1. Introduction

1Employee job satisfaction has been studied extensively in the psychology and human resource management literature (Spagnoli et al., 2012). It has been conceptualized as “the combination of psychological, physical and environmental circumstances that lead a person to say: I am satisfied with my job” (Hoppock, 1935). Locke (1969) emphasized that job satisfaction is “a positive emotional feeling resulting from an individual’s evaluation of his or her job or work experience by comparing the benefits he or she expects from it with what he or she actually gets out of it”. Thus, job satisfaction is related to specific interactions referring to employees’ affective behaviour towards their job (Yucel and Bektas, 2012).

2Attempts to develop employee job satisfaction measurements appeared from 1960 (Hackman and Oldham, 1975; Sims et al., 1976; Smith et al., 1969; Weiss et al., 1977). However, many existing measurement scales seem to be more general and could fail to capture “the complex inter-organizational job requirements of a field sales force” (Comer et al., 1989). Since 1970, more specific measurement scales that directly target salespeople and frontline employees have emerged and encompassed factors and items that fit well with human services (Comer et al., 1989; Futrell, 1979; Gilbert et al., 1974; Rutherford et al., 2009; Spector, 1985). Although such measurement scales have been developed correctly, they suffer from two limitations. First, some of them have not demonstrated all the psychometric characteristics needed to assess an instrument (Rutherford et al., 2009, 2019; Saane et al., 2003). Second, most of them have been developed as universal measures that could assess employee job satisfaction in various countries and different industries. Therefore, they are not sufficient to account for cultural and sectorial specificities (Dirani and Kuchinke, 2011).

3Frontline employees’ job satisfaction and its measurements have been studied less in microfinance. Existing studies have focused on the importance of loan officers in MFIs’ lending process (Canales, 2010; Canales and Greenberg, 2016; Dixon et al., 2007; Godefroid, 2019); the discrimination of borrowers by loan officers (Beisland et al., 2018; Labie et al., 2018; Maitriot, 2018; Sagamba et al., 2013) and human resource management in MFIs (Armendariz and Morduch, 2010; Hudon, 2010; McKim and Hughart, 2005). While existing studies have raised the importance of frontline employees, we only found one study exploring employee job satisfaction in microfinance and quickly deepening its components (Balemba and Bugandwa, 2016). This means that MFIs do not know the key success factors for employee job satisfaction, impeding any endeavours to satisfy and retain their employees and gain a competitive advantage (Rutherford et al., 2019).

4The present study aims to develop a measurement scale for frontline employees in MFIs in the DR Congo. Its importance relies on two arguments. First, frontline employees play a paramount role in MFIs (Hudon, 2010). They are involved in MFIs’ most important operations (savings, loans, etc.) (Canales, 2010) and are the first contact point that most customers have with MFIs (Balemba and Bugandwa, 2016). This means that frontline employees are the most important “production factor” in microfinance and could have a positive impact on MFIs’ performance (Holtmann and Grammling, 2005). Therefore, the satisfaction of frontline employees must be ensured to prevent them from becoming dissatisfied and deserting the MFIs. Second, frontline employees are not valued in MFIs and work in poor and unsecured conditions (Battilana and Dorado, 2010). Indeed, frontline employees perform demanding jobs, have little chance to be promoted to meet their aspirations and hence develop a high turnover intention. Therefore, they are less satisfied with their job (Sarker, 2013).

5The contribution of this study to the existing literature is threefold. First, it develops a more valid and reliable multidimensional measurement scale for frontline employees in MFIs. By doing so, the study responds to the call by Rutherford et al. (2009), who advised researchers to develop multi-faceted job satisfaction scales. The developed scale was obtained from two data collection episodes and yielded reliable and valid components. Such an approach responds to the call of Rutherford et al. (2019), who revealed that the components of a good scale have to be reliable and derived from a multiple data sets. Second, we developed a new scale to measure job satisfaction in the field of microfinance and in a specific country, the DR Congo. Although some of the factors and items of the new scale are present in existing scales, others are new and reflect both the national context and the microfinance realities (Özpehlivan and Acar, 2016). Therefore, the study presents a measurement scale that is context specific for African countries, whereas most existing scales have been developed in the context of developed countries, mainly the USA and the UK (Dirani and Kuchinke, 2011). Thus, the study confirms Mulinge and Mueller’s (1998) thought that the “African cultural context is sufficiently different from Western culture that arguments derived and tested in the West cannot be used to explain and understand organizational problems in developing African countries”. Third, the study provides an operational tool for microfinance managers actively desiring to motivate and satisfy their frontline employees. Therefore, by resorting to a multi-faceted scale, “the sales manager pinpoints the exact facets of the job with which the sales person is satisfied or dissatisfied” (Comer et al., 1989). Thus, the scale advances the research on salesperson job satisfaction and “provides organizations a measurement tool to easily gauge the level of employee job satisfaction across various dimensions” (Rutherford et al., 2019).

6This paper is structured as follows. The first section clarifies the concept of job satisfaction, discusses some of its mains antecedents and consequences and highlights its specificities in MFIs. The second section discusses the scale development process. The third section assesses the scale’s psychometric properties. The fourth section presents the results and the fifth offers conclusions, contributions and perspectives for future studies.

2. Conceptual Background: Employee Job Satisfaction’s Conceptualization, Antecedents and Consequences and Employees’ Importance in Microfinance

2.1. Employee Job Satisfaction: Definition and Components

7Employee job satisfaction has received many conceptualizations and operationalizations (Spector, 1997). A summary of its main definitions is given in Table 1.

Table 1. Employee Job Satisfaction – Selected Definitions

Author	Job satisfaction is
Hoppock (1935)	Any combination of psychological, physiological and environmental circumstances that cause a person truthfully to say “I am satisfied with my job”.
Locke (1969, 1976)	“A pleasurable emotion status resulting from appraisal of one’s job as achieving or facilitating the achievement of one’s job values … job satisfaction is a function of the perceived relationship between what one wants from one’s job and what one perceives it as offering or entailing” (p. 8).
Cranny et al. (1992)	“an affective (that is, emotional) reaction to one’s job, resulting from the incumbent’s comparison of actual outcomes with those that are desired (expected, deserved, and so on)” (p. 1).
Smith (1969)	An effective response of the worker to his work. It is viewed as a result or a consequence of the worker’s experience on the job in relation to his own values, that is, to what he wants or expects from it. Satisfaction can be viewed as similar in meaning to pleasure.
Porter (1961)	The difference between responses to a “how much is there now” item and responses to a “how much should there be” item, when these two items are asked for a number of job facets or needs. The difference between these two types of items is computed, and the differences are summed across the job facets to yield a measure of overall satisfaction.
Lofquist and Dawis (1969)	Satisfaction is defined in need fulfilment terms as “a ... correspondence between the reinforcement system of the work environment and the individual’s needs” (p. 53).
Dawis and Lofquist (1984)	The result of the worker’s appraisal of the degree to which individual needs are fulfilled by the work environment.
Aletraris (2010)	Viewed as either satisfaction with specific job facets, such as pay and autonomy, or global satisfaction with one’s job, which is arrived at by balancing various dimensions of work.
Ivancevich et al. (1997)	“An attitude that individuals have about their jobs. Job satisfaction results from their perception of their jobs and the degree to which there is a good fit between the individual and the organization” (p. 86).
Spector (1997)	“Simply how people feel about their job and different aspects of their job. It is the extent to which people like (satisfaction) or dislike (dissatisfaction) their job. As it is generally assessed, job satisfaction is an attitudinal variable” (p. 2).
Churchill et al. (1974)	Defined as all characteristics of the job itself and the work environment that industrial salesmen find rewarding, fulfilling and satisfying or frustrating and unsatisfying.

Source: Compilation from the literature review.

8A partition logical analysis was applied to the above definitions and yielded three common properties (Walsh and Beatty, 2007). First, employee job satisfaction is conceptualized as an overall state derived from work experience that results from a job’s attributes. For example, a positive experience derives from psychological and environmental features that surround the job. Second, employee job satisfaction is conceived as an evaluating process that compares the current outcomes/benefits of a job with those that are desired/expected. Thus, job satisfaction represents the extent to which expectations are met with current rewards. Third, employee job satisfaction is analysed as responses to a job situation. Thus, job satisfaction relies on the affective emotion and verbal expression resulting from different aspects of a job. Job satisfaction therefore involves employees having a job that they love, carrying it out well and being rewarded for their efforts. Hence, job satisfaction implies enthusiasm and joy in the workplace and employees will say that they are satisfied with a job when it brings them positive emotions.

9Employee job satisfaction has been operationalized in two main ways (Adnan and George, 2003). The first approach, known as a global one, views job satisfaction as a one-dimensional construct. Such as an operationalization analyses employee satisfaction as a whole without dissecting it into subcomponents and then assesses it to obtain “a single and integrated response” (Spines et al., 2005). While this approach has its advantages, such as ease of implementation, it does not give any full understanding of job satisfaction’s features and cannot provide managers with any useful managerial implications for their organizations (Rutherford et al., 2009). The second approach, viewed as a multi-faceted analysis, conceives job satisfaction as a function of several specific attributes that could influence it positively or negatively and covers all specific components that rely on the general job satisfaction construct (Spines et al., 2005). Therefore, “an employee may be satisfied with his salary but be less satisfied with the supervisor or promotion opportunities” (Schmidt, 2007). Table 2 gives an overview of the well-known existing employee job satisfaction scales.

Table 2. Employee Job Satisfaction Scales and Components

No.	Scale name and author	Dimensions and subdimensions	Sample items	Reliability and validity measures
1	Job Description Index (JDI) Smith et al. (1969)	The type of work Supervision Co-workers Pay Opportunities for promotion 72 items	Fascinating, routine Hard to please, annoying Good opportunity for advancement Promotion based on ability	Internal consistency reliability Split-half correlations Criterion validity by comparing JDI with other instruments
2	Job Satisfaction Survey Spector (1985)	Pay Promotion Supervision Benefits Contingent rewards Operating procedures Co-workers Nature of work Communication 36 items	I feel satisfied with my chances for salary increases. There is really too little chance for promotion in my job.	3,148 respondents from 19 separate samples Exploratory factor analysis Internal consistency reliability Test–retest reliability Criterion validity by comparing JSS and JDI scales Discriminant and convergent validity using a multitrait–multimethod matrix Nomological validity using employee characteristics and other constructs
3	Job Satisfaction of Industrial Salesmen Churchill et al. (1974)	The job Fellow workers Supervision Company policy and support Pay and company benefits Promotion and advancement Customers	My job is challenging. The people I work with get along well together. My sales manager is tactful. My customers are fair.	183 and 265 salespeople Alpha for internal consistency reliability Exploratory factor analysis Split-half reliability correlations Construct validity with turnover
	Psychometric assessment of a reduced version of INDSALES Comer et al. (1980)	Supervision Job Company policy Promotion Pay Fellow workers Customers 61 and 31 items	My job is challenging. The people I work with get along well together.	295 sales reps in three companies Split-half reliability Alpha for internal consistency Convergent, discriminant and nomological tests Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis
4	Job Characteristic Inventory (IC) Sims et al. (1979)	Variety Autonomy Task identity Feedback Dealing with others Friendship opportunities	How much variety is there in your job? How much are you left on your own to do your own work?	1,161 medical centre personnel 162 managers and supervisors employed by a manufacturing organization Factor analysis Discriminant validity in a multitrait–multimethod format Correlation
5	Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ)  Weiss et al. (1967)	Activity Independence Variety Social status Supervision (human relations) Supervision (technical) Moral values Social service Authority Ability utilization Company policies and practices Compensation Advancement Creativity Working conditions Responsibility Co-workers Recognition Achievement Security 100 items and 20 items	Being able to keep busy all the time The chance to work alone on the job	Internal consistency reliability Correlations
6	Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) Hackman and Oldham (1975)	Objective job dimensions Individual psychological states resulting from these dimensions affecting the reactions of employees to the job and work setting Individual growth needs’ strengths Skill variety Task identity Experienced meaningfulness of the work Experienced responsibility for the work General satisfaction Internal work motivation Satisfaction with job security Would like format Job choice format 78 items 4 dimensions and 19 subdimensions	The feeling of worthwhile accomplishment I get from doing my job The amount of job security I have	658 employees from 62 different jobs in 7 organizations Internal consistency test Correlations among subscales
7	Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire Cammann et al. (1979)	One dimension Items are totalled to yield an overall job satisfaction score 3 items	All in all I am satisfied with my job. I general, I like working here.	Internal consistency test Correlations with many other work variables
8	Job in General Scale (JIG) Ironson et al. (1989)	Measurement of overall job satisfaction 18 items	Pleasant, bad, ideal, waste of time, good, undesirable, worthwhile, worse than most, acceptable, superior, better than most	Five different samples in four sectors Total sample of 10,400 employees Internal consistency test Item response theory Convergent and discriminant validity Correlations
9	Revised version of the reduced INDSALES scale Rutherford et al. (2019)	Pay, promotion, work, customers, supervision, policy and co-workers	My pay is high in comparison with what others get for similar work in other companies. My opportunities for advancement are limited.	137 business-to-business salespeople from a national firm Reducing the number of items according to qualitative criteria Reliabilities for each dimension Confirmatory factor analysis Convergent and discriminant validity
10	Özpehlivan and Acar (2016)	Management skills, co-workers, job and working conditions, promotion, pay and external environment	Physical environment where I work is appropriate. I am satisfied with my job in terms of working conditions.	699 data from well-known Turkish and Russian businessmen Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis Reliability Unidimensionality Convergent validity Discriminant validity
11	Hartmann et al. (2016)	Supervisors, overall job, company policy and support, promotion and advancement, pay, co-workers, customers	My supervisor really tries to get our ideas about things. Management is progressive.	Sample size of 647 respondents Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
12	Hartmann et al. (2017)	Pay satisfaction, promotion satisfaction, supervision satisfaction, policy and support satisfaction, co-workers’ satisfaction, customers’ satisfaction, work satisfaction	Management is progressive. Top management really knows its job.	693 B2B and B2C salespeople Multi-group analysis Structural model Convergent and discriminant validity Cronbach alpha reliabilities
13	Rutherford et al. (2009)	Supervision, overall job, company policy and support, promotion and advancement, pay, co-workers and customers	My fellow workers are pleasant. The people I work with are very friendly.	Confirmatory factor analysis Multiple regression Usable sample of 132 responses
14	Dirani and Kuchinke (2011)	Intrinsic satisfaction Extrinsic satisfaction Overall satisfaction	-	Sample of 298 Correlation Exploratory factor analysis Confirmatory factor analysis Reliability analysis Content validity procedures

Source: Surveys from previous studies.

10The analysis of existing measurement scales led to four main conclusions. First, the existing measurement scales were developed between 1960 and 1980 in the US and European contexts. The lack of scales developed after 1990 is curious and surprising. This means that most researchers have replicated existing scales that are not specific to any country/context and sector. The focus on American and European contexts means that the existing scales reflect the American and European realities but may not be appropriate outside those contexts.

11Second, some common factors were identified across different scales, with factors like pay, supervision, co-workers, promotion and the type of work being present in five different scales. This means that some employee job satisfaction components seem to be more universal than others and thus could be present in a scale regardless of the context and sector.

12Third, all the multi-facet measurement scales are long, with 49 items on average. The large number of items confirms that employee job satisfaction has to be analysed in a holistic way to cover all its features. Therefore, longer scales are preferred to shorter ones as they could give an accurate image of the job satisfaction construct (Bahia and Nantel, 2000).

13Fourth, the existing measurement scales have applied similar methodologies. Most of the existing scales have used relatively large samples, varying from 183 to 3,148 employees. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses have been employed less in the measurement scales’ development process. Indeed, only four and two measurement scales have respectively used EFA and CFA. Most of the studies have resorted to internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and split-half techniques to test their own scale’s reliability. While those techniques are relevant, only a few studies have relied on construct reliability (CR) to confirm scales’ reliability. Most of the existing measurement scales have intensively employed correlations and multitrait matrices to test both convergent and discriminant validity instead of using average variance extracted (AVE) metrics (Bagozzi and Yi, 2012).

14The present study intends to develop a more reliable and valid employee job satisfaction measurement scale as most of the existing scales have failed to demonstrate all the required psychometric properties. The scale will be developed based on items and factors from previous measures, confirming that the previous measurement scales constitute a good beginning for a scale development process.

2.2. Employee Job Satisfaction’s Antecedents and Consequences

15Employee job satisfaction has been analysed in combination with many organizational and behavioural variables. Previous studies have confirmed that employee job satisfaction is linked with employee well-being (Calvard and Sang, 2017; Tuzovic and Kabadayi, 2020) and work conditions (Boulagouas et al., 2021). Employee well-being has been viewed as one of the main determinants of employee job satisfaction (Slemp et al., 2014; Yahyagil, 2015). According to the “happy–productive worker thesis”, employees who are very happy with their present job may display higher job satisfaction (Calvard and Sang, 2017). Therefore, employees who are satisfied with their own life will react positively to their employment settings and express more satisfaction with their current job (Butt et al., 2018; Fargher et al., 2008).

16Work conditions have also been identified as a key antecedent of employee job satisfaction. Indeed, employees who are exposed to hard work conditions and unreasonable work overload will be frustrated and less motivated to deliver the work outcomes. Therefore, harsh work conditions result in weak performance and a lack of job satisfaction (Böckerman and Ilmakunnas, 2004). Thus, firms that provide their employees with poor conditions are less productive, less efficient and not able to satisfy their employees (Boulagouas et al., 2021).

17Some previous studies have also agreed that employee job satisfaction serves as a determinant of turnover, employees’ intention to leave a firm and the firm’s profitability (Hestkett et al., 2008; Sousa-Poza and Sousa-Poza, 2000). Indeed, there is a negative relationship between employees’ job satisfaction and their turnover and intention to leave a firm (De Wet Van Der Westhuizen et al., 2012; Shanahan and Hopkins, 2014). Thus, employees who feel that they are badly rewarded for their work will attempt to restore the equity by reducing their efforts, increasing the rate of absenteeism and being more inclined to leave the organization (Singh and Loncar, 2010). Employee job satisfaction is also linked to the firm’s profitability. According to the service profit chain model, employee job satisfaction may positively influence both customer satisfaction and loyalty and ultimately lead to the firm’s profitability (Hurley and Estelami, 2007; Sousa-Poza and Sousa-Poza, 2000). Therefore, employee job satisfaction plays a primary role in helping companies to achieve financial goals and performance (Balemba and Bugandwa, 2016).

18Turnover intentions, perceived organizational performance and internal marketing were assessed as the main antecedents and consequences of employee job satisfaction in this study (see the second study). We hypothesized that employee job satisfaction will be positively associated with internal marketing and perceived performance while demonstrating a negative relationship with turnover intentions.

2.3. Employees’ Importance and Satisfaction in Microfinance Institutions: What Makes Microfinance Different ?

19Microfinance has mainly been developed to provide financial and nonfinancial services to people who are excluded from formal financial services (Hudon, 2010; Morduch, 1999). MFIs have positioned themselves as social enterprises that pursue both social and financial objectives and therefore differ from banks, which are solely interested in profit maximization (Beisland et al., 2018; Salim, 2013). MFIs’ focus on the social mission relies on the fact that strong social outcomes are correlated with financial metrics (Wry and Zhao, 2018). Therefore, MFIs that invest heavily in the social mission will improve customer satisfaction and retention while increasing staff productivity and satisfaction (Mersland et al., 2019). Thus, MFIs are required to understand the real needs of their customers and employees and satisfy them to create more human-oriented financial service intermediation (Conning and Morduch, 2011).

20MFIs’ strong emphasis on employee job satisfaction is related to the strategic role that human resources play in their success. In fact, MFIs’ performance and success are mostly attributed to the hard work, commitment and enthusiasm of their employees (Hudon, 2010). Therefore, employees “are considered to be the cornerstones of the provided services” in the microfinance sector (Battilana and Dorado, 2010). Such an argument confirms that MFIs have to “attract and retain meritorious and talented employees” (Sarker, 2013). Thus, the huge investment in employee job satisfaction may reduce excessive employee turnover and improve MFIs’ productivity (Alam, 2015). The present inclination towards employee satisfaction is due to the fact that the performance of contemporary microfinance mainly relies on staff motivation and equipment (Sagamba et al., 2013). This strategy causes “a drift in the behaviour and attitudes of field-level staff” that has tended to neglect the people who are supporting the MFIs’ success (Maıtrot, 2018). In fact, employee job satisfaction seems to be the real way for MFIs to improve their competitiveness and efficiency (Borzaga and Tortia, 2006). The underlying argument is that satisfaction is more important for employees working in microfinance as they are more engaged in social causes (Benz, 2005; Godfroid, 2017). Therefore, employees who work in MFIs may sacrifice their monetary rewards to attend to social objectives (Leete, 2000; Weisberg and Dent, 2016).

21The importance of employee job satisfaction in the microfinance sector and within a developing country context is also reinforced by the fact that employees’ work is heavily embedded in the social and cultural contexts in which MFIs operate. In fact, some MFIs operate on a very small scale and have to embed their activities in local communities to benefit from scale of economies advantages (Cornée, 2015). Therefore, analysing employee job satisfaction through a cultural lens allows the development of effective strategies that aim to increase employee job satisfaction (De Wet Van Der Westhuizen et al., 2012; Eskildsen et al., 2010). Thus, employee job satisfaction may differ across countries and cultures. Some empirical studies have demonstrated that employee relations in developing and collectivist countries are a perfect extension of social and family connections (Haar et al., 2014; Spector et al., 2007). In this particular context, employee co-workers and interpersonal communication factors may be more valorized by employees as the main components of employee job satisfaction. In fact, strong social relations may reinforce cooperation between employees and lead to more enjoyable working conditions (Chan et al., 2010). Therefore, employee job satisfaction may be based on factors that are more locally contextualized, such as job security and social needs (Balemba and Bugandwa, 2016; Godfroid, 2017). This means that MFIs that need to maximize employee satisfaction have to adopt a more indigenous approach in their hiring strategy and thus hire employees who are more embedded in the local community. Those local employees will have a better understanding of the clients’ beliefs and practices while also having more facilities to gather information on customers and provide them with more loans (Otiti et al., 2021; Tchakoute, 2018). Therefore, MFIs’ employees work in a social life (Morvant-Roux et al., 2012) in which “close proximity to the poor enables them to develop trust with the communities in which they operate” (Tchakoute and Soumaré, 2017).

22Such employee social embeddedness will lead to more human financial intermediation through which customers are able to discuss and even formulate their requirements with more accessible and responsive employees (Biot-Paquerot et al., 2021). In this particular context, employee satisfaction will not be influenced solely by economic and financial metrics. Employees will also be motivated and satisfied by participating in a more social mission, allowing them to develop more reciprocal relationships with customers (Glemain, 2008; Godfroid, 2017). Therefore, employees are involved in more complex relationships and play extra roles, extending beyond their pure financial intermediation function. They have to act as “village counsellors, money managers, and conflict mediators at the same time” (Ito, 2003). Thus, MFIs’ employees have to possess extra skills “never before requested from a single individual” (Battilana and Dorado, 2010).

23Therefore, employee job satisfaction in the microfinance sector requires more components that exceed the employee job satisfaction scales that have been developed in previous years (Bellucci et al., 2010). In microfinance, employees will consider factors like security, communication, co-worker relations and more pleasant work as the main components of their job instead of more standardized components that are present in more standardized scales of employee job satisfaction (Balemba and Bugandwa, 2016; Colombier, 2007). Thus, by relying on the microfinance literature and on a qualitative survey conducted with MFIs’ employees and managers, the present study was able to capture more endogenous items that incorporate both microfinance and country specificities into the proposed measurement scale.

3. The Scale Development Process and Validation

3.1. Scale Item Generation

25The list was finally submitted to 40 employees from 17 MFIs in Bukavu and Uvira to identify ambiguous and potentially misunderstood items. We ended up with a scale consisting of 128 items divided into 10 dimensions: pay (10), monetary and non-monetary advantages (6), co-workers (13), training opportunities (4), working conditions (20), training and staff development (8), communication (19), supervision (17), work safety and compliance with the law (8) and the nature of work (22). While the number of these items seemed high, we preferred to keep them all because “in the early stages, an over inclusive scale is considered to be preferable to a truncated one” (Bahia and Nantel, 2000). Figure 1 provides more information on the scale development procedures.

Figure 1. Scale Development Procedures

3.2. Study 1. Scale Purification and Refinement

26Data were collected from 350 employees of 50 MFIs located in five urban centres in Kivu: Bukavu, Goma, Uvira, Beni, and Butembo. The survey was conducted directly in MFI branches during working hours. Employees were chosen based on their tenure and their task. Only employees with a minimum of three months’ tenure participated in the survey. The survey was conducted by one of the authors and 38 master’s students. Monitoring and regular calls helped to retrieve 300 questionnaires out of the 450 distributed, of which 74 were unusable. After excluding these non-usable questionnaires, 226 remained, which gave us a 65% response rate. For each item, employees were asked to give their level of agreement or disagreement on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7).

27The data reveal that the majority of the employees were male (70%), and only 30% were female. MFIs employ relatively young people; 88% were aged between 20 and 40. The employees also had a good educational background: 51% of them had a bachelor’s degree and 38% had a master’s degree. The majority – 65% – were married, whereas 28% were single. The results show that the majority of the employees – 70% – were loan officers, 22% were cashiers and 8% were customer care employees. Furthermore, the majority (43%) of the employees had been employed in their MFIs for a period of one to three years. Employees who had worked in microfinance for less than a year represented 13% of the sample, but those who had worked there for more than 10 years accounted for only 5%.

28The data were subjected to an exploratory factor analysis to refine the scale measurement (Hair et al., 2010). The preliminary results regarding the data adequacy for factor analysis (KMO= 0.84; Bartlett’s sphericity test= 4.187; p= 0.000) confirmed that the data fitted well within the factor analysis. We resorted to the factor loading, communality, eigenvalues and total variance explained by each factor as the main criteria in selecting items and factors to be retained in the final solution. Thus, the items that did not have significant factor loadings on any factor (< 0.35), those with significant loadings on two or more factors and those with low communalities (< 0.5) were deleted. In addition, factors with eigenvalues < 1 were considered for deletion (Lings and Greenly, 2005). We used varimax rotation to maximize the possibilities of determining whether each item was strongly attached to one factor. A rotation strategy was preferred for two reasons. First, it produces both uncorrelated factors and similar results with more sophisticated oblique rotations (Osborne, 2015; Peterson, 2000). Second, “exploratory factor analysis particularly with Varimax rotation of the principle axes factors appears to provide a useful heuristic tool for constructing multiple indicator measurement models as a precursor to confirmatory factor analysis procedures” (Gerbing and Hamilton, 1996).

29The result was a 10-factor solution with 43 items that accounted for 65% of the variation in the employee job satisfaction construct. We labelled 10 new empirically driven factors (Walsh and Beatty, 2007): (1) pay, (2) communication and information flow, (3) co-workers, (4) job conditions, (5) promotion, (6) supervision, (7) job security, (8) job preference, (9) training and development and (10) nature of the work. The scale also demonstrated good reliability. Cronbach’s alpha was found to be 0.92. The total correlations between items were all high, ranging from 0.56 (item 39) to 0.28 (item 28), indicating that it is not possible to delete an item to improve the final result (Karapete et al., 2005). Table 3 gives more details about the factors and their underlying items.

Table 3. Employee Job Satisfaction Factors (n= 226)

Dimensions and items	Item-to-total correlations	Factor loading from exploratory factor analysis Study 1	Factor loading from confirmatory factor analysis Study 1
Factor 1: Pay	α = 0.93	γ = 10.51	AVE = 0.50, CR = 0.85
My pay is classified in the national guaranteed minimum wage.	0.44	0.66	0.68
The pay policy in my MFI complies with the legislation in force.	0.42	0.70	0.68
My MFI pay policy is in accordance with the rules and procedures.	0.55	0.74	0.77
My pay is adjusted depending on my degree.	0.48	0.69	0.65
My pay is high in comparison with what others get for similar work in other companies.	0.41	0.67	0.61
I’m granted advantages related to my position.	0.52	0.69	0.72
I’m paid for the 13th month at the end of each year.	0.44	0.61	0.62
Factor 2: Communication	α = 0.92	γ = 3.35	AVE = 0.52, CR = 0.85
Many of the rules and procedures that govern my MFI make doing a good job easier.	0.52	0.52	0.60
Communication flows through formal channels.	0.52	0.73	0.73
Every employee is aware of everything going on in my MFI.	0.46	0.73	0.71
My MFI provides opportunities for employees to give their opinions about its management.	0.49	0.79	0.75
Information is disseminated systematically and consistently across all departments of my MFI.	0.48	0.72	0.73
My MFI organizes regular meetings involving all departments.	0.44	0.58	0.64
Factor 3: Job working conditions	α = 0.92	γ = 2.73	AVE = 0.50, CR = 0.77
The position I occupy fits me.	0.56	0.54	0.71
The building where my MFI operates is in a good state.	0.41	0.58	0.60
My MFI regularly provides tools and equipment for employees.	0.47	0.67	0.63
The tasks are well allocated among employees.	0.46	0.62	0.65
The management system in my MFI is computerized.	0.36	0.76	0.58
Factor 4: Job security and compliance with the law	α = 0.93	γ = 2.31	AVE = 0.52, CR = 0.83
My employer scrupulously respects the labour code.	0.48	0.81	0.73
All employees have signed work contracts.	0.52	0.71	0.78
Employees are ensured job stability.	0.52	0.64	0.72
There is a good recruitment policy in my MFI.	0.52	0.58	0.62
The employer respects all the commitments assigned to him in the work contract.	0.52	0.61	0.66
Factor 5: Training and staff development	α = 0.93	γ = 1.79	AVE = 0.51, CR = 0.77
My MFI trains employees on skills that prepare them for future jobs and career development.	0.49	0.59	0.64
My MFI provides career counselling and planning assistance to employees.	0.38	0.75	0.72
My MFI allows employees to devote time to learning new skills that prepare them to deal with prospective jobs.	0.39	0.78	0.72
My MFI is receptive to requests from employees who wish to change departments.	0.37	0.70	0.63
Factor 6: Job preference	α = 0.92	γ = 1.68	AVE = 0.76, CR = 0.91
My job is interesting.	0.45	0.83	0.83
My job is enjoyable.	0.31	0.80	0.88
I feel a sense of pride in doing my job.	0.48	0.84	0.91
Factor 7: Co-workers	α = 0.93	γ = 1.56	AVE = 0.51, CR = 0.76
Relationships between employees in my MFI are perfect.	0.39	0.77	0.81
Mutual respect prevails among the staff in my MFI.	0.44	0.62	0.67
The people I work with are very friendly.	0.28	0.70	0.51
I enjoy my co-workers.	0.34	0.66	0.68
Factor 8: Supervision	α = 0.92	γ = 1.43	AVE = 0.52, CR = 0.73
There is good cooperation between the manager and the employees.	0.42	0.75	0.72
The level of collaboration between employees and managers is perfect.	0.46	0.65	0.73
Employees enjoy great consideration from their managers.	0.38	0.65	0.60
Factor 9: Job results	α = 0.92	γ = 1.33	AVE = 0.51, CR = 0.69
I feel that I perform a job in which I do as much as possible.	0.50	0.68	0.73
I am able to see the results of the work I do (make).	0.31	0.59	0.54
I do a job in such a way that I expect to get the best results.	0.48	0.53	0.68
Factor 10: Promotion	α = 0.93	γ = 1.20	AVE = 0.55, CR = 0.78
The employees of my MFI are quickly promoted compared with other MFIs.	0.41	0.82	0.77
Promotions here are always based on ability.	0.47	0.73	0.76
The criteria described in the promotion guide document are still being applied during promotions.	0.49	0.63	0.68

Source: Results from SPSS 16.0 and LISREL 9.1.

30The retained scale, consisting of 43 items and 10 components, was then subjected to a confirmatory factor analysis using LISREL 9.1 (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). The inspection of the model fit revealed a good overall fit (CFI= 0.92, IFI= 0.92, TLI= 0.91; RMSEA= 0.07). All 43 retained items had loadings above the threshold of 0.40 and were statistically significant (t > 1.96) (Walsh and Beatty, 2007). The values found for the composite reliability and AVE were greater than or equal to 0.70 or 0.50, respectively, for the first and the second measurement, demonstrating the scale’s convergent validity (Bagozzi and Yi, 2012). The scale’s discriminant validity was tested by comparing the AVE for each factor with the squared phi correlation between the two latent variables (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The results confirm that all “possible pairs of factors passed this test, suggesting the discriminant validity of the dimensions in our employee job satisfaction scale” (Walsh and Beatty, 2007). Discriminant validity was also tested by demonstrating that the correlation between the 10 factors was significantly less than one (Bagozzi and Heatherton, 1994). The highest correlation between factors was 0.54 (between supervision and communication), proving that discriminant validity was supported for all the pairs of factors (Sweeney and Soutar, 2001).Such a result confirms that a relationship exists between job satisfaction facets (Friend et al., 2013).

3.3. Study 2. Scale Final Refinement and Validation

31Data were collected on 650 employees in 53 MFIs located in the same five urban centres (see study 1). The second-stage data collection was performed to evaluate the 43-item scale and its reliability to prove that the scale is repeatable and stable (George and Torger, 1982; Sweeney and Soutar, 2001). Therefore, the collection of additional data helped to demonstrate that the results from the first survey were not due to chance and that they would be reproduced when the underlying “sample of items were submitted to a new sample of subjects” (Churchill, 1979). The survey was conducted by one of the authors and 38 master’s students. Employees were asked to answer a questionnaire that included the 43 refined scale items. They were also asked to respond to items measuring perceived organizational performance, internal marketing and turnover intention constructs. Monitoring and regular calls helped to retrieve 450 questionnaires of the total 650. Only 31 were badly completed or missing some information. After excluding these non-usable questionnaires, 419 remained, which gave us a 64% response rate. The data reveal that 74% of the employees were male and only 26% were female. The majority of the employees (85%) were aged between 21 and 40, 43% were between 21 and 30 and 42% were between 31 and 40. The majority of the employees (85%) had a good level of education (45% had graduate degrees and 40% had undergraduate degrees). Most of the employees were married (59%), whereas 36% were single, 3% divorced and 2% separated. Loan officers constituted the majority of the employees surveyed (69%), while 19% were cashiers and 12% were customer care employees. The data reveal that 45% of the employees had been working in their MFIs for 1 to 3 years. Employees with seniority of less than a year represented 15% of the sample, whereas 5% of the employees had seniority of more than 10 years. The results from the first survey indicate that MFIs had 26 employees on average, 6387 customers and tenure of 12.15 years on average. In the second survey, these were respectively 28 employees, 5800 customers and 11.8 years’ tenure on average. We compared the data from the first and second surveys in terms of MFIs’ size and tenure by performing the T-test. The results reveal that there was no difference in terms of number of employees (t= -0.94; p= 0.34), number of customers (t= 0.86; p= 0.34) and tenure (t= 0.40; p= 0.35) at the time of survey. This result confirms that the two samples are comparable and probably come from the same population.

32The 10-factor structure identified with the first sample was first submitted to reliability analysis using internal reliability analysis and item-to-total correlations. The scale yielded a more satisfactory Cronbach’s alpha (α= 0.93). All the retained items had high item-to-total correlations, ranging from 0.56 to 0.31, demonstrating that it was not possible to improve the structure obtained by eliminating any item. The 10-factor structure was submitted to LISREL 9.1 for confirmatory factor analysis. The results showed that the items and their undermining factors had significant loadings and that the model fit the data quite well, with good fit indices (CFI= 0.94, IFI= 0.94, TLI= 0.94; RMSEA= 0.06). The table below gives more information on the model structure.

Table 4. Employee Job Satisfaction Factors (n= 419)

Dimensions and items	Item-to-total correlations	Factor loading from exploratory factor analysis Study 2	Factor loading from confirmatory factor analysis Study 2
Factor 1: Pay	α = 0.93	γ = 11.22	AVE = 0.51, CR = 0.88
My pay is classified in the national guaranteed minimum wage.	0.46	0.67	0.67
The pay policy in my MFI complies with the legislation in force.	0.45	0.64	0.65
My MFI pay policy is in accordance with the rules and procedures.	0.57	0.76	0.81
My pay is adjusted depending on my degree.	0.52	0.72	0.72
My pay is high in comparison with what others get for similar work in other companies.	0.40	0.69	0.63
I’m granted the advantages related to my position.	0.48	0.70	0.67
I’m paid for the 13th month at the end of each year.	0.37	0.61	0.55
Factor 2: Communication	α = 0.92	γ = 3.46	AVE = 0.50, CR = 0.86
Many of the rules and procedures that govern my MFI make doing a good job easier.	0.54	0.62	0.62
Communication flows through formal channels.	0.55	0.72	0.67
Every employee is aware of everything going on in my MFI.	0.51	0.66	0.70
My MFI provides opportunities for employees to give their opinions about its management.	0.54	0.71	0.74
Information is disseminated systematically and consistently across all departments of my MFI.	0.48	0.60	0.67
My MFI organizes regular meetings involving all departments.	0.53	0.59	0.70
Factor 3: Job working conditions	α = 0.92	γ = 2.66	AVE = 0.50, CR = 0.83
The position I occupy fits me.	0.51	0.55	0.64
The building where my MFI operates is in a good state.	0.40	0.68	0.62
My MFI regularly provides tools and equipment for employees.	0.48	0.70	0.73
The tasks are well allocated among employees.	0.50	0.67	0.77
The management system in my MFI is computerized.	0.39	0.80	0.66
Factor 4: Job security and compliance with the law	α = 0.93	γ = 2.15	AVE = 0.53, CR = 0.85
My employer scrupulously respects the labour code.	0.54	0.72	0.74
All employees have signed work contracts.	0.56	0.71	0.78
Employees are ensured job stability.	0.52	0.72	0.71
There is a good recruitment policy in my MFI.	0.57	0.65	0.68
The employer respects all the commitments assigned to him in the work contract.	0.59	0.59	0.73
Factor 5: Training and staff development	α = 0.93	γ = 1.85	AVE = 0.54, CR = 0.82
My MFI trains employees on skills that prepare them for future jobs and career development.	0.52	0.68	0.72
My MFI provides career counselling and planning assistance to employees.	0.44	0.74	0.76
My MFI allows employees to devote time to learning new skills that prepare them to deal with prospective jobs.	0.48	0.78	0.76
My MFI is receptive to requests from employees who wish to change departments.	0.44	0.72	0.70
Factor 6: Job preference	α = 0.92	γ = 1.54	AVE = 0.74, CR = 0.90
My job is interesting.	0.48	0.78	0.82
My job is enjoyable.	0.52	0.82	0.91
I feel a sense of pride in doing my job.	0.50	0.78	0.86
Factor 7: Co-workers	α = 0.93	γ = 1.35	AVE = 0.52, CR = 0.81
Relationships between employees in my MFI are perfect.	0.41	0.77	0.80
Mutual respects prevails among the staff in my MFI.	0.43	0.62	0.66
The people I work with are very friendly.	0.31	0.69	0.53
I enjoy my co-workers.	0.33	0.72	0.61
Factor 8: Supervision	α = 0.92	γ = 1.32	AVE = 0.55, CR = 0.78
There is good cooperation between the manager and the employees.	0.51	0.76	0.77
The level of collaboration between employees and managers is perfect.	0.48	0.68	0.73
Employees enjoy great consideration from their managers.	0.43	0.76	0.72
Factor 9: Job results	α = 0.92	γ = 1.16	AVE = 0.50, CR = 0.75
I feel that I perform a job in which I do as much as possible.	0.43	0.64	0.71
I am able to see the results of the work I do (make).	0.35	0.80	0.67
I do a job in such a way that I expect to get the best results.	0.46	0.69	0.75
Factor 10: Promotion	α = 0.93	γ = 1.11	AVE = 0.52, CR = 0.76
The employees of my MFI are quickly promoted compared with other MFIs.	0.42	0.80	0.76
Promotions here are always based on ability.	0.48	0.77	0.80
The criteria described in the promotion guide document are still being applied during promotions.	0.44	0.63	0.58

Source: Results from SPSS 16.0 and LISREL 9.1.

33Convergent validity was tested by implementing two methods. We first inspected the value of the AVE for each factor (Walsh and Beatty, 2007). The results (see Table 2) show that the AVE for each of the 10 factors of employee job satisfaction was greater than 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981), hence indicating convergent validity. Second, convergent validity was tested by comparing the t‐values for all the items with the standard norm of 1.96. All 43 items exhibited t‐values above the 1.96 standard (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). Taken together, all these results show that the scale provides internal stability and sufficient proof of convergent validity (Lings and Greenly, 2005).

34Discriminant validity was established using the results from two methods. First, we obtained results from three concurrent models. In concordance with previous scales of measurement, we ran a first model loading the total of 43 items onto nine factors, following Spector (1985). We estimated a second model that loaded the 43 items onto eight factors in reference to Churchill et al. (1974). Finally, we ran a third model that connected the 43 items only to five factors, like the scale of Smith et al. (1969). The results show that there was a “significant difference in the adequacy of different factor models to represent the data. This indicates that trying to force the items measuring employee job satisfaction onto fewer underlying factors leads to a significant deterioration of the model fit, relative to the ten‐factor model identified by CFA” (Lings and Greenly, 2005). Table 5 presents more information on the models’ fit indicators.

35Second, supplementary evidence of discriminant validity was provided by comparing the AVE for each of the 10 factors with the squared phi correlation between the two latent variables (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Table 6 provides more information.

36The results confirm that all possible pairs of factors passed this test, confirming the discriminant validity of the factors in the employee job satisfaction scale measurement (Walsh and Beatty, 2007). The combined results from both methods above demonstrate that the proposed scale fulfils all the properties of discriminant validity.

37Nomological validity was tested by estimating a structural model that connects employee job satisfaction with internal marketing, turnover intention and perceived organizational performance as its main antecedents and consequences in reference to both the service–profit chain model (Heskett et al., 2008) and equity theory (Schneider et al., 1985). According to both the above theories, there is a positive relationship between internal marketing and employee job satisfaction and the two constructs may positively influence firms’ performance (Gelade and Young, 2005; Lings and Greenly, 2005). Nomological validity was tested through a structural model that linked employee job satisfaction, measured with the average index from its 10 components, internal marketing (α= 0.89; CR= 0.77, AVE= 0.51) and organizational performance, measured using the average index from its two components (α= 0.90; CR= 0.81; AVE= 0.58).

38The results reveal that the model fit the data well (CFI= 0.92, IFI= 0.92, TLI= 0.91; RMSEA= 0.08). They confirm that IM positively and significantly influences (γ= 0.73; t= 9.37; p= 0.000) employee job satisfaction. These results suggest that there is no positive significant influence of EJS on organizational performance (γ= 0.01; t= 0.11; p= 0.000) and that IM positively and significantly affects organizational performance (γ= 0.73; t= 9.37; p= 0.000).

39We also tested a structural model linking employee job satisfaction and employee turnover intentions. We measured employee turnover intentions with three items from previous studies (α= 0.80; CR= 0.82; AVE= 0.58) (Jang and George, 2012; Jaramillo et al., 2009). The results indicate that the specified model reflects the data quite well (Brown, 2006) (GFI= 0.93, CFI= 0.93, IFI= 0.93, TLI= 0.91; RMSEA= 0.06).

40The results from the structural model show that employee job satisfaction negatively and significantly influences the turnover intentions of MFIs’ employees in Kivu (γ= - .32; t= -5.51, p= 0.000). Taken together, the results verify that the employee job satisfaction scale measurement fulfils the nomological validity properties.

4. Results and Discussion

41The results confirm that frontline employee job satisfaction is a multidimensional construct with 10 factors and 43 items. Communication and information sharing is positioned as the first employee satisfaction factor (ƛ= 0.80). This factor proves that MFIs have to promote information sharing through regular inter-and intradepartmental meetings. Such meetings provide a good opportunity to update everyone on whether the organization is running smoothly and improve information transparency (Gutiérrez-Nieto and Serrano-Cinca, 2009). MFIs are therefore obliged to renounce information centralization and favour employees’ participation in the decision-making process. Such participative management will encourage collaboration and mutual understanding between employees and their MFIs and greatly reduce employee turnover (Li Sun and Liang, 2021).

42Security and compliance with the law is positioned as the second dimension (ƛ= 0.78). The primacy of job security is explained by the insecurity that characterizes almost all employment sectors in the DR Congo. The study by Makabu ma Nkenda et al. (2005) on employment in the DR Congo shows that job insecurity is manifested by low enforcement of labour contracts and relations. One employee out of two has no written contract with their employer, and four out of 10 do not receive a pay slip; in the private sector, 62% of employees have an employment contract and 59.3% receive a pay slip. The importance of workplace safety lies in the fact that it allows employees to deal with the uncertainty of the future and to plan and foresee long-term investment projects.

43Supervision (ƛ= 0.67) is the third factor of MFI employee satisfaction. Supervision refers to “the degree to which supervisors are friendly, helpful and supportive to their subordinates” (Mulinge and Mueller, 1998). Such progressive supervision is important in microfinance due to the strategic roles given to employees in this industry. Indeed, employees have access to a wealth of information concerning the quality of clients (honesty and repayment capacity, among others) that managers do not have. The nature and quality of the relationship that these employees have with their supervisors could lead them to disclose or not disclose this information. Consequently, supervisors who create a good working climate and a convivial atmosphere between themselves and their subordinates instil confidence in their employees’ managers (Kumar Jha and Singh, 2015). This may ultimately lead to a certain trivialization of authority and produce a kind of autocratic leadership style that is more prevalent in the DRC’s MFIs (Bugandwa et al., 2021). By wanting to exert strong authority over their employees, MFIs’ managers misuse blame and control rather than engaging in benevolent supervision, which can allow the development of employees. Therefore, MFIs’ managers govern MFIs and labour relations in a despotic way, as they still do in their own houses (Haar et al., 2014).

44Pay is the fourth dimension (ƛ= 0.63). It is intriguing that salary is only ranked fourth as it implies that MFI employees are primarily interested not in wages but in having a job, with all other things coming later. Such a result confirms that MFIs’ employees in the DRC are still underpaid and rewarded less in terms of their salaries (Ganguli et al., 2018; Mia, 2022). The underlying argument is that the DRC is truly characterized by very high levels of unemployment and poverty. Therefore, employees are already very happy to have a paid job. Such a result confirms that the DRC is still a labour-abundant country, giving more opportunities to MFIs to absorb substantial numbers of employees on a low salary (Campbell and Ahmed, 2012; Mia et al., 2016). As surprising as it may seem to a Western reader, it is not uncommon for firms (MFIs included) to employ people for several months or even years without paying them, abusing the high prevalence of a reserve stock of labour. Thus, the simple fact of having a salary, whatever its level, is an attribute that is appreciated in the DRC. Therefore, employees can renounce their monetary rewards and value other social metrics, like having stable employment or bringing financial services to those consumers who are more financially excluded (Weisberg and Dent, 2016).

45The nature of work (ƛ= 0.63) also ranked fourth, tied with pay. This factor refers to the opportunity that employees have to appreciate the results of their own work. Indeed, MFI employees want to make themselves useful to their MFIs through a job well done. In this way, they want to contribute to the performance of their institution. This is only possible if they are allocated to tasks that fit well with their qualifications and competences. This shows that the division of labour in MFIs should normally take into account the predispositions and skills of employees. In the context of the DRC, with very high levels of unemployment, it is very common to find that people working in MFIs have high levels of education relative to the job positions that they hold. Thus, there is a kind of education mismatch that pushes highly educated employees to accept even vulnerable employment. This is unfortunately a rather structural problem, linked to the macroeconomic conditions of the country, over which MFIs have no control.

46Job preference is ranked as the sixth factor (ƛ= 0.60). This refers to whether employees find their work interesting and are therefore proud of it. A job is interesting to employees if it allows them to showcase their talents, knowledge and expertise. Thus, job preference predisposes employees to invest themselves in their work. This is important in the microfinance industry, in which many tasks are routine and often lead to boredom and stress. As frontline employees work under pressure, they may become discouraged and leave their MFIs. Only the attachment that they have to their jobs can significantly reduce these imperfections. The pride that employees take in their work can also help to reinforce their job preference. For example, some MFIs have instituted a form of public recognition for their employees, awarding them “best cashier” or “best loan officer of the year”. Although these awards may not have a significant financial impact, they help to strengthen the image and personal reputation of the employees concerned. In the case of MFIs in the DRC, we can expect the level of job preference to be low for the simple reason that people accept jobs not necessarily because they prefer them but also because they fail to find what best suits their profiles and preferences.

47Staff training and development is the seventh factor (ƛ= 0.59). This dimension refers to access to training that provides employees with new knowledge, preparing them for future higher positions. Since higher education institutions do not offer specific MFI courses, MFIs have to focus on both technical and prosocial aspects to train employees (Doering and Wry, 2022). This more specific training may be offered by professional associations to minimize costs. Therefore, technical and prosocial-based training will reinforce employees’ analytic and interactional behaviours and improve their productivity (Canales, 2011). Training thus increases the efficiency and adaptability of employees and allows them to adopt new technologies easily. As a result, trained employees are also the most competent because they have a better understanding of their tasks.

48Working conditions constitute the eighth factor (ƛ= 0.59). This factor relates to the presence of an information management system within MFIs, the availability of work tools and equipment, the good distribution of tasks and the state of the buildings housing the MFIs. The existence of an information management system facilitates the work of employees by allowing them to save time. It also speeds up operations while reducing mistakes made by employees. The presence of work tools and other equipment also contributes to improving employees’ performance. These logistic means are a reminder that MFI employees are not machines or tireless robots (Sarker, 2013). The provision of updated tools and logistics aims to introduce ergonomics and to alleviate the fatigue and stress to which MFIs’ agents are subjected on a daily basis. Unfortunately, this dimension is regularly ignored or underestimated by MFIs in the DRC because they behave in a condescending manner towards employees. For instance, the latter often have to manage more credit files than they can, walk long distances, work on tasks that are not part of their job and so on. The importance of the division of labour is due to the fact that MFI employees are often overloaded and overwhelmed because they are called upon to perform several tasks at the same time. A clear description of tasks would prevent them from dispersing themselves and thus enable them to devote themselves to the essential tasks related to their main mission and improve their satisfaction (Sarker, 2013).

49Promotion is the ninth dimension (ƛ= 0.58). This factor refers to the speed with which employees are promoted, the respect for employees’ competence in granting promotions and the respect for the criteria described in the promotion guide. From a job planning perspective, promotion is both a normal phase of an employee’s career and an incentive to push employees always to provide the best of themselves. However, in MFIs in the DRC, promotion is rather seen as a favour given by the top management to whomever it wants. In this particular context, social and ethnic relations can sometimes override all other objective criteria. Such a subjective promotion method is counterproductive and generally leads to demotivation and even to organizational sabotage. However, it has been proven that, in a few Congolese MFIs that rely on more standardized and objective promotion criteria, more educated employees receive valued promotions. Therefore, they are more satisfied with their current positions and are less likely to quit their current jobs (Balemba, 2015). Thus, MFIs are encouraged to focus on employees’ competencies that may value integrity, impartiality and rigour, which must accompany the entire promotion process.

50Co-workers is positioned as the last dimension (ƛ= 0.53). This factor highlights the cooperative behaviour that has been promoted in MFIs. In fact, working in an MFI requires solidarity and a chain of relationships. The underlying argument is that many tasks are performed with different employees involved at any stage of the service delivery. This complementarity among various people working in this chain is necessary as it can create more collaborative relationships between employees. Therefore, the friendships built during an employment relationship can become a psychological barrier that prevents employees from changing organizations. Indeed, employees may fear that they will lose the benefits of friendly relationships that they have already considered to be a long-term investment.

5. Conclusion, Managerial Implications, Limitations and Future Research Directions

51The results confirm that frontline employee job satisfaction in MFIs is a multidimensional construct consisting of 10 factors – communication, job security, supervision, pay, nature of the job, job preference, training and employee development, job working conditions, promotion, job results and co-workers – and 43 items. The scale has been developed in accordance with the required validity and reliability tests. The identified factors are all important to ensure employee job satisfaction in the rather demanding human interaction sector.

52It appears that the 10 identified factors and some of their items are present in some previous scales. Such results suggest that previous scales are a good starting point in any process of developing new measurement scales. However, many items appear to be quite different from those in previous scales and reflect the specificities of the context and the sector. In fact, frontline employees value their job security due to the high unemployment rate that prevails in their country. Frontline employees will enjoy greater participation in the decision-making process according to the important role that they have to play in a more demanding human interaction sector. In such a context, frontline employees deserve good working conditions that facilitate their work and reduce boredom. This necessitates the computerization of MFIs’ management to reduce employees’ workload and to avoid fraud and employee mistakes. The result reveals that frontline employees prefer to work in microfinance institutions that favour cooperation between employees and management and among employees themselves. This confirms that human interaction plays an important role in frontline employee satisfaction in developing countries, as has already been evidenced by the Hawthorne experiences many years ago.

53We developed a new scale to measure the job satisfaction construct in the field of microfinance and in a specific country, the DR Congo. This objective seemed very important since the existing scales are rather general and do not address the peculiarities of the microfinance sector or the differences that could emerge from cultural/socioeconomic contexts. Although some of the items of our new scale are the same as those in existing scales, other are new and reflect both the national context and the microfinance realities. For instance, the communication factor, which would seem trivial when it comes to measuring job satisfaction, appears as the most important. This may be justified by the fact that the microfinance sector shares features with community finance, in which relational/human bonds still prevail. Hence, employees are not solely guided by capitalistic motivation but are also willing to be associated with the different flows of communication. This kind of social connection between employees may push them to use their wealth of knowledge voluntarily to enable the best functioning of their institution.

54The importance of communication is also due to the fact that communication is lacking, and this lack is detrimental to the DR Congo MFIs’ efficiency. Indeed, managers behave like tyrants with autocratic and paternalistic leadership towards employees and inhibit employees’ initiatives to share more valued information with managers. While supervision emerges as an important component of job satisfaction in microfinance, it is confused with control and led rather autocratically. Supervision, which is supposed to play a tremendous role in employee development and accompaniment, is seen as a repressive tool, which reduces its effectiveness. Such autocratic leadership is common in the DRC and is still a matter for the country’s and institutions’ development. Employees also value security and compliance with the law even more than they value pay. This is quite an understandable orientation as it comes from an environment in which unemployment still prevails. Indeed, a job in such a particular context is like a diamond to be protected. Employees are thus stuck with their current employment because they have no better opportunities. The results confirm that employees do not heavily value the pay component. Most employees are paid poorly and remain attached to their current job. However, some employees try to establish equity by adopting unethical behaviours, such as theft/robbery, fictitious credit, loan grafts and so on, which are a kind of organizational sabotage. Hence, MFIs’ managers ought to be very careful with the reverse effects of bad pay. The working conditions component is also valued by employees due to the bad working conditions that still prevail in the DRC’s MFIs. Employees are obliged to perform many tasks that are different from their preferences and profiles. In such conditions, it is very important for MFIs to improve their workers’ situation towards internal marketing activities.

55The appearance of training and promotion components in the same scale stems from MFIs’ employee-hiring and development-specific strategies. Indeed, MFIs in the DRC can hire more less educated employees because they come from the customers’ neighbourhood and could bring in soft information at a low cost. MFIs can even rely on more family employees because they are less demanding in terms of salaries, are more attached to the firm and could engage less in sabotage behaviours. However, while this more social and ethnical hiring approach could work at the early stages of MFIs’ development, more educated people are needed when MFIs are fast growing and need to focus on a more efficient approach. Therefore, MFIs have to develop their human resources through more appealing training, allowing them to perform more demanding tasks that could extend beyond their pure financial intermediation function.

56Such employee empowerment emphasizes frontline employees’ importance within MFIs and proves that MFIs have to value them to achieve both social and financial objectives. Thus, employees must be associated with firms’ shareholding and receive a large portion of the generated surplus (Ashta and Hudon, 2012 ; Hudon and Périlleux, 2014). This value spreading among stockholders and employees is a way of distributing surplus among the people who have largely contributed to its creation (Hudon et al., 2020). Employees also need to be associated with MFIs’ social mission definition and perpetuation. Indeed, when employees participate in social initiatives, they can truly value their work as they are contributing to social fairness and good causes (Doering and Wry, 2022). Therefore, MFIs have to invest in their employees by adopting a more decentralized organizational structure that may reinforce employees’ adherence to MFIs’ vision of poverty alleviation (Sun and Im, 2015). Employees’ inclination towards social causes proves that MFIs’ employees are mainly motivated “by the social aspect of their job or by their need for personal accomplishment rather than by financial rewards” (Godfroid, 2017).

57The development of a more contextualized measurement scale has positive implications for employees and MFIs. This scale can be used as a performance-monitoring tool, thus allowing MFIs to determine their stance on each factor by identifying the factors with which frontline employees are more or less satisfied and to develop improvement strategies accordingly. This may require managers to develop practical actions that modify strategies to make frontline employees happy and thus increase their retention rate at the institution. The scale will also serve as an intangible asset that gives MFIs a competitive advantage over their competitors. In fact, as competition has been increasing among MFIs themselves and between MFIs and banks, MFIs are almost being forced to invest heavily in their employees. By satisfying their frontline employees, MFIs will make a good impression on customers and provide them with very competitive services. Thus, MFIs that satisfy their frontline employees will increase their performance and thereby improve customer satisfaction and retention.

58Although the study has produced valid results, it has some limitations that offer opportunities for further research. First, we conducted a survey in microfinance as a single financial sector. Future research should try to extend the developed scale in the banking sector. Such a study is justified by the fact that microfinance customers are now being targeted by banks, and there is customer migration in both sectors. Therefore, measuring employee job satisfaction in the banking sector might give a wider audience to the scale and test its generalizability in the banking sector. Second, in the two surveys conducted, employees were extracted from the Kivu region. Although this region represents 50 % of the MFI landscape in the DR Congo, it is not representative of the whole country. Thus, future studies should target employees from MFIs in other regions of the country. The same study should collect data in microfinance from neighbouring countries like Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda and Tanzania to determine whether the scale behaves accordingly across cultures and countries. Third, the developed measurement scale has demonstrated consistent results across the two collected samples. Although the scale seems to be parsimonious, it requires some validity tests. Thus, a study that tests discriminant validity by comparing the developed scale with related scales like the Job Satisfaction Survey and the more recent reconceptualization of the INDSALES would deepen the knowledge about job satisfaction in MFIs.