\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter

\IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}%
  {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}%
  {\RequirePackage{color}}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{ifxetex}
\ifxetex
  \usepackage{fontspec}
  \usepackage{xunicode}
  \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash}
  \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{}
  \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}}
  \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}}
  \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}}
  \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}}
  \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono}
  
\else
  \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}%
   {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
      \PrerenderUnicode{–}
    }%
   {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}}
  \usepackage[english]{babel}
  \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
  \usepackage{float}
  \usepackage[]{ucs}
  \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash }
  \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{}
  \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}}
  \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}}
  \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,}
  \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ }
  \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>}
  \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}}
  \def\textJapanese{}
  \def\textChinese{}
  \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{}
\fi
\def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small}
\DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25}
\usepackage{relsize}
\RequirePackage{array}
\def\@testpach{\@chclass
 \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else
  \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else
   \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else
    \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@
   \else \z@
   \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else
   \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}%
   \@chnum
   \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else
    \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else
     \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else
   \z@ \@chclass
   \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else
    \if \@nextchar !6 \else
     \if \@nextchar @7 \else
      \if \@nextchar (8 \else
       \if \@nextchar )9 \else
  10
  \@chnum
  \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else
   \if \@nextchar p4 \else
    \if \@nextchar b5 \else
   \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi
   \fi \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi}
\gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr}
\def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}}
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\def\abbr{}
\def\corr{}
\def\expan{}
\def\gap{}
\def\orig{}
\def\reg{}
\def\ref{}
\def\sic{}
\def\persName{}\def\name{}
\def\placeName{}
\def\orgName{}
\def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}}
\def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}}
\def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}}
\def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}}
\def\textquoted#1{‘#1’}
\def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}}
\def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}}
\def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}}
\def\titlem{\itshape}
\newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{bibl}{}{}
\newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{rubric}{}{}
\newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par }

\newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}}
\newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
\definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75}
\def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}}
\DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@}
\def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}}
\begingroup
\catcode`\_=\active
\gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}}
\endgroup
\mathcode`\_=\string"8000
\catcode`\_=12\relax

\usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry}
\usepackage{framed}

\definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{fancyvrb}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{marginnote}

\renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1}


\renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize}

\def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif}

  \pagestyle{fancy}

\usepackage[pdftitle={The Psychometric Impacts of Karasek's Demands and Control Scale on Employees' Job Dissatisfaction},
 pdfauthor={}]{hyperref}
\hyperbaseurl{}

	 \paperwidth210mm
	 \paperheight297mm
              
\def\@pnumwidth{1.55em}
\def\@tocrmarg {2.55em}
\def\@dotsep{4.5}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
\clubpenalty=8000
\emergencystretch 3em
\hbadness=4000
\hyphenpenalty=400
\pretolerance=750
\tolerance=2000
\vbadness=4000
\widowpenalty=10000

\renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large}}
\renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}%
     {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\large}}
\renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}%
     {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize}}
\renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}%
     {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}%
     {-1em}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}}


\def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt}
 \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup
 \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth 
 \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth 
 \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par
 \endgroup}
\def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}}
\def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}}
\def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}}
\def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}}
\@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{}
\@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{}
\newif\if@mainmatter 
\@mainmattertrue
\def\chaptername{Chapter}
\def\frontmatter{%
  \pagenumbering{roman}
  \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\roman{section}}
  \def\@chapapp{}%
}
\def\mainmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter}
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \pagenumbering{arabic}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6}
  \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}%
  \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}}
}
\def\backmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2}
  \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}%
  \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}}
  \appendix
}
\newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{%
   \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
       {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}%
        \leftmargin\labelwidth
        \advance\leftmargin\labelsep
        \@openbib@code
        \usecounter{enumiv}%
        \let\p@enumiv\@empty
        \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}%
	}%
  \sloppy
  \clubpenalty4000
  \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty
  \widowpenalty4000%
  \sfcode`\.\@m}%
  {\def\@noitemerr
    {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}%
    \endlist}

\def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}}
\parskip0pt
\parindent1em
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\newenvironment{reflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{sansreflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{specHead}[2]%
 {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}%
  \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}%

  \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}%
  \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}%
  }{}
      \def\TheFullDate{2011-02-15 (revised: 15 February 2011)}
\def\TheID{\makeatother }
\def\TheDate{2011-02-15}
\title{The Psychometric Impacts of Karasek's Demands and Control Scale on Employees' Job Dissatisfaction}
\author{}\makeatletter 
\makeatletter
\newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{%
  \clearpage
    \if@twoside
    \ifodd\c@page
      \hbox{}\newpage
      \if@twocolumn
        \hbox{}\newpage
      \fi
    \fi
  \fi
}
\makeatother
\makeatletter
\thispagestyle{empty}
\markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author}
\renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@
\belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip
\abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@
\belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@
\def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini
               \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@
               \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@
               \itemsep 1pt}
}
\makeatother
\fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm}
\fancyhf{} 
\setlength{\headheight}{14pt}
\fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} 
\fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} 
\fancyfoot[RO]{}
\fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID}
\fancyfoot[LE]{}
\fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID}
\hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true}
\fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}}

\date{}
\usepackage{authblk}

\providecommand{\keywords}[1]
{
\footnotesize
  \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1
}

\usepackage{graphicx,xcolor}
\definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81}
\definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9}
\definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70}
\definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} 

\renewenvironment{abstract}{%
   \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
   \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space}
}{%   
   \vskip8pt
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
}

\usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos}

\makeatother 
      \usepackage{lineno}
      \linenumbers
      
\begin{document}

             \author[1]{Dr.  Saif-ur-Rehman}

\renewcommand\Authands{ and }

\date{\small \em Received: 8 January 2011 Accepted: 3 February 2011 Published: 15 February 2011}

\maketitle


\begin{abstract}
        


Objective: The aim of this study was to provide the reliability and validity of job factors and to analyze its association with Demands-Control Model and job dissatisfaction in two time cross-sectional study of DISCOs of WAPDA. Methods: Two times self-reported cross-sectional surveys were conducted, the study samples consisting of 420 respondents at T1 and 388 respondents at T2. Results: Appropriate internal consistencies of the four scales: demands, control, job satisfaction and social supports, were obtained. Zero-order correlation and linear and multiple regressions analysis replicated the theoretically assumed structure of the job factors and job satisfaction construct in men and women collectively. Evidence of criterion validity was obtained from cross-correlations of the scales and from their linear and multiple regression analysis. Finally, all four measures were associated with a highly significant ratio of job dissatisfaction (JD), and the effect was strongest for the JD ratio as predicted by fundamental theory of Karasek. Conclusion: We examine how users who are assimilating job factors into their work experience the level of work related demands in their jobs, the level of autonomy/ control they have over their work, and how these relate to outcomes, such as job dissatisfaction and well-being. Based on the results of this study the four quadrant version of the DCM, questionnaire is considered a reliable and valid instrument for measuring psychosocial pressure at work environment. These outcomes and measures are applicable to all services and manufacturing industries

\end{abstract}


\keywords{Work overload; Work control; Organizational support; Job dissatisfaction; Demands-controlsupport model.}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark}
\end{textblock*}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}}
\end{textblock*}


\let\tabcellsep& 	 	 		 
\section[{INTRODUCTION he Job}]{INTRODUCTION he Job}\par
Demand-Control (JDC) Model was introduced by the sociologist  {\ref Karasek (1979)}, who drew attention upon two research directions of life, namely the job dissatisfaction directions (e.g., Caplan, Cobb,  {\ref French, van Harrison, \& Pineau, 1976};  {\ref Kahn, 1981)} and the job redesign convention (e.g., \hyperref[b9]{Hackman \& Oldham, 1980)}. In both research studies, attempts were made to relate psychosocial job characteristics to employee health. The job dissatisfaction tradition focused on "stressors" at work, such as high workload, work pace, role conflict, and role ambiguity (e.g., \hyperref[b3]{French \& Kahn, 1962)}. The job redesign tradition focused mainly on job control, as it's primarily aim was to inform the (re)design of jobs in order to increase the effectiveness, motivation, satisfaction, and performance at workplace. According to  {\ref Karasek (1979)}, the relations between job demands placed on the discretion available to the employee to decide how to meet these job demands (i.e., job requirements) contributes importantly to the prediction of job satisfaction and active learning.\par
In this model, psychological job demands refer to a task's mental workload and the mental alertness or arousal needed to carry job under the given circumstances \hyperref[b12]{(Karasek \& Theorell, 1990)}. Job control or decision latitude is a compound of the employee's autonomy to make decisions on the job and the extent of skills used by the employee on the job (skill discretion:  {\ref Karasek, 1989}). Theoretically, in the JDC model an interaction effect has been described as a joint effect of job demands and decision latitude  {\ref (Karasek, 1989)}. Two perspectives, also known as the dissatisfaction and buffer theory (van der Doef \&  {\ref Maes, 1998}\hyperref[b33]{Maes, , 1999))}, can be distinguished. According to the first perspective, the most adverse performance effects are expected in a high demands -low control work situation. The second perspective proclaims that (high) control can act as a buffer and thus minimize the potentially negative impact of high demands on employee's performance. While these perspectives are not mutually exclusive, they have different statistical implications. But the first perspective implies that the nature of the interaction is additive, the second perspective assumes an interaction over and above the main effects. Originally,  {\ref Karasek (1979)} found an interactive effect between job demand and job control. However, a decade later  {\ref Karasek (1989)} stated that: "for the Demand-Control Model, the existence of a multiplications interaction term is not the primary issue" (p. 144). Opinions differ on this matter, as can be seen in the diversity of operationalizations of demand-control interactions in empirical research (e.g.,  {\ref Landsbergis \& Theorell, 2000)}.  {\ref Karasek 1979}; \hyperref[b12]{Karasek \& Theorell, 1990} extended his three-dimensional job demands control support (JDCS) model that focuses on three job characteristics: job demands (stressors), job control (decision lattitude) and social support (colleagues + supervisors) at workplace. De Jonge \& Kompier, (1997) pointed out the theory of JDCS model is based on two central assumptions: the first one is psychological dissatisfactions or dissatisfaction which results particularly in work characterized by high job demands in combination with low job control and low social support, the second one standard work performance will occur in work characterized by high job demands, high job control and high social support.A number of studies have experienced the JDCS model in nursing  {\ref (Landsbergis 1988}, de Jonge \& Landeweerd 1993, de Jonge 1995). The outcomes of these research studies normally point out that job control or autonomy seems predominantly to be associated to job satisfaction and productivity, whereas job demands and social support seem particularly to be associated with health complaints and absenteeism  {\ref (Ab Landeweerd, 2004)}.Therefore,  {\ref Karasek's (1979)} job demands-job control model has been an powerful theoretical base for various studies of job dissatisfaction (e.g.  {\ref Cooper, 2000;} {\ref Van Yperen and Hagedoorn, 2003)}. The hypothetical argument necessary in this model is that individual physiological dissatisfaction results from the interactive effects of one's job demands and the amount of job control available at workplace. Particularly, Karasek's theory posits that in order to minimize physiological dissatisfaction, job demands should be coordinate to job control so that where ever job demands are high, job control should match the requirement. High job control enables participants to handle the job demands by developing appropriate behavioral response patterns to improve the job performance.\par
Accumulated evidences indicate that a large amount of research on the job demands-job control model has focused on the job of nurses  {\ref (Fox et al., 1993;} {\ref Schaubboeck and Merritt, 2003)} and production workers in manufacturing industry (e.g. \hyperref[b36]{Wall et al., 1996)}. Some research studies have supported the proposed interaction effect of three variables (e.g.  {\ref Fox et al., 1993)}, and others have demonstrated no such effect on job dissatisfaction (e.g.  {\ref Landsbergis, 1988)}. Similarly, some researchers in this area have developed a contingency approach by investigating the extent to which the job demands-job control connection is moderated by individual-level characteristics such as locus of job control and social support. In addition, research on Karasek's model has largely focused on job demands such as workload and work pace  {\ref (Fox et al., 1993;} {\ref Van Yperen and Hagedoorn, 2003)}. Moreover, there have been a few studies that have applied the job demands-job control model to the social nature of work job demands, that is, job challenges arising from managing interdependencies with other people in the workplace (S. S.  {\ref Wong et al., 2007)}. \hyperref[b12]{Karasek and Theorell (1990)} stated that their three models take up important position between two large bodies of literature, which associated with job dissatisfaction and to job description. The significant determinants of job dissatisfaction and active learning are the amount of decision latitude structured into job description. Karasek's highlighting leading to objective job characteristics as determinants of job dissatisfaction stands in predominantly sharp contrast to \hyperref[b16]{Lazarus and Folkman's (1984)} whose point of view on the worker's judgment and locus of job control, and Caplan et al.  {\ref (1975)}, and other members of the Michigan school's approaches on the fit between the job and the worker's capabilities or values of job.  {\ref Siegrist (2000)} noted that Karasek's models have not been accurately adjusted in providing a necessary corrective to these earlier ideas. In doing so, he advocated a clear picture for achieving the high levels of worker productivity, on the one hand, and high levels of worker independence, support and personal development, on the other side.\par
Nelson \& Simmons, (2003) stated that Karasek's ideas have concerned with interest relates to their fundamental positive human values or standards. In this way his ideas are well-matched with, and may even have contributed to the current popularity of, the constructive psychology movement of working force. In spite of these constructive ideas, the theory is normally documented as being over or under simplified. Karasek's theory highlighted a few variance in job dissatisfaction by variables \hyperref[b27]{(Schreurs \& Taris, 1998)}, mostly as it includes few predictors or mediators and moderators, at the same time as trying to clarify many outcomes associated factors. \hyperref[b12]{Karasek and Theorell (1990)} protected the simplicity of the theory by suggesting that this is "essential for practical interdisciplinary applications and for the first stages of scientific research" (p. 56-57) (for a new researcher). They admitted that the effects of job demands and job control upon strain can be reduced to minimum level by adding a large number of other predictor variables to the equation job dissatisfaction.\par
Bradley, (2004) pointed out that before attempting to draw conclusions concerning the extent to which the models have been supported empirically, there is need to an agreement as to what constitutes a appropriate and acceptable test of the main hypotheses. Because of that there is lack of precision and consistency in Karasek's written work. Operationalised job demands broadly to include such stressors as role ambiguity or responsibility for others are faced into an overall evaluation of empirical status of Karasek's model. There should be studies of use separate outcomes such as job performance and life\par
The Psychometric Impacts of Karasek's Demands and Control Scale on Employees' Job Dissatisfaction satisfaction be considered genuine tests of the theory. Model should be statistical job controls enough the negative affectivity and duration of work experience. Furthermore, model is basically tested by evidence of additive (e.g., job demands + job control + support) effects, but is it necessary also to test for and find interactive (job demands x job control x support) effects (Bradley, 2004)? After reviewing accumulated research evidence, Van der Doef and Maes (1999) drew conclusions that "the literature gives considerable support for the dissatisfaction hypotheses, but support for the moderating influence of job control and social support is less consistent with each other" (p. 86) Bradley, (2004) further stated that if insufficient tests of the hypotheses are excluded, and those studies that meet at least minimum criteria are weighted in proportion to the quality of the methods used, it may be included on the ground that: (a) firstly, empirical support for the independent effects of job demands, job control and social support upon dissatisfaction is strong, (b) secondly, support for the additive effects of these three variables on dissatisfaction is mixed at various different combinations, (c) thirdly, support for the two-way interactions on dissatisfaction is relatively weak, (d) fourthly, support for the three-way interaction (job demands x job control x support) on dissatisfaction is, at best, marginal, but most promising in relation to the prediction of somatic complaints, (e) fifthly, support for the active-learning hypothesis is quite strong in respect of the role played by job control, but the evidence is weak and indirect concerning further contributions made to active learning by job demands and the job demands x job control interaction, and (f) finally, support for the extended personality-environmental model is limited. Therefore, it is cleared to greater extend that Karasek's fundamental theory is based on sound footing and supportive of empirical studies. On the other hand, a critic \hyperref[b24]{(Sauter, 1989)} has claimed that the practical implications of what are often quite small effects; Frese  {\ref (1985)} has noted that the effects may be considerable for the extreme in the inhabitants. According to the above views of authors, authentication of Karasek's hypothesis mostly came from studies of large blue-collar samples that used cross-sectional designs of specific descriptive jobs. Social support for Karasek's models also vary with the type of statistical analyses performed with other variables. 
\section[{II.}]{II.} 
\section[{HYPOTHESES}]{HYPOTHESES}\par
According to the objectives of our study we predicted the following six hypotheses: H1-Job demands are positively associated with job dissatisfaction; H2-Job control is negatively associated with job dissatisfaction; H3-Social support is negatively related to job dissatisfaction; H4-Job control and social supports moderate the relationship between demands and job dissatisfaction. H5-The additive effects of job demands and job control predicts levels of job dissatisfaction better than does either main effect alone. H6-The additive effect of job demands, job control and job social supports predict levels of job dissatisfaction better than does either main effect alone. 
\section[{III.}]{III.} 
\section[{RESEARCH METHOD}]{RESEARCH METHOD} 
\section[{Participants and Procedure}]{Participants and Procedure}\par
This two time cross-sectional study is based on data obtained from two random samples consisting of nine distribution companies (DISCOs) of WAPDA working in all part of country (Pakistan) except Karachi region. Employees' Statistical Reckoning (2007-8) personnel records were used to select a simple random sample of 1000 working as regular employees in DISCOs. The target population was all those having graduate and post-graduate qualifications working on the various positions at BPS-9 to BPS-17. All other positions were excluded. Finally, it is noted that there was no structured, planned intervention in both studies. No natural and minor organizational changes took place, which had to do with some organizational renewal and personnel changes between the two waves. The 1000 selected employees were delivered personally a copy of the research materials both at T1 \& T2. Questionnaires were returned by 401 at T1 and 388 at T2 of these employees with nine month time gap, and all of these were usable. The response rate s was 40\% at T1 and 38\% at T2. Demographics at T1 showed that 95\% of the sample was male, and mean age was 26.0 years (SD = 7.1, range 24-45). Mean working time in current organization was 10 years (SD = 8.33). Demographic characteristics of the respondents in the second study showed that the ages ranged from 25-48 years (M = 29, SD = 10.8).Most respondents were male: 98\%, and mean working time was 11 years (SD = 6).\par
IV. 
\section[{MEASUREMENT JOB FACTORS}]{MEASUREMENT JOB FACTORS}\par
The items measuring demands, control and social support developed for use in Study 1 and study 2 were subjected to correlation and regression analyses. On the basis of these analyses, 16 of the original total demands and total control, and 8 of social support items, measuring four different job factor domains were selected for use in Study 1 and 2.  
\section[{2) Job Control}]{2) Job Control}\par
We used Ganster's (1989) validated measure of job control. Ganster's original scale had 22 items, each asking the subject how much control they possessed over the various facets of their work. We reduced the scale to 16 items, removing those items that were not applicable to the employees in our sample; these included questions about control over job demands. The control-scale consisted of two dimensions; skills discretion and decision authority. Skills discretion was measured by four items ("keep learning new things", "job requires skill", "job requires creativity", "repetitive work", control over the physical conditions of one's work station, or control over the ability to decorate or personalize the work area. Decision authority was measured by some items ("have freedom to make decisions", "can choose how to perform work"), with Cronbach's alpha of .70. Scores on the items were averaged to provide an aggregate index of the amount of control perceived they had over their job, a high score indicates greater perceived control. All the items were scaled on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = have virtually no control to 5 = have complete control. Job control were further divided into sub-set of four main groups [Qualitative control (Questionnaires B1, B7, B11, B13), Employees control (Questionnaires B4, B14, B15, B16), Workload control (Questionnaires B2, B3, B6, B12) and Conflicts control (Questionnaires B5, B8, B9, B10); [see Appendix E-1]. \hyperref[b5]{Ganster (1989)} reported internal reliability for this scale of also 0.85 and Bradley (2004) reported a reliability of 0.824 and weighted reliability of 0.947. The reliability coefficients produced by this research for total job control subscales consisted of [alpha] T1 =0.95 and T2= 0.94. 
\section[{3) Social Support}]{3) Social Support}\par
Social Support was measured using Bradley, (2004), Caplan, Cobb, French, Van Harrison, and Pinneau's (1975) Social Support Scale and revised social support scale. This measure includes two subscales: social support from supervisor (Questionnaire D1 to D4) and social support (E1 to E4) from work colleagues (see Appendix E-1). The measure asks the respondents to identify the extent to which four items of support are received from each of these two sources. Example items include: How much do your department administration staffs go out of their way to make life easier for you? And how much do your colleagues go out of their way to make easier for you? The participants responded on a five-point Likert scale where 1 = not at all to 5 = very much. High scores indicate high levels of social support. The measures' internal consistency was tested with Cronbach's alpha statistic. The reliability coefficients produced by this research for the two social support subscales consisted of [alpha] = T1 0.89 and T2 0.88 (supervisor) and [alpha] = T1 0.93 and T2 0.92 (colleagues). The Cronbach a estimate of reliability for the non commissioned officers support scale was 0.87 whereas Bradley, (2004) reported reliability of 0.887 (supervisor) and 0.903 (colleague). Caplan et al. report reliability coefficients of 0.83 for the supervisor support and 0.73 for the colleague support scales. Internal consistency reported by subsequent researchers is typically in excess of 0.70, and often approximates 0.90. 
\section[{4) Job Dissatisfaction}]{4) Job Dissatisfaction}\par
Employee's job satisfaction was measured by a four-item scale from Caplan et al.  {\ref (1975)}, as adapted by \hyperref[b18]{McLaney \& Hurrell (1988)} and  {\ref Bradley (2004)}. Items deemed inappropriate were excluded and appropriate items were included to extend the scale to 11 items. Each item is scored on a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).\par
Items included statements about the satisfaction with hours of work, rate of pay, opportunities to use one's abilities, and promotional policies. The items on this scale (see Appendix E-1 from C1 to C11) are similar to those measuring the same construct within  {\ref Karasek}  
\section[{Statistical Treatment}]{Statistical Treatment}\par
Pearson correlations were computed to assess zero-order relationships between the variables. In addition, moderator and mediation models were used to test the hypothesized relationship between demand, control and support, and the outcome measures\par
The Psychometric Impacts of Karasek's Demands and Control Scale on Employees' Job Dissatisfaction  {\ref (Bradley, 2004)}). Linear regression analyses were performed to test the joint influence of job demands, job control and social support on employees' job satisfaction (hypothesis 1-3). Our fourth hypothesis assumes that control and social support moderate the relationship between job demands and job satisfaction, and job demands and dissatisfaction. In order to test this hypothesis  {\ref Baron and Kenny (1986)}   
\section[{DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS}]{DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS} 
\section[{Tests of Job Dissatisfaction Hypotheses Correlation}]{Tests of Job Dissatisfaction Hypotheses Correlation}\par
Table \hyperref[tab_2]{1}.1 \& 1.2 show the zero-order correlations between the total job factors and job satisfaction outcomes. The three job factors variables were highly correlated (see tables) with job dissatisfaction. Job demands and its sub-scales, were high positively and significantly related to the expected job factors and job dissatisfaction, whilst job control and social supports emphasis were also negatively (and slightly less significant) related to job demands and job dissatisfaction. Furthermore, the relative magnitude of these bi-variate correlations was consistent with original predictions. High levels of all job satisfaction variables were associated with social supports, although the correlation between employees demands at T2 and job factors emphasis was slightly less significant. Tables above at T1 and at T2 show that the additive affects of job factors explained significant amount of the variances in job satisfaction variables. All factors were significant at the p < .001 level, with additive and quadratic effects contributing significantly to job satisfaction variables. However, our findings in job performance were strongly significant and consistent to job satisfaction variables. Specifically, there was a significant enhancing main effect for the demands, control and social support interaction in the basic model (p < .001), than that of additive effects. At both times, R 2 changes for job factors were remained significant at p < .001. Several points are noteworthy. Firstly, none of the main, additive and quadratic effects for various job factors were non-significant, Secondly, additive effects were highly significant than that of main effect alone, and thirdly, all findings were consistent except qualitative demands which were slightly decline. Several general points are noteworthy. Firstly, the specific job factors explained a significant proportion of the variance in the job dissatisfaction outcomes. Furthermore, the criterion of a reliable effect of employees' demands, qualitative control, total demands and social support were the highest predictors of dissatisfaction outcomes at both T1 and T2 study of regression analyses.\par
IX. 
\section[{MODELING ANALYSES}]{MODELING ANALYSES}\par
Two principal models were tested using PLS (partial least square). All models assumed that job demands and control co-varied or demands, control and social supports co-varied and that there was significant interaction term with AP variables. The models also included covariance paths between the residuals in all endogenous variables specified at the same step in the hypothesized sequence.\par
The Psychometric Impacts of Karasek's Demands and Control Scale on Employees' Job Dissatisfaction X. 
\section[{SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS}]{SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS}\par
This section summarizes findings relevant to the immediate outcomes of dissatisfaction hypotheses. 
\section[{Hypothesis 1 Main Effects of Demands on Job Dissatisfaction}]{Hypothesis 1 Main Effects of Demands on Job Dissatisfaction}\par
Findings from total demands and specific factors domains provide impressive support for the predicted effect of job demands on dissatisfaction. The effects were consistent across job domains and dissatisfaction outcomes. Mostly strong effects were found for all demands scales on job dissatisfaction except qualitative demands scale. Therefore, hypothesis 1 was confirmed. 
\section[{Hypothesis 2 Main Effects of Job Control on Job Dissatisfaction}]{Hypothesis 2 Main Effects of Job Control on Job Dissatisfaction}\par
Most findings were supported the predicted effects of control on job dissatisfaction. The strongest relationships as compare to others were (a) additive effect of total demands + social support (b) total demands + total control + social support on job dissatisfaction, and (c) conflicts control on on job dissatisfaction. Regression analyses indicated that control over issues in the conflicts domain was a more reliable predictor of dissatisfaction than was control in other job domains. 
\section[{Hypothesis 3 Main effects of Social Support on Job Dissatisfaction}]{Hypothesis 3 Main effects of Social Support on Job Dissatisfaction}\par
There was significant support for this hypothesis from the ANOVAs and linear regression analyses. However, the ANOVAs and the regression analyses both indicated that supervisor support explains significant amounts of unique variance in job dissatisfaction. On the other hand, colleagues support was also significant but slightly lower than supervisory support. The social support (supervisory support and colleagues support) was remained significant on all job factors, particularly, on job dissatisfaction. 
\section[{Hypothesis 4 Additive Effects of Demands and Control on Job Dissatisfaction}]{Hypothesis 4 Additive Effects of Demands and Control on Job Dissatisfaction}\par
This hypothesis was supported using various angles of correlation and regression analysis. Findings were supported through additive and interactive analysis that job demands and job control explained significant amounts of variance in job dissatisfaction outcomes better than main effect alone. Furthermore, total demands and sub-scales (particularly employee's demands) for this effect was strongest as compare to total control domains when the outcomes job dissatisfaction. 
\section[{Hypothesis 5 Additive Effects of Demands and Social Support on Job Dissatisfaction}]{Hypothesis 5 Additive Effects of Demands and Social Support on Job Dissatisfaction}\par
The demands -support additive hypothesis (Table \hyperref[tab_2]{1}.4)) reported highly significant prediction than any other combination of job factors. This hypothesis was strongly confirmed in correlation as well as multiple regression analyses. The effects of the two additive termsinvolving supervisory support and colleague supportvaried with type of dissatisfaction. 
\section[{Hypothesis 6 Additive Effects of Control and Social Support on Job Dissatisfaction}]{Hypothesis 6 Additive Effects of Control and Social Support on Job Dissatisfaction}\par
Findings were much cleared relation to this hypothesis. In the regression analyses, the effect of control + social support predicts the job dissatisfaction better than the main effect alone. This difference between the two studies of control + social support at T1 \& T2 was remained nearly same variance. Multiple regression analyses indicated that total control and social support was more reliable predictor of dissatisfaction than was sub-scales of total except in models that included control as a mediating variable. 
\section[{Hypothesis 9 Additive Effects of Demands, Control and Social Support on Job Dissatisfaction}]{Hypothesis 9 Additive Effects of Demands, Control and Social Support on Job Dissatisfaction}\par
This hypothesis received more support than did any of the other interaction hypotheses. Because of that in the multiple regression analyses, the total demands + total control + social support interaction were predicted job dissatisfaction significantly at T1, at T2. This hypothesis received some special support from the regression analyses, and from the cross-sectional one-way ANOVAs. Support was also obtained from evidence that entry of all three job factors as predictors in study 1 \& 2 multiple regression analyses yielded significant increases in explained variance at each step in several of the dissatisfaction outcomes. Evidence of this kind was stronger for hypothesis (demands + control + supervisory support) than for hypothesis carried dual or main effect alone. 
\section[{XI.}]{XI.} 
\section[{DISCUSSION ON MAIN FINDINGS}]{DISCUSSION ON MAIN FINDINGS} 
\section[{REGARDING DISSATISFACTION HYPOTHESES}]{REGARDING DISSATISFACTION HYPOTHESES}\par
Consistent with the prior researches and our Study 1 findings, demands, Control and social support had significant effects on dissatisfaction. Significant effects were typically associated with job demands and social support than with job control. The T1 job factors on T2 dissatisfaction have not been reported due to the greater instability and non-significance results. Significant findings were obtained for the hypothesized additive effect of demands and control, thus confirming Karasek's (1979, p. 287) outcomes that "dissatisfaction results not from a single aspect of the work factors, but from the joint effects" of demands and control. Whilst similar additive effects have been reported in past researches and T1, the current findings were noteworthy for their consistency, especially given the relatively high correlations between corresponding measures of demands and control (see Table \hyperref[tab_2]{1}.1 \& 1. 
\section[{2). The total}]{2). The total}\par
The Psychometric Impacts of Karasek's Demands and Control Scale on Employees' Job Dissatisfaction proportion of variance in dissatisfaction explained by these two job factors was high enough (typically 70-95\%). Furthermore, high or low level of correlation may be contributed through many variables potentially associated to dissatisfaction outcomes; it may be unrealistic to expect proportions of explained variance to be much higher than this  {\ref (Semner et al., 1996} {\ref \& Bradley, 2004}). Karasek's original model is commonly interpreted as predicting a demands + control interaction upon dissatisfaction outcomes. Most of the past researchers reported their findings in (a) male or mixed sex, bluecollar samples, (b) cross-sectional designs, and (c) congruent and occupation-specific self-report measures of the job characteristics. In the current study, considerable support for the interaction hypothesis was obtained. Somewhat interestingly, in the light of T1 \& T2 findings, evidence of the buffering effects of control was stronger in the study 2 than in the T1 analyses. The extent to which control buffered the effects of demands was shown too consistent across job domains and dissatisfaction outcomes. The qualitative demands, workload demands and workload control interaction term were particularly successful in predicting job dissatisfaction in those models that included stressors as a mediating variable, suggesting that interaction effects on dissatisfaction stronger than other two outcomes. Several researchers (e.g.,  {\ref Burke \& Greenglass, 1995;} {\ref Pomaki, 2001;} {\ref Sheffield et al., 1994;} {\ref Bradley, 2004)} have found that social support does not correlate highly with dissatisfaction in samples of white collar employees. On the other hand, researchers such as Alloway and Bebbington (1987),  {\ref Payne and Jones (1987)} and Buunk and Peeters (1994), have concluded that significant findings occur significantly but not frequently than would be expected. Both studies (T1 \& T2) included separate measures of supervisor and colleague support (scales of  {\ref Caplan et al., 1975)}, both used cross-sectional designs with an nine-month time lag and both tested the buffering hypothesis using continuous interaction terms within the models and reported significant of interaction of social support. Bradley, (2004) reported in his cross-sectional correlations between social support and dissatisfaction in the region of -.20. Despite this modest mean, their bivariate correlation, several main effects for social support were significant in the multivariate analyses. Similar analyses were found in our study I \& II support from supervisors was a strong (negative) predictor of all three outcomes of job dissatisfaction, whilst support from colleagues was lower in study 1 highly predictive of job outcomes in study 2. Thus, \hyperref[b13]{Kahn and Byosiere (1992)}, \hyperref[b19]{Mitchell et al. (1982)}, and some others have indicated that the stressor x support interaction may hold only for particular combinations of job factors not all types of support and specific outcomes of job dissatisfaction. The demands + support, and control + support, hypotheses were strongly supported by the current findings. The mean R 2 adjusted associated with the control + social support prediction was .81 at T1, and .71 at T2. Indeed, the findings are more consistent with an additive than with main or independent effects with the model of the effects of demands and support upon dissatisfaction. Two possible exceptions to this general pattern of non-significant effects were the interactions between (a) colleagues support and employees' demands at T1, and (b) colleague support and all stressors at T2. These significant effects provided support to hypothesis but buffering effects are most pronounced when the type of support offered to meet the particular needs of the person who is experiencing dissatisfaction. According to this "dissatisfaction-matching concept" hypothesis, welltargeted and specific types of support are of much more use to those experiencing dissatisfaction than to those who are not, and hence the beneficial effects of such support varies between employees depending on their requirements and circumstances available at work environment. In the current context, it makes sense that qualitative demands, employees issues and workload were rendered less stressful by the provision of supervisor support (since supervisors generally have responsibility over such matters and have power to bring certain changes), whilst the impact of colleagues support may not alleviated or minimized the pressure of dissatisfaction (due to lack of decision latitude), who may be more likely than supervisors to provide empathy, opportunities for emotional release, and practical assistance in this domain. Consistent with past research, the present findings suggested that control + colleague support impacted more strongly on dissatisfaction than on any other dissatisfaction outcomes, whilst control + supervisor support had strong effects on both dissatisfaction and other outcomes of dissatisfaction. Therefore, evidence is accumulating in support of the views that the two job factors of control and social support operate in supplementary, rather than substitutive, ways to counteract all or at least some kinds of dissatisfaction. Whilst some studies were made for the additive effects of control and social support, the current research provides sufficient grounds to support a claim of an interactive effect of these two job factors on dissatisfaction. Given the current findings, there may be value in future researchers examining the impact of the control + social support interaction on this criterion. If replicated, the finding may have implications for reducing levels of staff turnover in an organization. This chapter reported findings from multiple regression analyses of several versions of two principal models and two additional models of the relationships between job factors and dissatisfaction. Findings from these analyses suggested that model choice depended upon the relative importance attached to goodness-of-fit and parsimony and also in consideration of work environment. Model 1, (both T1 \& T2) which specified direct effects from all job factors to all dissatisfaction outcomes yielded the best set of fit statistics, although greater parsimony was achieved by models that included mediating variables such as stressors and/or immediate dissatisfaction outcomes. Both models explained similar amounts of variance in the dissatisfaction outcomes. The direct effects version of model 1tended to provide a better fit than did the corresponding hypothesized versions, a finding that is consistent with the evidence that the best compilation fit was provided by model 1 and model 2. Regression analyses significantly confirmed the hypothesized role of job demands in mediating the relationships between the job factors and job dissatisfaction. Finally, it was concluded that the findings from this study provide quite strong evidence of the additive effects of demands, control and social support upon self-reports of dissatisfaction, and more modest evidence of main effects of these three job factors. Terms representing the interactions between the job factors accounted for considerable variance in all seven measures of dissatisfaction. Given the number of tests conducted and the significant effects generally obtained, it seems reasonable to conclude that Study 2 provides qualified support to some level for  {\ref Karasek's (1979;}\hyperref[b12]{Karasek \& Theorell, 1990}) main and additive effects models of job dissatisfaction. 
\section[{XII.}]{XII.} 
\section[{RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WAPDA MANAGEMENT}]{RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WAPDA MANAGEMENT}\par
Focus of this study is on the following points, which are of great significance and are helpful to researchers and managers in future in energy sector (power wing of WAPDA) of Pakistan The extent to which my job involved a lot of repetitive work . 
\section[{B3}]{B3}\par
The extent to which my job involved an amount of excessive work. B4\par
The extent to I have to do different work than required in job description B5\par
The extent to which my job is free from conflicting demands. B6\par
The extent to which my job required lots of physical/mental effort. B7\par
The extent to which my job required learning new things B8\par
The extent to which I have difficulties and conflicts with my superior(s). 
\section[{B9}]{B9}\par
The Supervisor Support D1 How much do your department administration staffs go out of their way to make life easier for you? D2 How easy is it to talk to members of your office administration? D3 How much can your administration staff be relied on when things get tough at work D4 How much are the members of our administration willing to listen to your personal problems?\par
Colleagues Support E1 How much do your colleagues go out of their way to make easier for you? E2 How easy is it to talk to your office colleagues? E3 How much can your colleagues be relied on when things get tough at work. E4 How much are colleagues of our office willing to listen to your personal problems? \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-2.png}
\caption{\label{fig_0}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-3.png}
\caption{\label{figure3}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-4.png}
\caption{\label{figure4}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.85\textwidth}}
.1 : Correlation Matrix (N=402)\\
TIME 1\\
Time Variables\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_2}Table 1}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.85\textwidth}}
Interactions.\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_3}Table 1 .}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.2412162162162162\textwidth}P{0.005865439907993099\textwidth}P{0.0019551466359977\textwidth}P{0.002443933294997125\textwidth}P{0.5880103507763083\textwidth}P{0.0017107533064979876\textwidth}P{0.005865439907993099\textwidth}P{0.0029327199539965496\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{APPENDIX E-1}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{optimal and the authority to make improvements on}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{how their job is done effectively.}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{3. This study enables managers (of WAPDA) to}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{understand the sources of job dissatisfaction and}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{make decisions how to improve the employee job}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{satisfaction, performance and job description in}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{consideration of our analysis of Demand Control}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Support Model.\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{4. These studies (T1 \& T2) communicate clearly the}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{significant effect of social support on immediate and}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{remote outcomes of strain in the work environment of}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{WAPDA. Supervisors can know how to provide}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{guidance; support and to organize the level of job}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{demands, on the worker's decision-making latitude,}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{and on the quality of social support available from}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{management and co-workers.}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{5. This study's reports (four subscales of each job}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{demands, control and dissatisfaction; two subscale}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{of social support) give recommendations to}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{organization if the time and financial resources you}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{invest in restructuring the recruitment policies}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{(development of Human Resource Department),}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{promotional policies, salaries structures, fringe}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{benefits (in consideration of real wages) and training}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{employees will pay huge dividends in reducing}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{employees' job stress, job dissatisfaction, increasing}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{productivity and minimizing turnover of competent}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{and productive employees. Study also reports that}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{training programs most likely to be successful in}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{which workers played key roles in work restructuring}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{and work reorganization.}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{6. Finally, it is suggested that re-structuring and other}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{necessary reforms at WAPDA must be designed to}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{boost efficiency, foster good corporate governance,}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{cut off costs, and make these entities truly}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{commercially viable enterprises. Because the}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{1. This research study remained focused on individual . Job Control employees in understanding the factors/stressors B1 Employee's level of creativity and motivation that influence whether someone working very hard feeling is stressed out, or whether they are feeling B2}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{operating costs and line losses of DISCOS are too high and it was necessary to undertake a comprehensive re-structuring program and split DISCOS into smaller companies and privatize them.}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{motivated, excited and committed or free of any organizational job dissatisfaction. Our research}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{REFERENCES RÉFÉRENCES REFERENCIAS}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{outcomes (T1 and T2) reported clearly that most of}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{1) Alloway, R., \& Bebbington, P. (1987). The buffer}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{the employees are feeling significant amount of job}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{theory of social support-a review of the}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{dissatisfaction due to promotional policies and low}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{literature. Psychological Medicine, 17, 91-108.}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{salaries structure, poor training programs, low fringe}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{2) Aiken, L. S., \& West, S. G. (1991). Multiple}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{benefits as compare to other commercial}\tabcellsep regression:\tabcellsep Testing\tabcellsep and\tabcellsep interpreting\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{organizations of Pakistan like Oil \& Gas Development}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{interactions.Newbury Park: Sage.}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{Company and Atomic Energy Commission of}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{3) Baron, R. M., \& Kenny, D. A. (1986). The}\\
Pakistan.\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{moderator-mediator variable distinction in}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{2. Minimizing job dissatisfaction, through the study of}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{socialpsychological}\tabcellsep research: Conceptual,\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{job redesign in light of variety of intra-organizational}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal}\\
stressors\tabcellsep (qualitative\tabcellsep demands,\tabcellsep employees'\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{demands and conflicts demands), giving employees}\tabcellsep 1182.\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{control and power to make job-related decisions, the}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{4) Bradley, G. (2004). A Test of Demands-Control-}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{flexibility to organize their work in the way they find}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Support Model. Job Strain and healthywork.}\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_4}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.13076923076923078\textwidth}P{0.7192307692307692\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Job Dissatisfaction\\
C1\tabcellsep I feel a great deal of dissatisfaction because of\\
\tabcellsep my job\\
C2\tabcellsep I put least effort into my work in the department\\
C3\tabcellsep Many stressful things happen to me at work\\
C4\tabcellsep There are number of jobs I would prefer over\\
\tabcellsep this one\\
C5\tabcellsep I often find it difficult to get motivated at work\\
\tabcellsep these days\\
C6\tabcellsep Overall, my job is satisfying.\\
C7\tabcellsep There is a good chance I would take a new job if\\
\tabcellsep offered me.\\
C8\tabcellsep Over the past month, I have seriously thought\\
\tabcellsep about seeking a transfer to another department\\
\tabcellsep or place.\\
C9\tabcellsep Over the past month, I have seriously thought\\
\tabcellsep about resigning from WAPDA altogether.\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{C10 Over the past month, I have seriously thought}\\
\tabcellsep about making a real effort to enter a new and\\
\tabcellsep different occupation.\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{C11 I feel a great deal of dissatisfaction because of}\\
\tabcellsep my career development and promotion policies.\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_5}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.8426151172893136\textwidth}P{0.00738488271068636\textwidth}}
Job Demands\tabcellsep \\
A1 My capability and potential are not utilized.\tabcellsep \\
A2 The job involved a lot of repetitive work. A3 The job involved an excessive amount of work A4 Different work than required in job description\tabcellsep March 2011\\
A5 The job is not free from conflicting\tabcellsep \\
demands.\tabcellsep \\
A6 The job required lots of physical/mental\tabcellsep \\
effort.\tabcellsep \\
A7 The job does not required learning new\tabcellsep \\
things\tabcellsep \\
A8 I occasionally have difficulties or conflicts\tabcellsep \\
with my superiors.\tabcellsep \\
A9 I occasionally have difficulties or conflicts\tabcellsep \\
with my colleagues\tabcellsep \\
A10 I occasionally have difficulties or conflicts\tabcellsep \\
with my management policies.\tabcellsep \\
A11 I am frequently restricted by deptt.\tabcellsep \\
excessive, administrative paper work\tabcellsep \\
formalities\tabcellsep \\
A12 The demands of my job take up many\tabcellsep \\
hours of my personal time.\tabcellsep \\
A13 I frequently need training for my career\tabcellsep \\
development and for continuously growing\tabcellsep \\
Quality demand.\tabcellsep \\
A14 I occasionally have difficulties \& conflicts\tabcellsep \\
with the organization due to lack of funds\tabcellsep \\
materials consumables etc.\tabcellsep \\
A15 I occasionally have difficulties \& conflicts\tabcellsep \\
with the organization due to low salary.\tabcellsep \\
A16 I occasionally have difficulties \& conflicts\tabcellsep \\
with the organization due to promotional\tabcellsep \\
policies.\tabcellsep \\
©2011 Global Journals Inc. (US)\tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_6}}\end{figure}
 			\footnote{Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XI Issue Iv v v v V Version I March 2011 ©2011 Global Journals Inc. (US) ©2011 Global Journals Inc. (US)} 			\footnote{©2011 Global Journals Inc. (US)} 		 		\backmatter  			 \par
Journal of Applied Psychology: Griffith University, Australia. 5) Burke, R. J.  {\ref (1993)}.  {\ref Organizational} 			 			  				\begin{bibitemlist}{1}
\bibitem[Fox et al. ()]{b2}\label{b2} 	 		\textit{},  		 			Fox 		,  		 			D Dwyer 		,  		 			Ganster 		.  	 	 		\textit{Management Journal}  		1993of. 36 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Warr ()]{b37}\label{b37} 	 		‘A conceptual framework for the study of work and mental health’.  		 			P Warr 		.  	 	 		\textit{Work and Stress}  		1994. 8 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Van Yperen and Sijders ()]{b35}\label{b35} 	 		‘A multilevel analysis of the demands-control model: Is stress at work determined by factors at the group or individual level?’.  		 			N Van Yperen 		,  		 			T Sijders 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journalof Occupational Health Psychology}  		2000. 5 p. .  	 
\bibitem[French and Kahn ()]{b3}\label{b3} 	 		‘A programmatic approach to studying the industrialenvironment and mental health’.  		 			J R P French 		,  		 			R L Kahn 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Social Issues}  		1962. 18 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Siegrist ()]{b31}\label{b31} 	 		‘A theory of occupational stress’.  		 			J Siegrist 		.  	 	 		\textit{Stress in the workplace:Past, present and future},  				 			J Dunham 		 (ed.)  		 (London)  		2001. Whurr Publishers. p. .  	 
\bibitem[De Rijk et al. ()]{b0}\label{b0} 	 		‘Active coping andneed for control as moderators of the job demandcontrol model: Effects on burnout’.  		 			Le De Rijk 		,  		 			P M Blanc 		,  		 			W Schaufeli 		,  		 			J De Jonge 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology}  		1998. 71 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Siegrist ()]{b30}\label{b30} 	 		‘Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions’.  		 			J Siegrist 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Occupational Health Psychology}  		1996. 1 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Schonfeld ()]{b26}\label{b26} 	 		‘An updated look at depressive symptoms and job satisfaction in first-year employees’.  		 			I Schonfeld 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology}  		2000. 73 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Nelson and Sutton ()]{b20}\label{b20} 	 		‘Chronic work stress and coping: A longitudinal study and suggested new directions’.  		 			D L Nelson 		,  		 			C Sutton 		.  	 	 		\textit{Academy of Management Journal}  		1990. 33 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Schreurs and Taris ()]{b27}\label{b27} 	 		‘Construct validity of the demand-control model’.  		 			P Schreurs 		,  		 			T Taris 		.  	 	 		\textit{Work and Stress}  		1998. 12 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Mclaney and Hurrell ()]{b18}\label{b18} 	 		‘Control, stress and job satisfaction in Canadian nurses’.  		 			M Mclaney 		,  		 			J Hurrell 		.  	 	 		\textit{Work and Stress}  		1988. 2 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Theorell and Karasek ()]{b32}\label{b32} 	 		‘Current issues relating to psychosocial job strain andcardiovascular disease research’.  		 			T Theorell 		,  		 			R Karasek 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Occupational Health Psychology}  		1996. 1 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Hackman and Oldham ()]{b9}\label{b9} 	 		‘Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey’.  		 			J R Hackman 		,  		 			G R Oldham 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Applied Psychology}  		1980. 60 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Kahn and Byosiere (ed.) ()]{b13}\label{b13} 	 		\textit{Dissatisfaction in organizations},  		 			R L Kahn 		,  		 			P Byosiere 		.  		M. D (ed.)  		1992.  	 
\bibitem[Wong ()]{b38}\label{b38} 	 		\textit{Distal and local group learning: performance trade-offs and tension: Organization Science},  		 			S Wong 		.  		2004. 15 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Ganster et al. ()]{b5}\label{b5} 	 		‘Explaining employees' health care costs: A prospective examination of stressful job demands, personal control, and physiological reactivity’.  		 			D C Ganster 		,  		 			M L Fox 		,  		 			D J Dwyer 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Applied Psychology}  		1989 \& 2001. 86 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Dunette Hough (ed.)]{b14}\label{b14} 	 		\textit{Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology},  				 			\& L M Dunette,  			Hough 		 (ed.)  		 (Palo Alto, California)  		Consulting Psychologists Press. p. .  	 	 (2nd ed.) (pp) 
\bibitem[Karasek and Theorell ()]{b12}\label{b12} 	 		\textit{Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction Of working life},  		 			R Karasek 		,  		 			T Theorell 		.  		1990. New York: Basic Books.  	 
\bibitem[Karasek ()]{b11}\label{b11} 	 		\textit{Job Content Questionnaire},  		 			R Karasek 		.  		1985. Angeles, California.  		 			Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Los 		 	 
\bibitem[Sauter and Cooper ()]{b24}\label{b24} 	 		\textit{Job control and worker health},  		 			S Sauter 		,  		 			C Cooper 		.  		1989. Chichester: Wiley.  	 
\bibitem[Payne and Fletcher ()]{b22}\label{b22} 	 		‘Job demands, support and constraints as predictors of psychological strain among organizational employees’.  		 			R Payne 		,  		 			B Fletcher 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Vocational Behavior}  		1983. 10 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Karasek ()]{b10}\label{b10} 	 		‘Job socialization and job strain: The implications of two related psychosocial mechanisms for job re-design’.  		 			R Karasek 		.  	 	 		\textit{B. Gardell, \& G. Johansson,Working life},  				 (Chichester)  		1981. Wiley. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Semner (ed.) ()]{b29}\label{b29} 	 		\textit{Job stress interventions and organization of work},  		 			N Semner 		.  		J. C. Quick, \& L.E. Tetrick (ed.)  		2003. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. p. .  	 	 (Handbook of occupational health psychology) 
\bibitem[Frese & Zapf ()]{b4}\label{b4} 	 		\textit{Objective versus subjective measurement of work stress and the question of longitudinal studies},  		 			D Frese \& Zapf 		.  		1988. Chichester: Wiley. p. .  	 	 (Methodological issues in the study of work stress: Coping and consequences of stress at work) 
\bibitem[Folkman ()]{b1}\label{b1} 	 		‘Personal control and stress and coping processes’.  		 			Folkman 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Personality and Social Psychology}  		1984. 46 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Van Harrison et al. ()]{b34}\label{b34} 	 		\textit{Personenvironment fit, Type A behavior, and work strain: The complexity of theprocess. Work stress:Health care systems in the work place},  		 			R Van Harrison 		,  		 			G Moss 		,  		 			T Dielman 		,  		 			W Horvarth 		,  		 			W Harlan 		.  		1987. New York.  	 
\bibitem[Mitchell et al. ()]{b19}\label{b19} 	 		‘Social support and well-being: Implications for prevention programs’.  		 			R . Mitchell 		,  		 			A Billings 		,  		 			R Moos 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Primary Prevention}  		1982. 3 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Lazarus and Folkman ()]{b16}\label{b16} 	 		\textit{Stress, appraisal and coping},  		 			R S Lazarus 		,  		 			S Folkman 		.  		1984. New York: Springer.  	 
\bibitem[Hakanen et al. (2002)]{b8}\label{b8} 	 		\textit{Testing a model of engagement andburnout among Finnish teachers. Paper presented at the Twenty-Fifth International Congress of Applied Psychology},  		 			J Hakanen 		,  		 			W Schaufeli 		,  		 			A Bakker 		.  		2002. July. Singapore.  	 
\bibitem[Wall et al. ()]{b36}\label{b36} 	 		‘The demands-control model of job strain: A more specific test’.  		 			T Wall 		,  		 			P Jackson 		,  		 			S Mullarkey 		,  		 			S Parker 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology}  		1996. 69 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Rodriguez et al. ()]{b21}\label{b21} 	 		‘The Demands-Control-Support model, locus of control and job satisfaction: A longitudinal study’.  		 			I Rodriguez 		,  		 			M J Bravo 		,  		 			J M Peiro 		,  		 			W Schaufeli 		.  	 	 		\textit{Work and Stress}  		2001. 15 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Likert ()]{b17}\label{b17} 	 		\textit{The human organization},  		 			R Likert 		.  		1967. New York: McGraw-Hill.  	 
\bibitem[Greenberger et al. ()]{b6}\label{b6} 	 		‘The impact of personal control on performance and satisfaction’.  		 			D Greenberger 		,  		 			S Strasser 		,  		 			Cummings 		,  		 			R Dunham 		.  	 	 		\textit{Organizational Behavior}  		1989. 43 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Greenglass et al. ()]{b7}\label{b7} 	 		\textit{The impact of social support on thedevelopment of burnout in employees: Work and job Stress},  		 			E Greenglass 		,  		 			R Burke 		,  		 			R Konarski 		.  		1997. 11 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Van Der Doef and Maes ()]{b33}\label{b33} 	 		‘The job demand-control model and psychological wellbeing’.  		 			M Van Der Doef 		,  		 			S Maes 		.  	 	 		\textit{Work and Stress}  		1999. 13 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Sargent and Terry ()]{b23}\label{b23} 	 		‘The moderating role of social support in Karasek's job strain model’.  		 			L Sargent 		,  		 			D Terry 		.  	 	 		\textit{Work and Stress}  		2000. 14 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Landsbergis et al. ()]{b15}\label{b15} 	 		‘The patterning of psychological attributes and distress by "job strain" and social support in asample of working men’.  		 			P A Landsbergis 		,  		 			P L Schnall 		,  		 			D Deitz 		,  		 			R Friedman 		,  		 			T Pickering 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Behavioral Medicine}  		1992. 15 p. .  	 
\bibitem[The Psychometric Impacts of Karasek's Demands and Control Scale on Employees' Job Dissatisfaction]{b39}\label{b39} 	 		\textit{The Psychometric Impacts of Karasek's Demands and Control Scale on Employees' Job Dissatisfaction},  		 	 
\bibitem[Schaubroeck and Ganster ()]{b25}\label{b25} 	 		\textit{The role of negative affectivity in work-related stress},  		 			J Schaubroeck 		,  		 			D Ganster 		.  		1991.  	 
\bibitem[Selye ()]{b28}\label{b28} 	 		\textit{The stress of life},  		 			H Selye 		.  		1956. New York: McGraw-Hill.  	 
\end{bibitemlist}
 			 		 	 
\end{document}
