Socio-demographic Factors and Alienation among Workers in a Nigerian University: A Correlational Analysis

Socio-demographic Factors and Alienation among Workers in a Nigerian University: A Correlational Analysis

Emmanuel Obiahu Agha*, Collins Chukwuemeka Uche, and Daniel Chinazam Ogbu

Department of Sociology, Faculty of Social Sciences

Alex Ekwueme Federal University, Ndufu-Alike, Ebonyi State, Nigeria

*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.805016

Received: 14 April 2024; Accepted: 24 April 2024; Published: 28 May 2024

ABSTRACT

This correlational study examined socio-demographic variables and job alienation among workers in the Alex Ekwueme Federal University Ndufu-Alike (AE-FUNAI), Ebonyi State, Nigeria. Anchored on equity theory, which assumes that alienation occurs when workers are not treated fairly as they expect, data for the study were generated through a 33-item structured questionnaire administered to two hundred and sixty-three (263) respondents. Eight (8) hypotheses were formulated and tested using the Spearman Rank Order Correlation (Spearman rho). Results show that age, gender, marital status, tenure, staff type, and job type positively predict alienation, whereas education and pay/salary negatively predict alienation. In summary, socio-demographic variables predict job alienation. Importantly, management should consider seriously and prioritise the socio-demographic variables of their workers in its bid to stem job alienation and promote job involvement and other positive job behaviours. For instance, education or training of workers on new skills and technology can make them feel less alienated in their jobs. In all, effective and proactive human resource management is needed in controlling socio-demographic variables to achieve decreased job alienation or increased job involvement.

Keywords: Job alienation, work attitude, work organisation, socio-demographic variables, AE-FUNAI

INTRODUCTION

Industrial or organisational sociologists systematically study the reality and problems of industrial or work organizations, the interaction of people in industrial settings and work organizations (social organization of work), and the outcomes of such interaction as industrial pressures and processes shaping workers’ attitudes, behaviours, and entire life in modern times (Parker, Brown, Chold and Smith, 1972; Pascal 1972). Work attitudes and behaviours, which are products of industrial processes, include, but are not limited to, alienation, job involvement, job satisfaction, job commitment, workaholism, absenteeism, and turnover. The study of work attitudes and behaviours is of utmost importance to industrial or work sociology.

Alienation is a crucial work attitude which has received considerable attention in social science literature, especially in Sociology and Psychology (see Fromm, 1955; Seeman, 1959; Blauner, 1964; Argyris, 1964; Podsakoff, Williams and Todor, 1986; Ahiauzu, 1992; Mgbe, 1994). Obviously, the concept of alienation, sociologically speaking, has dichotomised scholars into two camps: the Marxian and the Seemanian. While the Marxian conceptualise alienation objectively, the Seemanian view it subjectively.

Karl Marx used the concept of alienation objectively to describe the organization of work that emerged with the industrial capitalism. In “The Tyranny of Work”, Rinehart (1996:14) referred to alienation as “a condition in which individuals have little or no control over: the purposes and products of the labour process, the overall organization of the workplace, and the immediate work process itself”. Based on the Marxist idea, Harry Braverman criticized monopoly capitalism as the cause of labour alienation. Braverman (1974) accused scientific management as an instrument of capitalism which helps in deepening worker alienation. Thus, he summarily argued that scientific management involves: disassociation of the labour process from the skills of workers, separation of conception from execution, and use of monopoly power over knowledge to control each step of the labour process and its mode of execution. On the other hand, Melvin Seeman has conceptualised alienation subjectively to refer to feelings of powerlessness, meaninglessness, normlessness, isolation, and self-estrangement by workers as they engage in their work (Seeman, 1959). Blauner (1964) and Kanungo, (1979) are among the notable advocates of the Seemanian or subjective version of alienation.

Alienation strongly influences work performance, intention to quit, job commitment, burn-out, and organizational loyalty (Sookoo, 2014). In fact, alienation has several negative effects on organisational performance and productivity, including low job involvement, aggression amongst individuals and groups, employee burnout, low productivity, tendency to expend little energy, working for external or instrumental rewards (salary), turnover intentions or likelihood to quit the jobs, employee dissatisfaction, low worker commitment, absenteeism, employee sabotage and theft (Freudenberger, 1980; Agarawal, 1993; Abraham, 2000; Dimitriades, 2007; Hodson and Sullivan, 2011). In spite of these obvious negative effects, there is limited empirical research in these areas (Chisholm and Cummings, 1979; Hirschfeld, Field and Bedeian, 2000; Banai and Reisel, 2003; Armstrong-Stassen, 2006; Suarez-Mendoza and Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara, 2007; Costas and Fleming, 2009; Chiaburu, Thundiyil and Wang, 2014).

Alienation has traditionally been studied with respect to the blue-collar workers. Research on alienation among the non-manual or white-collar workers is limited, although some studies have focused on alienation among professionals in the late 70s and 80s (see Allen and Lafollette, 1977; Korman, Wittig-Berman and Lang, 1981; Lang, 1985; Organ and Greene, 1981; Podsakoff, Williams and Todor, 1986). In fact, Chiaburu, Thundiyil and Wang (2014) uncovered more than 1200 alienation articles, but were disappointed because less than 200 were empirical studies. There is much scholarly interest at the theoretical level (Prasad and Prasad, 1993; Seeman, 1959) and little at the empirical research level. This present study examines the possibility of socio-demographic variables predicting job alienation of workers in the Alex Ekwueme Federal University Ndufu-Alike, Ebonyi State, Nigeria. Socio-demographic variables considered in this study include age, sex or gender, marital status, education, tenure of service, staff type, job type, and pay or monthly salary. Resultantly, a model of the relationship between these socio-demographic variables and job alienation is presented in this study (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Model of Socio-demographic Predictors of Labour Alienation in AE-FUNAI

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The following questions guided the study:

1. How does age predict job alienation?
2. Is gender or sex a positive predictor of job alienation?
3. Is marital status a positive predictor of job alienation?
4. How does education predict job alienation?
5. Does tenure/length of service predict job alienation?
6. In what way does staff type predict job alienation?
7. What is the relationship between job type and job alienation?
8. How does pay (Monthly salary) predict job alienation?

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The objectives are to:

1. Examine the relationship between age and job alienation.
2. Investigate the relationship between gender or sex and job alienation.
3. Examine the relationship between marital status and job alienation.
4. Ascertain the relationship between education and job alienation.
5. Determine the relationship between tenure/length of service and job alienation.
6. Investigate the relationship between staff type and job alienation.
7. Examine the relationship between job type and job alienation.
8. Ascertain the relationship between pay (Monthly salary) and job alienation.

RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

The following hypotheses were formulated and tested:

1. Age positively predicts labour alienation.
2. Gender or sex positively predicts labour alienation.
3. Marital status positively predicts labour alienation.
4. Education positively predicts labour alienation.
5. Tenure/length of service positively predicts labour alienation.
6. Staff type positively predicts labour alienation.
7. Job type positively predicts labour alienation.
8. Pay (Monthly salary) positively predicts labour alienation.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The concept of alienation has been variously defined and measured by scholars (Nair and Vohra, 2009). Fromm (1955:120) defined it as “mode of experience in which a person experiences himself as alien or estranged from others. Seeman (1959, 1975) defined it as feelings of powerlessness, meaninglessness, normlessness, social isolation and self estrangement encountered by workers. In the view of Schacht (1970), alienation is the dissociative state of the individual in relation to some other elements in his or her environment. For Kanungo (1979:131), worker alienation refers simply to a “generalised state of psychological separation from one’s work”.

Combining the ideas of Seeman and Kanungo, work alienation is defined in this study as a generalised state of psychological separation from one’s work, which manifests in the feelings or experience of powerlessness, meaninglessness, normlessness, social isolation and self estrangement encountered by workers. The word “alienation” derives from the Latin alienare, which means dispose of or remove. In current usage, it denotes the stage of estrangement, feelings of powerlessness, meaninglessness, social isolation, exclusion and lack of identity. In fact, to be alienated simply means to be estranged or made foreign (Ericsson, 2011).

The concept of alienation has been explained objectively (as a type of social relationship) and subjectively (as a personal psychological feeling or state). Synthesising Marxian and the Seemanian perspectives of alienation, Blauner viewed alienation as a syndrome characterized by objective conditions and subjective feelings engendered by the relationship between the worker and the existing socio-technical settings in the workplace. While the objective conditions refer to the technology form employed in particular industries, the subjective feelings denote the attitudes and feelings of workers towards their work (Haralambos and Heald, 1980; Hill, 1981). Showing that repetitive routine tasks which grant less autonomy lead to alienation, Blauner (1964) viewed self-alienation as occurring when the workers cannot control their work directly, cannot understand their occupational purposes and its relation with the whole production system, cannot feel that they belong to the general industrial society, and cannot express themselves during their works (Tawasoli, 1996; Valadbigi and Ghobadi, 2011).

Pioneering the ground-breaking analysis of workers’ or labour alienation, Marx believed that alienation is a systematic result of capitalism, in which men exploit their fellow men and where the division of labour creates an economic hierarchy. Clearly, Marx identified four types of worker alienation under capitalism: alienation of the worker from the work he produced, or from the product of his labour (the product’s design and the manner in which it is produced are determined by the capitalist class); alienation of the worker from working, or from the act of producing itself (referring to the patterning of work in the capitalist mode of production into an endless sequence of discrete, repetitive, trivial, and meaningless motions, offering little, if any, intrinsic satisfaction); alienation of the worker from himself as a producer, or from his/her “species being” or “essence as a species” (workers are separated from their own nature or humanity, as they are driven to exist as expressionless machines with no spontaneous or creative freedom, and their jobs often provide little satisfaction and are primarily a means to sustain their continued physical survival); and alienation of the worker from other workers (capitalism reduces the act of work to a simple economic practice, rather than recognizing the social elements of the act of production; a capitalist system sees the labour of the worker as a commercial commodity that can be traded in the competitive labour-market). The worker is actually alienated from human community or other workers because social relationship in the capitalist system becomes merely market relations (Coser, 1971; Hill, 1981).

According to Zastrow (2008), alienation has a specific sociological meaning: the sense of meaninglessness and powerlessness that people experience when interacting with social institutions they consider oppressive and beyond their control. As a term originally used by Karl Marx, worker alienation occurs largely because workers are separated from ownership of the means of production and from any control over the final product of their labor. Thus, they feel powerless and view their work as meaningless. In the view of Berger, Sedivy, Cisler, and Dilley (2008), work alienation contains work characteristics such as limited decision making and minimal skill usage. An alienated person has a lack of involvement in the work role and disengages from the work. Work alienation was previously a component of a commitment propensity (Hirschfeld and Feild, 2000; Banai and Reisel, 2007). For Aluko (2008), alienation is seen as the feeling of loss or estrangement from ones important work value, thereby creating a sense of domination, non-

fulfilment, detachment and discontent.

People who experience high alienation and low involvement in workplace usually have high intention to leave. Turnover intentions are the cognitive process of thinking, planning, and desiring to leave a job (Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, & Meglino, 1979). Turnover intentions generally occur before actual turnover; moreover, turnover intentions are generally the best predictor of voluntary turnover (Steel and Ovalle, 1984). In the view of Fishbein and Ajzen (1975: 369), the best single predictor of an individual’s behaviour will be a measure of his intention to perform that behaviour”.

Generally, alienation occurs as individual workers find work-related processes meaningless due largely to organisational and environmental conditions, thereby making the worker to feel inefficient and powerless, isolate him/herself from the workplace and colleagues, and develop negative attitudes towards work (Elma, 2003). In fact, work alienation occurs when an employee is not able to express himself/herself at work due to the loss of control over the product and process of his or her labour (Mendoza and Lara, 2007). As a result of the absence of autonomy and control in the workplace, workers may experience alienation. If the work environment cannot satisfy the needs for individual autonomy, responsibility, fairness, and achievement of the workers, it will create a state of alienation (Kanungo, 1983). Also, low participation in decision making has been found to be associated with work alienation among trainees of a management training programme (Allen and La Follette, 1977).

Several studies have been conducted on alienation of workers in the developed capitalist economies of Europe. However, they appear to be few studies on the phenomenon in the developing economies of Third World countries, as countries of the Third World can hardly be said to be industrializing in the real sense of the word. Dean (1961) made the first attempt to measure empirically the multi-dimensions of alienation as described by Seeman. Focusing on powerlessness, normlessness, and social isolation sub-dimensions, Dean’s study found that a low but statistically significant negative correlation existed among the three components and occupational prestige, education, income, and rural background.

Alienation of workers in Nigeria has been explored in a study by Ahiauzu (1992). Premised on Blauner’s conception and typology of technology, Ahiauzu selected and studied four industries that have four different technology forms and are located in Port Harcourt, Rivers State. Based on what she called the internal and external sources of alienation, she arrived at the conclusion that: Nigerian industrial workers are generally alienated; workers in the assembly-line (conveyor-belt) and in the craft industries are the least alienated; within the workplace, alienation results mainly from the powerlessness and isolation of the worker and general poor conditions which force the worker to desire to change present work; and beyond the immediate environment of the workplace, societal changes have adversely affected the productive capacity of both the worker and that of the industry (Girigiri, 1998).

Sulu, Ceylan and Kaynak (2010) studied work alienation as a mediator of the relationship between organizational injustice and organizational commitment, and implications for healthcare professionals. It was hypothesized in the study that distributive and procedural injustice would cause organizational commitment, and dimensions of work alienation would serve as mediators in this relationship. These relationships were tested in a sample of 383 healthcare professionals (nurses and physicians) from public and private hospitals in Istanbul. The results revealed that both distributive injustice and procedural injustice were associated with organizational commitment, and each of the work alienation dimensions partially mediated this relationship. Similarly, Ceylan and Sulu (2011) found that the powerlessness and social isolation sub-dimensions of alienation are significantly positively related with distributive and procedural injustice amongst health workers in Turkey.

Valadbigi and Ghobadi (2011), using a sample of 90 workers, found that work alienation had a meaningful or significant relationship with geographical origin, marital state, type of work, satisfaction with wages and incomes, quality of human relationships with other workers and managers, uncertainty, confliction, and stress of role. This study mainly focused on personal characteristics of workers. Earlier, Naik (1978) has observed that female employees exhibit greater alienation than their male counterparts. Vijayanthimala & Bharati (1997) shows that the mean alienation scores for women studied were higher because of their lower job involvement and a configuration that included parenthood more predominantly as compared to employment. A study of New Zealand police officers found no difference in level of job involvement between male and female respondents (Love and Singer, 1988).

Mishra & Gupta (1995) investigated the predicting effect of motivation, alienation and job involvement on performance of blue collar industrial workers. The result showed that both motivation and alienation emerged as significant predictors of work performance but motivation was found to be the stronger predictor of performance. DeHart-Davis & Pandey (2009) explored the relationship between organisational red tape and work alienation, and argued that managers who encounter rules, regulations, or procedures that seem pointless but burdensome may encounter the key psychological ingredients of alienation – powerlessness and meaninglessness. The statistical analyses show that perceived personnel red tape is a consistently negative and statistically significant influence in all alienation models but not in job involvement model. While formalisation seems to be a mitigating influence on alienation, red tape and other forms of bureaucratic control including centralisation and technology routineness are exacerbating sources of alienation and have adverse effects on the psychological attachment felt by public managers to their workplace.

Chiaburu, Thundiyil and Wang (2014) provided a meta-analysis of alienation, outlining the extent to which it is predicted by individual differences (need for achievement), role stressors (role conflict), leader dimensions (initiating structure), and aspects of the work context (formalisation). They also examined the relationship of alienation with outcomes such as employee attitudes (job satisfaction), performance (task performance), withdrawal (absenteeism), and side effects (drinking). Examining these relationships based on data from 45 primary studies and 227 statistically independent relationships, their meta-analysis provides cumulative evidence for effect sizes across multiple settings and respondents, clarifies ambiguous aspects of the construct, and presents more information on the extent to which alienation can be seen as the opposite of job involvement. The study established that alienation negatively predict job involvement, job satisfaction, organisational identification, and organisational commitment, but positively predict job insecurity.

THEORETICAL UNDERCURRENTS

This study is anchored on equity and relative deprivation theories. As popularized by J. Stacey Adams in 1964, equity theory focuses on social comparisons in the workplace and employees’ reaction to incentives and outcomes in work settings. The theory assumes that satisfaction exists when consumers or workers perceive their output/input ratio as being fair (Adams, 1964). Adams’ equity theory is built upon the argument that a man’s output or rewards in exchange with others should be proportional to his investments or inputs (Oliver & Swan, 1989).

Equity theory refers to the individual’s subjective judgments about the equity or fairness of the reward they get in relationship to the inputs in comparison with other (Nwigbo, 2001; Athiyaman, 2004). Based on Adams’ equity theory, the feeling of job alienation and low job involvement are tied to perceived inequity or workers’ observation that their counterparts in the same or other work organisations are paid or motivated higher than them. As Enshner, Grant-Vallone, and Donaldson (2001) rightly submitted, when a person is treated exclusive, differently or unfairly because of his or her group membership he or she often feels alienated and angry.

Similar to Adam’s equity theory, the relative deprivation theory (RDT) suggests that those who receive what they feel they deserve feel satisfied, while those who receive less feel anger and deprivation. The RDT was articulated by Ted Robert Gurr, in “Why Men Rebel” (1980), following Dollard and associates’ postulation in 1939 that frustration leads men to act aggressively. Gurr defined relative deprivation as the perception by actors of the discrepancy between their value expectations and their value capabilities. Value expectations are goods and conditions of life to which people believe they are rightfully entitled, while value capabilities are the goods and conditions they think they are capable of getting and keeping. Based on Gurr’s theory, this present study argues that workers whose needs have been met or who receive what they want in their workplaces feel happy, satisfied and involved; while those whose needs have not been met or who do not receive what they want in their workplaces feel unhappy, frustrated, dissatisfied or alienated, and less involved in their jobs.

METHODOLOGY

The correlational survey design was adopted and used in the study. Thus, the study examined the extent to which socio-demographic variables predict job alienation among workers in the Alex Ekwueme Federal University Ndufu-Alike (AE-FUNAI), Ebonyi State, Nigeria. Established in 2011 by the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) and located in the serene agricultural environment of Ikwo in Ebonyi South Senatorial Zone, Ebonyi State, AE-FUNAI offers high quality academic or educational programmes and services that meet national and international academic best practices and demands of the 21^st century. This modern university prides itself as the Home of Soaring Eagles, after the totemic eagle on the university’s logo. The university has seven (7) faculties which include: Basic Medical Sciences, Sciences, Humanities, Engineering and Technology, Management and Social Sciences, Education, and Agriculture. These faculties house a lot of departments or units through which the main aim of the university is delivered. The university is premised on “Excellence, Integrity and Entrepreneurship Development” as its core academic philosophy (www.funai.edu.ng). Importantly, the university has numerous academic and non-academic staff, working to help the organisation to achieve its set goals.

The population of workers in AE-FUNAI was adopted and used as the population of the study. AE-FUNAI has staff strength of about 1142 (466 teaching staff, 346 senior non-teaching staff, and 330 junior non-teaching staff). A thirty-three item questionnaire was administered originally to two hundred and ninety-six (296) workers drawn from a population of 1142 through the Taro Yamane’s formula (n = N/1 + N(e)²) thus: AE-FUNAI’s sample size: 1142/1+1142 x 0.0025

                                 = 1142/3.855

                                 = 296.24

                                 = 296

Finally, two hundred and sixty-three (263) respondents, used for the study, correctly filled and returned their questionnaire. These respondents were selected using the stratified sampling technique, which is the process of selecting a sample when the population consists of a number of subgroups with subjects having similar characteristics (Maduabum, 1999). Respondents were stratified based on work type only. Thus, the respondents were stratified into Lecturing or Teaching, Non-teaching or administration, Security/ICT, Works and Operations, and Account/Audit/Procurement. The sampling technique was chosen because of the heterogeneous (consisting of different units or departments) nature of the population; it ensured that all the units/departments were represented. It is interesting to note that 263 workers (23.0%) out of AE-FUNAI’s population of 1142 workers were sampled and used for the study using Taro Yamane’s formula. This sample is commendable because it is even above the recommendation of Mugenda & Mugenda (2003), which observes that 10% of the target population is a good representation of the study.

Descriptive statistics (especially frequency analyses and percentages) and inferential statistics (correlation) were used to analyze the results and hypotheses of this study. Sekaran (2003) notes that while descriptive statistics describe the phenomena of interest and is used to obtain a feel for (sympathy) the data, inferential statistics is employed when generalisations from a sample to the population are made. The Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficient (Spearman rho) was used as the statistical method to draw inferences in this study. In other words, the Spearman rho was used to determine whether a statistically significant relationship exists between socio-demographic variables and job alienation.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Respondents’ Socio-Demographic Data

Table 1 shows the socio-demographic characteristics of respondents used in the study. It reveals that 49.8% were aged between 18-37 years, 44.5% were aged 38-57 years, and only 5.7% were aged 58-77 years (no worker was more than 77 years of age); 61.2% were males and 38.8% were females; 63.9% were married, 33.8% were single, and only 2.3% were separated; 39.9% had OND/HND/B.Sc., 30.4% had secondary school education (SSCE/WAEC), and 29.7% had M.Sc. and Ph.D. 41.80.6% had spent between 1-4 years in the industry, 17.9% were newly employed and had spent less than 1 year in the industry, and only 1.5% had spent 5 and above years. 83.7% were permanent staff and 16.3% were temporary/part-time or contract staff; 40.7% were lecturers, 30.0% were non-teaching staff, 12.9% worked in works/operations unit, 10.6% worked in security/ICT unit, and only 5.7% were account/audit/procurement officers; and 42.2% of the respondents earned a monthly income of N100000 and above, 29.7% earned between N20,000 and N59000 monthly, and 28.1% earned between N60000 and N99000.

Table 1: Socio-demographic Data

Respondents’ Opinions on Job Alienation

Respondents’ Opinions on Powerlessness Dimension of Alienation

Powerlessness dimension of alienation was measured using a five-item scale (see Table 2). Results show that: 50.6 percent of the respondents were allowed to express their opinions and views on their job, 45.2 percent were not allowed to express their opinions and views on their job, and only 4.2 percent was neutral on this view; 25.1 percent of the respondents can really influence what happens to the organization at large, 62.4 percent cannot really influence what happens to the organization at large, and 12.5 percent was neutral on the issue; 85.2 percent of the respondents believed that they can change the future of the organization if they make themselves heard, 6.8 percent believed they cannot change the future of the organization if they make themselves heard, and 8.0 percent was neutral; 58.6 percent were of the view that their daily tasks were not largely determined by others, 29.7 percent accepted that their daily tasks were largely determined by others, and 11.8 percent were silent on the issue; and 87.4 percent accepted that they have a good deal of freedom in the performance of my daily task, 6.4 percent did not have a good deal of freedom in the performance of my daily task, and 5.3 percent were silent on the issue.

Table 2: Respondents’ Opinion on Powerlessness Dimension of Alienation

Respondents’ Opinions on Meaninglessness Sub-Dimension of Alienation

The opinions of respondents on meaninglessness dimension of alienation were measured using a five-item scale (see Table 3). Result shows that: 93.1 percent were sure they completely understand the purpose of their work, 3.0 percent were not sure they completely understand the purpose of their work, and 3.8 percent neither agreed nor disagreed with the view; 94.3 percent saw their work as really important and worthwhile, 1.6 percent saw their work as not really important and worthwhile, and 4.2 percent were silent over the issue; 98.5 percent were of the opinion that their work means much to them and only 1.6 percent were of the opinion that their work does not mean much to them; 88.6 percent accepted that they would be able to take adequate care of their family with their present job, 3.5 percent accepted that they would not be able to take adequate care of their family with their present job,  and 8.0 percent were silent over the issue; and 95.1 percent accepted that their future does not look miserable and dismally unsecured with their job, 1.9 percent accepted that their future looks miserable and dismally unsecured with their job, and 3.0 percent were neutral over the issue.

Table 3: Respondents’ Opinion on Meaninglessness Dimension of Alienation

Respondents’ Opinions on Normlessness Dimension of Alienation

Normlessness dimension of alienation was measured using a five-item scale (see Table 4). Results show that: 82.5 percent felt that people who get along or promoted in their organisations deserve it, 10.2 percent felt that people who get along or promoted in their organisations do not deserve it, and 7.2 percent were neutral on the issue; 86.7 percent were of the view that it does not pull and connection to get along or be promoted in their workplaces, 7.9 percent were of the view that it takes pull and connection to get along or be promoted in their workplaces, and 5.3 percent remained silent over the issue; 86.7 percent did not accept the view that one needs to be a good politician to survive and get ahead in their organisations, 5.7 percent accepted the view that one needs to be a good politician to survive and get ahead in their organisations, and 7.6 percent were neutral over the issue; 88.2 percent accepted that getting ahead in their organisations depends on ability, 6.5 percent accepted that getting ahead in their organisations does not depend on ability, and 5.3 percent were neutral over the issue; and 64.6 percent did not accept the view that promotions or appointments in their organisations depend on how much one knows people, 27.0 percent accepted that promotions or appointments in their organisations depend on how much one knows people, and 8.4 percent were silent over the issue.

Table 4: Respondents’ Opinion on Normlessness Dimension of Alienation

Respondents’ Opinions on Social Isolation Dimension of Alienation

Social isolation dimension of alienation was measured using a five-item scale (see Table 5). Results show that: 91.3 percent of the respondents were able to get practical help from their colleagues when difficulties were encountered, 6.8 percent were neutral on the issue, and only 1.9 could not get practical help from their colleagues when difficulties were encountered; 95.9 percent were of the view that the organisation’s reputation is very important to them, 2.7 percent did not say anything about the importance or otherwise of the organisation’s reputation to them, and only 1.4 percent accepted that the organisation’s reputation is not very important to them; 81.3 percent did not accept that their fellow workers are only interested in themselves, 5.3 percent accepted that their fellow workers are only interested in themselves, and 13.3 percent neither agreed nor disagreed with the opinion; 93.6 percent were of the opinion that their occupation allows them to freely interact with my colleagues, 2.1 percent were of the opinion that their occupation does not allow them to freely interact with my colleagues, and 4.2 percent were neutral on the issue; and 48.7 percent were of the opinion that their organizations carry them along in terms of decision making, 32.4 percent said that their organizations do not carry them along in terms of decision making, and 19.0 percent were neutral over the issue.

Table 5: Respondents’ Opinion on Social Isolation Dimension of Alienation

Respondents’ Opinions on Self-estrangement Dimension of Alienation

Self-estrangement dimension of alienation was measured using a five-item scale (see Table 6). Results show that: 93.2 percent really feel a sense of pride or accomplishment in the type of work they do, 2.6 percent did not really feel a sense of pride or accomplishment in the type of work they do, and 4.2 percent were silent on the issue; 88.9 percent accepted that their work gives them a sense of pride in having their job done well, 6.0 percent said that their work does not give them a sense of pride in having their job done well, and 4.9 percent were neutral on the issue; 89.2 percent like their job, 3.0 percent did not like the type of work they do, and 3.8 percent did not indicate if they like or disliked their job; 84.8 percent were of the view that their job gives them a chance to do the things that they do best, 5.8 percent admitted that their job does not give them a chance to do the things that they do best, and 9.5 percent were silent over the issue; and 92.0 percent saw their work as the most rewarding experience they have, 2.7 percent admitted that their work is not the most rewarding experience they have, and 5.3 percent were silent over the issue.

Table 6: Respondents’ Opinion on Self-Estrangement Dimension of Alienation

Testing of Hypotheses

Eight hypotheses were tested using the Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient (Spearman rho) analytical technique. The first hypothesis, which states that age positively predicts job alienation of workers in AE-FUNAI, Nigeria, was confirmed or accepted. The result of the test shows that age positively (but not significantly) predicts job alienation. This implies that the more one is advanced in age, the more alienated one feels in his/her job. In other words, workers who are old are more alienated than those who are young.

The second hypothesis, which states that gender or sex positively predicts job alienation, was also confirmed or accepted. The result of the test shows that gender positively (but not significantly) predicts job alienation. It shows that being a male or female is associated with feeling of alienation. In other words, males and female are not similarly alienated in their jobs.

The third hypothesis, which states that marital status positively predicts job alienation, was also confirmed or accepted. The result of the test shows that marital status positively (but not significantly) predicts job alienation, to the extent that workers who are married are more alienated in their jobs than their counterparts who are still single.

The fourth hypothesis, which states that education positively predicts job alienation, was rejected. Result shows that education negatively (and significantly) predicts job alienation, to the extent that workers who have increased education feel less alienated than their counterparts who are not highly educated. It is worthy to note that the highly educated are usually fairly paid than the less educated and thus the former supposedly have lesser feeling of alienation than the latter. Thus, as suggested by Agha and Ekpenyong (2018), education and training of workers should be prioritised by organisations to increase workers involvement and dissuade job alienation.

The fifth hypothesis, which states that tenure/length of service positively predicts job alienation, was accepted or confirmed. Result shows that length of service positively (and significantly) predicts job alienation, to the extent that workers who have spent quite some reasonable years in the job feel more alienated in their jobs than those who are still new in the job. In other words, job alienation increases as the individual worker spend more years in the organisation.

The sixth hypothesis, which states that staff type positively predicts job alienation, was accepted or confirmed. Result shows that job type positively (but not significantly) predicts job alienation. This means that job alienation is determined by the type or nature of worker one is in the organisation. As revealed by the study, permanent or full workers feel more alienated that contract staff. After all, contract or temporary workers have no business expecting more than specified in their appointment letter, because of their temporary status.

The seventh hypothesis, which states that job type positively predicts job alienation, was accepted or confirmed. Result shows that job type positively (and significantly) predicts job alienation. This means that job type or the nature of job one does determines job alienation in the organisation. As revealed by the study, permanent or full workers feel more alienated that contract staff. After all, contract or temporary workers have no business expecting more than specified in their appointment letter, because of their temporary status.

Lastly, the eighth hypothesis, which states that pay (monthly salary) positively predicts job alienation, was rejected. Result shows that pay or salary negatively (and significantly) predicts job alienation, to the extent that workers who have increased salary or pay feel less alienated than their counterparts whose salary is low. In summary, age, gender, marital status, tenure, staff type, and job type positively predict alienation, whereas education and pay/salary negatively predict alienation (see summary of hypothesis in Table 7).

Table 7: Summary of Hypotheses Testing

Note: *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This study examined socio-demographic variables and job alienation among workers in AE-FUNAI, Nigeria. As shown by the study, age, gender, marital status, tenure, staff type, and job type positively predict alienation, whereas education and pay/salary negatively predict alienation. In summary, socio-demographic variables predict job alienation. It is important that management should consider seriously and prioritise the socio-demographic variables of their workers in its bid to stem job alienation and promote job involvement and other positive job behaviours. For instance, education or training of workers on new skills and technology can make them feel less alienated in their jobs. In all, effective and proactive human resource management is needed in controlling socio-demographic variables to achieve decreased job alienation or increased job involvement.

REFERENCES

1. Abraham, R. (2000). Organizational Cynicism: Bases and Consequences. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 126(3), 269-292.
2. Adams, J. S. (1964). Inequity in Social Exchange. In: L. Bertowit (Ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 265-300.
3. Agarwal, S. (1993). Influence of Formalization on Role Stress, Organizational Commitment, and Work Alienation of Salespersons: A Cross-National Comparative Study. Journal of International Business Studies, 24(4), 715-739.
4. Agha, E. O. & Ekpenyong, O. (2018). Socio-demographic Predictors of Job Involvement of Rice Mill Workers in Abakaliki, Ebonyi State, Nigeria. International Journal of Economic Development Research and Investment, 9(1), 1-20.
5. Ahiauzu, B. E. (1992). Labour Alienation in Nigerian Industries: A Comparative Study of Selected Industries in Port Harcourt. Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis, University of Port Harcourt.
6. Allen, B. H. and La Follette, W. R. (1977). Perceived Organizational Structure and Alienation among Management Trainees. Academy of Management Journal, 20 (2): 334-341.
7. Aluko, M. A. O. (2008). Major Concepts in the Study of Work Behaviour. In: O. A. Ogunbameru and E. P. Oribabor (Eds.) Industrial Sociology. Ibadan: Penthouse Publications. Pp. 130 – 146.
8. Argyris, C. (1964). Integrating the Individual and the Organization. New York: Wiley.
9. Armstrong-Stassen, M. (2006). Determinants of How Managers Cope with Organisational Downsizing. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55(1): 1-26.
10. Athiyaman, A. (2004). Antecedents and Consequences of Student Satisfaction with University Services: A longitudinal analysis. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Jan.
11. Banai, M. and Reisel, W. (2003). A Test of Control – Alienation Theory among Cuban Workers. Management Research, 1: 243-252.
12. Banai, M. and Reisel, W. D. (2007). The Influence of Supportive Leadership and Job Characteristics on Work Alienation: A Six-country Investigation. Journal of World Business, 42(4): 463-476.
13. Berger, L. K., Sedivy, S. K., Cisler, R. A. and Dilley, L. J. (2008). Does Job Satisfaction Mediate the Relationships Between Work Environment Stressors and Employee Problem Drinking? Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 23(3): 229-244.
14. Blauner, R. (1964). Alienation and Freedom: The Factory Worker and His Industry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15. Braverman, H. (1974). Labour and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. New York: Monthly Review Press.
16. Ceylan, A., and Sulu, S. (2011). Organızatıonal Injustice and Work Alienation. Ekonomika A Management, 1, 65-78.
17. Chiaburu, D. S., Thundiyil, T. and Wang, J. (2014). Alienation and its Correlates: A Meta-analysis. European Management Journal 32: 24-36.
18. Chisholm, R. F. and Cummings, T. G. (1979). Job Characteristics, Alienation, and Workrelated Behavior: A Study of Professional Employees. Journal of Management, 5(1): 57-70.
19. Chughtai, A. A. (2008). Impact of job involvement on in-role job performance and organisational citizenship behaviour. Institute of Behavioural and Applied Management, 9(2): 169-183.
20. Coser, L. A. (1977). Masters of Sociological Thought. New York: Harcourt Brace Javanovich, Inc.
21. Costas, J. and Fleming, P. (2009). Beyond Dis-identification: A Discursive Approach to Self-alienation in Contemporary Organizations. Human Relations, 62: 353-378.
22. Dean, D. G. (1961). Alienation: Its meaning and measurement. American Sociological Review, 26(4), 753-758.
23. DeHart-Davis, L. and Pandey, S. (2005). Red Tape and Public Employees: Does Perceived Rule Dysfunction Alienate Managers? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(1), 133-148.
24. Dimitriades, Z. S. (2007). The influence of service climate and job involvement on customer-oriented organizational citizenship behavior in Greek service organizations: A Survey. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 29(5): 469-491.
25. Elma, C. (2003). İlköğretim okulu öğretmenlerinin işe yabancılaşması. Doktora tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara. http://tez2.yok.gov.tr/ adresinden edinilmiştir.
26. Enshner, E. A., Grant-Vallone, E. J., and Donaldson, S. I. (2001). Effects of Perceived Discrimination on Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, and Grievances. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(1): 53-72.
27. Ericsson, U. (2011). Dealing with Youths Alienation: the Swedish Experience. In: Youth Alienation in Nigeria. Monograph Series 15. Lagos: CLEEN Foundation. Pp. 24-40.
28. Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitudes, intention, and behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
29. Freudenberger, H. J. (1980). Burn-Out: The High Cost of High Achievement. Garden City: Anchor.
30. Fromm, E. (1955). The Sane Society. New York: Rinehart.
31. Girigiri, B. K. (1998). Industrial Organizations: A Sociological Perspective. Port Harcourt: SIJ Publishers.
32. Gurr, T. (1980). Why Men Rebel. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press.
33. Haralambos, M. and R. M. Heald (1980). Sociology Themes and Perspectives. Sloughs: University Tutorial Press.
34. Hill, S. (1981). Competition and Control at Work: The New Industrial Sociology. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.
35. Hirschfeld, R. R. and Field, H. S. (2000). Work Centrality and Work Alienation: Distinct Aspects of a General Commitment to Work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(7), 789-800.
36. Hirschfeld, R. R., Feild, H. S. and Bedeian, A. G. (2000). Work Alienation as an Individual-difference Construct for Predicting Workplace Adjustment: A Test in Two Samples. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1880-1902.
37. Hodson, R. and Sullivan, T. (2008). Social Organisation of Work. Belmont: Wadsworth.
38. Kanungo, R. (1979). The Concepts of Alienation and Involvement Revisited. Psychological Bulletin, 86: 119-138.
39. Kanungo, R. N. (1983). Work Alienation: A Pancultural Perspective. International Studies of Management and Organization, 13(1-2): 119-138.
40. Korman, A. K., Wittig-Berman, U. and Lang, D. (1981). Career Success and Personal Failure: Alienation in Professionals and Managers. Academy of Management Journal, 24(2). 342-360.
41. Lang, D. (1985). Preconditions for Three Types of Alienation in Young Managers and Professionals. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 6: 171-182.
42. Love, K. and Singer, M. (1988). Self-efficacy, Psychological Well-Being, Job Satisfaction, and Job Involvement: A Comparison of Male and Female Police Officers. Police Studies, 11: 98–102.
43. Maduabum, M. A. (1999). Fundamentals of Educational Research. Owerri: Versatile Publishers.
44. Mendoza, M. J. S. and Lara, P. Z. M. (2007). The Impact of Work Alienation on Organizational Citizenship Behavior in the Canary Islands. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 15(1): 56-76.
45. Mgbe, C. E. (1994). Work Alienations and Work Involvement of Workers in Some Nigerian Industries. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria.
46. Mishra, P.C. and Gupta, J. (1995). Predicting Effect of Motivation, Alienation and Job Involvement on Performance of Blue Collar Industrial Workers. Indian Journal of Industrial relations, 28(1): 62-79.
47. Mobley, W., Griffeth, R., Hand, H. and Meglino, B. (1979). Review and Conceptual Analysis of the Employee Turnover Process. Psychological Bulletin, 86: 493-522.
48. Mugenda, O. M. and Mugenda, A.G. (2003). Research Methods; Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. Nairobi: African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS) Press.
49. Naik, N. (1978). Study of alienation among bank employees. The Journal of Social Work, 3:244-257.
50. Nair, N. and Vohra, N. (2009). Developing a New Measure of Work Alienation. Journal of Workplace Rights, 14(3) January, 293-309.
51. Nwigbo, T. S. (2001). Theory and Practice of Public Administration. Port Harcourt: ANO Publications Company.
52. Oliver, R. L. and J. E. Swan (1989). Consumer Perceptions of Interpersonal Equity and Satisfaction in Transactions: A Field Survey Approach. Journal of Marketing, 53, (April), 21-35.
53. Organ, D. W. and Greene, C. N. (1981). The Effects of Formalization on Professional Involvement: A Compensatory Process Approach. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 237-252.
54. Parker, S. R., Brown, R. K., Child, J. and Smith, M. A. (1972). The Sociology of Industry. London: George Allen Unwin Ltd.
55. Podsakoff, P. M., Williams, L. J. and Todor, W. D. (1986). Effects of Organizational Formalization on Alienation among Professionals and Nonprofessionals. Academy of Management Journal, 29(4): 820-831.
56. Prasad, A. and Prasad, P. (1993). Reconceptualizing Alienation in Management Inquiry: Critical Organizational Scholarship and Workplace Empowerment. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2: 169-183.
57. Rinehart, J. W. (1996). The Tyranny of Work: Alienation and the Labour Process. Third Edition. Toronto: Harcourt Brace & Company.
58. Seeman, M. (1959). On the Meaning of Alienation. American Sociological Review, 24(12): 783-791.
59. Sekaran, U. (2003). Research Methods for Business: A Skill-building Approach. (3rd Ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
60. Shacht, R. (1970). Alienation. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
61. Sookoo, N. (2014). Perceptions of Injustice and Alienation Dynamics within the Workplace. Journal of the Department of Behavioural Sciences, 3(1) February: 81-99.
62. Steel, R. and Ovalle, N. (1984). A Review and Meta-analysis of Research on the Relationship between Behavioral Intentions and Employee Turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 673-686.
63. Suarez-Mendoza, M. J. and Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara, P. (2007). The Impact of Work Alienation on Organizational Citizenship Behavior in the Canary Islands. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 15: 56-76.
64. Sulu, S., Ceylan, A. and Kaynak, R. (2010). Work Alienation as a Mediator of the Relationship between Organizational Injustice and Organizational Commitment: Implications for Healthcare Professionals. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(8) August: 27-38.
65. Tawasolli, A. (1996). Sociology of Work and Job. Tehran: SAMT Press.
66. Valadbigi, A. and Ghobadi, S. (2011). The Study of the Elements of Work Alienation: A Case Study of the Urmia White Cement Factory, Western Azarbayjan Province, Iran. Asian Social Science, 7(6) June, 206-219.
67. Vijayanthimala, K. and Bharati, K. K. (1997). Women with multiple roles: perception of psychological factors and marital satisfaction. The Journal of Family Welfare, 43(3) September: 54-60.
68. Zastrow, C. (2008). Introduction to Social Work and Social Welfare. Ninth Edition. Canada: Thomsom Brooks/Cole.