises to alter everything in its path- to erect a new El Dorado in desert wasted, fuel the economies of US and Europe, and re-order the global economy. It will also imperil thousands of years of tradition, setting its defenders against the tide of a glittering but deeply uncertain future." The foremost problem with the Caspian Sea's oil resources is that these reserves are not distributed equally across the sea, which has inseminated conflicts among the countries bordering it on the issue of maximum access to amplest oil. The major dispute held by the countries bordering the Caspian Sea i.e., Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Iran is the application of international law for the usage of Caspian resources, arguing on the treatment of Caspian as sea or lake. Brice Clagett (1998, p4) illustrate that if the Caspian is to be handled as sea, the eminent beneficiaries would be Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, as the resources of the sea would then be utilized by each country to the extent of a specified zone off the seashore under the international law. Both Russia and Iran, who had been historically sharing the Caspian Sea reserves, do not contain sufficient oil resources within their specified limits off the seashore. Therefore, they prefer the Caspian to be treat ed as a lake, enabling the countries to equally share the resources beneath the sea. Besides Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and other Caspian States, the most evident interest in Caspian Sea reserves is that of the Russian. Ozden Oktav (2005, p21) illuminates that "Russia has many economic and