Chapter 4: Analysis and Intepretation

CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS AND INTEPRETATION
Chapter Overview
The chapter begins with a discussion of the plan of analysis. In the initial part, the
details of the profile of respondents and responding organizations are presented.
The first part of the analysis deals with an estimation of response rate and the
testing of reliability and validity of the study scales. Thereafter, research
hypotheses are tested and the findings presented.
4.1 Plan of Analysis
Data analysis begins with an account of the profile of respondents and the
responding organizations. This is followed by an estimation of response rate and
item completion rate. In the first part of analysis, the scales are tested for
unidimensionality, reliability and validity.
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was carried out to test if each of the scales was
a one-factor model. Indicator and scale reliability estimates were generated.
Further, convergent and discriminant validity was established vis-a-vis the study
scales. Thereafter, research hypotheses were tested by deploying Tests of
Differences such as Independent Sample T-test and One-way ANOVA . This is
followed by Test of Association (Chi-Square Test) on those variables that were
found to be having significant differences.
4.2 Profile of Respondents and Responding Organizations
A profile of the respondents as well as responding organizations was generated

based on data collected. Respondents and responding organizations were classified
on the basis of demographic and organizational dimensions. Categories were
formed to ensure that each range within a category had meaningful frequencies.
Classification followed by other researchers (e.g. Arnold et al.,1982; Budhwar,
2000; Khatri et al., 2001; Price, 1995; Salamons, 1998) served as the basis for the
categorizations done in this study.
78
Profile of Respondents
The respondents of the study were categorized on the basis of their demographic
and professional profile.
Gender: In terms of gender, 68% of respondents were males and 32% were
female employees. Table 4.1 represents the profile of the respondents based on
gender.
Table 4.1: Respondent Profile- Gender
Cumulative
Gender Frequency Percent
Percent
Male 340 68.0 68.0
Female 160 32.0 100.0
500 100.0
Total
Designation: About 33% of respondents occupied senior level positions, 48%

belonged to the middle level, 19.0 % occupied junior level positions. Table 4.2
represents the profile of the respondents based on designation.
Table 4.2: Respondent Profile- Designation
Designation Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Level Percent
Junior 95 19.0 19.0
Middle 240 48.0 67.0
Senior 165 33.0 100.0
Total 500 100.0
Experience in present position: In terms of experience in their current

organization, respondents were classified into 2 groups. Most of the respondents
(70.6%) were clustered around 0 to 5 years of experience, and the rest (29.4%)
were in 6 years and above bracket as shown in Table 4.3 below:
Table 4.3: Respondent Profile- Experience in Present Position
Experience
in Present Cumulative
Frequency Percent
position Percent
(Years)
0 to 5 353 70.6 70.6
6 & above 147 29.4 100
Total 500 100.0
79
Total Experience: In terms of total experience, respondents were classified into 2
groups. As can be seen in Table 4.4, 44.6% were in a band of upto 10 years
while those having 11 years and above total experience constituted 55.4% of
respondents.
Table 4.4: Respondent Profile- Total Experience
Total
Cumulative
Experience Frequency Percent
Percent
(Years)
0 to 10 223 44.6 44.6
11 & above 277 55.4 100.0
Total 500 100.0
Age: In terms of age, respondents were classified into 3 groups. The highest
frequency occurs around a band of 31 to 40 years (40.8%) and 41 to 60 years
(34.4%) of age, followed by 21 to 30 years (24.8%) as shown in Table 4.5:
Table 4.5: Respondent Profile- Age
Age Cumulative
Frequency Percent
(Years) Percent
21 to 30 124 24.8 24.8
31 to 40 204 40.8 65.6
41 to 60 172 34.4 100.0
Total 500
Profile of Responding Organizations
All the responding organizations belonged to non-profit sector as this was the
chosen sector for the present study. The responding organizations were further
classified on the basis of nationality & size.
Nationality: On the basis of country of origin, organizations were classified as

Indian (47.0%) and Foreign (53.0%). Table 4.6 illustrates the break-up in terms of
nationality.
80
Table 4.6: Responding Organizations- Nationality
Cumulative
Nationality Frequency Percent
Percent
Indian 235 47.0 47.0
Foreign 265 53.0 100.0
Total 500 100.0
Size: Responding organizations were classified into different sizes on the basis of
number of employees. It was observed that organizations in the non-profit sector
varied significantly in terms of size. There were a sizeable number of organizations
with less than 50 employees. Similarly, almost similar number of organizations
were big with more than 500 employees. Thus to maintain comparable
frequencies, organizations with 1 to 50 employees were considered small, those
between 51-100 were considered medium, those with 101-500 were considered
large and those with more than 501 employees were considered very large. The
break-up is presented in Table 4.7 below:
Table 4.7: Responding Organizations- Size
Number of Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Employees Percent
1 to 50 171 34.2 34.2
51 to 100 64 12.8 47.0
101 to 500 131 26.2 73.2
More than
134 26.8 100.0
500
Total 500 100.0
4.3 Estimation of Response Rate
Usually low response rates are common in employee-based researches. Response

rates ranging from 5% (Perry & Kulik, 2008), 8.56% (Hall & Torrington, 1998),
10.5% (Valverde et al., 2006), 17% (Larsen & Brewster, 2003) and 18.6%
(Budhwar, 2000) were reported in different researches conducted on employees.
Internet-based surveys offer great advantages over traditional mail surveys, such as
lower costs, faster response, and higher quality data (e.g., Green et al., 2003;
Illieva et al., 2002).
81
The present study was carried out largely using the internet based resources such as
e-mails and an online survey tool. Out of the 1200 employees in non-profit
organizations initially contacted by the researcher, 501 employees provided their
responses, i.e., a response rate of 41.75% was achieved. The response rate giving
an overall total of 501 responses can be considered to be high enough to generate
consistent statistical results.
In addition to response rate, item completion rate is used as another measure of

survey effectiveness. Klassen and Jacobs (2001) define item completion rate as the
proportion of survey items answered relative to all applicable items. The item
completion rate for this study was 99.6%, suggesting high survey effectiveness.
Hair et al. (2009), Lopez et al. (2005) and Malhotra and Dash (2011) suggest that
responses with 50% or more missing data should be deleted. Out of the 501
responses received, only one questionnaire was found to be 25% incomplete, as the
demographic factors were missing, and the same was eliminated from final
analysis. Finally, the total number of usable questionnaires was 500 that were
subjected to data analysis.
4.4 Study Scales and Items Considered
Before proceeding with data analysis and testing of the study hypotheses, it was
deemed fit to assess the scales for reliability and validity. A thorough measurement
analysis on research instruments is essential for several reasons. First, it provides
confidence that the findings accurately reflect the proposed constructs. Second,
empirically validated scales can be used directly in other studies (Flynn et al.,
1994)
Measurement analysis of the study scales highlights the key issues of factor
analysis, reliability and validity (Hair et al., 2009; Malhotra & Dash, 2011). The
study scales were subject to all the above tests in order to be considered fit for
further analysis. Table 4.8 shows the list of variables/ measures used in the study.
82
Table 4.8: Variables/Measures Considered in the Study
Variables and their Items

I. Job Attractiveness Factors
 Job security (HYG-1)
 Take home salary (HYG -2)
Hygiene Factors (HYG)
 Attractive benefits (HYG-3)
 Location of Place of Work (HYG-4)
 Job content (MOT-1)
 Career growth (MOT-2)
 Respect and recognition (MOT-3)
 Responsibility and independence (MOT-4)
Motivator
 Challenges (MOT-5)
Factors (MOT)
 Training and development (MOT-6)
 Organizational culture (MOT-7)
Publicity/Celebration of staff achievements
(MOT-8)
 Reputation of organization (MA-1)
Mission Attachment  Opportunity to make a difference in lives of
Factors (MAT) others (MA-2)
 Mission of organization (MA-3)
II. Employee Turnover Factors
 Poor relationship with supervisor (COXT-1)
 Inability to balance work and life (COXT-2)
 Lack of cooperation with colleagues (COXT-3)
 Lack of recognition (COXT-4)
Job Context Factors  Inadequate salary & benefits (COXT-5)
(COXT)  Ineffective leadership (COXT-6)
 Too long to commute (COXT-7)
 Career stagnation (COXT-8)
 Lack of trust (COXT-9)
 Lack of humour and fun (COXT-10)
 Lack of challenge (CONT-1)
 Inadequate training and development (CONT-
2)
Job Content Factors
 Low overall job satisfaction (CONT-3)
(CONT)
 Lack of involvement in decisions affecting
staff (CONT-4)
 Inadequate variety of roles (CONT-5)
III. Demographic and Organizational Factors.
 Country of origin (Indian/Foreign)
Organizational Profile
 Size (Small/ Medium/Large/Very large)
 Gender (Male/Female)
 Age
 Designation Level (Junior/ Middle/ Senior)
Respondent Profile
 Experience in present position (Low/High)
 Total Experience (Low/High)
83
Using the above constructs and the indicative items, the researcher proceeded with
measurement analysis of the study scales as well as final data analysis to test the
research hypotheses.
4.5 Factor Analysis
Factor analysis tests the unidimensionality of the measurement scales to refine the
variables which are not related (Henson & Roberts, 2006) and therefore, helps to
eliminate multiple, overlapping constructs in research. Exploratory Factor Analysis
(EFA) was carried out in the current study to see whether items loaded on their
hypothesized factors. Principal component analysis with varimax rotation was
deployed in the exploratory factor analysis performed as suggested by researchers
(Kahn, 2006; Sass & Schmitt, 2010).
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
Exploratory factor analysis describes factors that are there among a group of data
and its main objective is to unfold the hidden factors which explain the covariance
between the measured data (Kahn, 2006). Ahire et al. (1996) suggested that the
scale development consists of performing an EFA to identify major factors
according to item-factor loadings and refining the scales using Cronbach’s alpha.
EFA was carried out to check unidimensionality of each scale separately.
Dimensionality of the scale consists of testing that items load highly on a single
factor (Hair et. al., 2009). Factor analysis is seen as an essential precondition for
reliability and validity (Anderson & Gerbing, 1991). Henson and Roberts (2006),
Delgado-Ballester et al. (2003) and Fabrigar et. al (1999) suggested that Eigen
Values more than 1 is most often used criterion in factor analysis.
Williams et al. (2010) and Liu and Treagust (2005) suggested that before carrying
out EFA, it is important to assess the factorability of the overall set of variables
and individual variables using Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling
adequacy and the overall significance of correlation matrix with Bartlett’s Tests of
Sphericity. Ang and Huan (2006) as well as Liu and Treagust (2005) suggest that
KMO and Bartlett’s tests reveal the appropriateness of the data for factor analysis.
KMO quantifies the degree of inter-correlations among the variables and thus, tests
84
appropriateness of factor analysis. KMO values must exceed 0.50 before
proceeding with the factor analysis (Hair et al., 2009; Malhotra & Dash, 2011).
The KMO values of all the scales used in the present study were found to be
acceptable, indicating that the data was suitable for factor analysis. Another
indicator is Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity which examines the presence of
correlations among the variables. It provides the statistical significance that the
correlation matrix has significant correlations among at least some of the variables.
Thus, a significant Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity is required (Hair et al., 2009;
Malhotra & Dash, 2011). Because p = .000 (its significance is less than 0.05) for
all scales, it indicates that one could proceed with factor analysis. The results of
KMO and Bartlett Test of Sphericity for all scales are given in Table 4.9.
Table 4.9: KMO and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of
Measures
Sampling Adequacy (KMO)
Approx.
Chi-Square Df Sig.
HYG 0.708 310.911 6 .000
MOT 0.901 1749.697 28 .000
MAT 0.656 318.638 3 .000
COXT 0.832 1191.511 45 .000
CONT 0.819 602.300 10 .000
Once values of KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity were found to be acceptable,
EFA was carried out on each scale individually.
HYG Scale: On the basis of Eigen value greater than 1 heuristic, only one
principal component was extracted that accounted for 50.668% of the total
variance. Thus, results of EFA revealed that the scale was unidimensional. The
results are given in Table 4.10A and Table 4.10B:
Table 4.10 A: HYG Scale-Total Variance Explained

Extraction Sums of Squared
Initial Eigen Values
Loadings
Component
% of Cumulative % of Cumulative
Total Total
Variance % Variance %
1 2.027 50.668 50.668 2.027 50.668 50.668
2 .868 21.702 72.370
3 .590 14.741 87.110
4 .516 12.890 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis
85
Table 4.10 B: HYG Scale-Component Matrix
Items Component
HYG-1 .760
HYG-2 .754
HYG-3 .797
HYG-4 .495

1 component extracted.
MOT Scale: Only one principal component was extracted in MOT scale too, that
accounted for 54.587 % of the total variance. Thus, results of EFA revealed that
the scale was unidimensional. The results are given in the Tables 4.11A and 4.11B.
Table 4.11 A: MOT Scale-Total Variance Explained

Loadings
Component
Total Total
1 4.367 54.587 54.587 4.367 54.587 54.587
2 .931 11.642 66.228
3 .606 7.577 73.805
4 .514 6.421 80.227
5 .478 5.978 86.204
6 .435 5.439 91.643
7 .360 4.501 96.144
8 .309 3.856 100.000
86
Table 4.11 B: MOT Scale-Component Matrix
Items Component
MOT-1 .731
MOT-2 .719
MOT-3 .791
MOT-4 .800
MOT-5 .807
MOT-6 .740
MOT-7 .765
MOT-8 .515

MAT Scale: In case of MAT scale too, only one principal component was
extracted that accounted for 64.455 % of the total variance revealing that the scale
was unidimensional. The results are given in the Tables 4.12A and 4.12B.
Table 4.12 A: MAT Scale-Total Variance Explained

Loadings
Component
Total Total
1 1.934 64.455 64.455 1.934 64.455 64.455
2 .642 21.397 85.853
3 .424 14.147 100.000
Table 4.12 B: MAT Scale-Component Matrix
Items Component
MAT-1 .732
MAT-2 .833
MAT-3 .839

87
COXT Scale: In the case of COXT scale, 3 principal components were extracted,
accounting for 35.920%, 12.645% and 11.122% of the total variance. Thus, results
of EFA revealed that the scale was not unidimensional. The results are given in
the Tables 4.13A & 4.13B.
Table 4.13 A: COXT Scale-Total Variance Explained

Loadings
Component
Total Total
1 3.592 35.920 35.920 3.592 35.920 35.920
2 1.264 12.645 48.564 1.264 12.645 48.564
3 1.112 11.122 59.686 1.112 11.122 59.686
4 .853 8.534 68.221
5 .646 6.458 74.678
6 .596 5.959 80.638
7 .535 5.350 85.987
8 .497 4.965 90.953
9 .473 4.725 95.678
10 .432 4.322 100.000
Table 4.13 B : Component Matrix
Component
Items 1 2 3
COXT-1 .731 .041 -.294
COXT-2 .584 .561 -.049
COXT-3 .692 .244 -.271
COXT-4 .652 -.500 -.088
COXT-5 .545 -.243 .563
COXT-6 .637 -.258 -.391
COXT-7 .456 .622 .402
COXT-8 .550 -.339 .449
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
3 components extracted.
88
As can be seen from the tables above, 3 principal components were derived in the
COXT scale. Out of eight items, six loaded onto factor 1, while one item each
loaded on factor 2 and 3. As suggested by researchers, it is important that all items
should load highly (>0.3 or hopefully 0.4) on one factor and at least three items
should load on each factor (Bawa, 2004; Tansey et al., 2001). Since factor 2 and 3
had only one item loading onto them, they could not be considered as a one-factor
model. Moreover, despite cross-loading, the loading value of both these items on
factor 1 is more than 0.45 which is greater than the recommended minimum
threshold (0.3 or 0.4). Another rule is that all communalities should be greater than
0.5 or ideally greater than 0.6 for a scale to be considered as unidimensional
(Costello & Osborne, 2005; MacCallum et al., 2001). In the present case, all
communalities were well above 0.6. Thus, keeping the above rules in mind, it was
decided to retain the scale in its original form.
Further, Jöreskog and Sörbom (2002) and Lindquist et al. (2001) have stated that
when examining one-factor models, theoretical and interpretive considerations
should always be used as the primary consideration. Theoretical issues should also
be considered when determining the number of factors to be specified or retained
in the model (Garver & Mentzer, 1999). In some situations, the quantitative rule
may be overridden by judgmental considerations. For example, a variable with a
cross-loading in the 0.35 to 0.50 range might be assigned to a particular factor if
the variable has a theoretical relationship with other variables that load highly on
that factor (Costello & Osborne, 2005; Velicer & Fava, 1998). In the present study,
although some cross-loadings were there, theoretical considerations, apart from
statistical results, prompted that it was correct to take up COXT scale as a one-
factor model.
CONT Scale: On the basis of Eigen value greater than 1 rule, only one principal
component was extracted that accounted for 53.246 % of the total variance. Thus,
results of EFA testified that the scale was unidimensional. The results are given in
the Tables 4.14A and 4.14B.
89
Table 4.14 A: CONT Scale-Total Variance Explained

Loadings
Component
Total Total
1 2.662 53.246 53.246 2.662 53.246 53.246
2 .681 13.616 66.863
3 .642 12.845 79.708
4 .552 11.039 90.747
5 .463 9.253 100.000
Table 4.14 B: CONT Scale-Component Matrix
Items Component
CONT-1 .665
CONT-2 .696
CONT-3 .756
CONT-4 .743
CONT-5 .783
4.6 Scale Reliability and Validity
After the one-factor model for each study scale is ascertained, estimation of the
statistical reliability and validity becomes essential ( Cooper & Schindler, 2006;
Hair et al., 2009). Thus the scales were tested for reliability and validity.
4.6.1 Reliability
Before proceeding with further data analysis, reliability was ascertained.
Indicator Reliability: Indicators are items used to measure a particular construct

or latent variable. Indicator reliability presents the reliability of individual
indicators. Communalities or indicator reliability are the squared factor loadings
for an indicator. It is measured for every single indicator (Wu, 2005). It may range
90
from 0 to 1 but should preferably be 0.5 or close to it (Schumacker & Lomax,
2004; Wu, 2005). In the present study, indicator reliability was more than 0.5 or
close to it in most cases. Table 4.15 reveals the indicator reliability for indicators in
each scale.
Table 4.15: Indicator Reliability of the Scales
Indicators HYG MOT MAT COXT CONT

1 0.58 0.53 0.54 0.52 0.44
2 0.57 0.52 0.69 0.62 0.48
3 0.64 0.63 0.70 0.59 0.57
4 0.25 0.64 - 0.59 0.57
5 - 0.65 - 0.71 0.61
6 - 0.55 - 0.59 -
7 - 0.59 - 0.72 -
8 - 0.27 - 0.56 -
9 - - - 0.62 -
10 - - - 0.38 -
Note: Shaded boxes represent indicator with highest reliability
Scale Reliability: Reliability is an assessment of the degree of dependability,

stability and internal consistency of a scale. Cronbach alpha is the most common
measure used to assess the construct’s internal consistency (Cronbach, 1951). Hair
et al. (2009), suggested that the generally agreed upon lower limit for Cronbach
alpha is 0.60. Reliability assessment of the study scales returned Cronbach alpha
values that are more than the lower acceptable limit of 0.60. Cronbach alpha
values given in Table 4.16 suggest high reliability of each scale.
Table 4.16: Scale Reliability Estimates
Scale Cronbach Alpha

HYG 0.666
MOT 0.874
MAT 0.724
COXT 0.793
CONT 0.779
91
4.6.2 Validity
Once unidimensionality and reliability of the scales have been assessed, the next
step involved is assessing validity (Gerbing & Anderson, 1988; Hair et al., 2009).
Validity is the degree to which a scale or set of measures accurately represent the
concept of interest (Hair et al., 2009). Both convergent and discriminant validity of
the scale were assessed.
Convergent Validity: A construct is said to possess convergent validity if items of

a construct converge. For multi-item scales, each one of the items is a measure of
the construct. Convergent validity shows that the scale represents one dimension.
(Bagozzi et al.,, 1991; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). There are various indicators
to estimate convergent validity. The items of different scales should load or
converge on their respective constructs. Garver and Mentzer (1999) suggested that
all the items should load on their hypothesized dimensions and the estimates
should be positive and significant. Loading values of greater than 0.50 are
considered acceptable for convergent validity (Malhotra & Dash, 2011; Mentzer et
al., 1999). Factor loading of all scales in the present study were more than 0.5,
thus indicating presence of convergent validity. Further, it is said that reliability or
internal consistency is a reflector that moderate level of convergent validity exists
(Kaplan & Sacuzzo, 1993). In the present case, as the scales had high internal
consistency , which is a satisfactory proof of convergent validity.
Discriminant Validity: It is the degree to which two theoretically alike concepts

are unrelated (Hair et al., 2009). It is the extent to which the items representing a
latent variable discriminate that construct from other items representing other
latent variables (Mentzer et al., 1999). A scale exhibits discriminant validity if its
constituent items estimate only one construct (Bagozzi et al., 1991). This is
particularly important when constructs are theoretically related and similar in
nature. That is, despite correlation, each scale represents a distinct concept.
Two important methods were deployed to test discriminant validity. Firstly,

Harman’s one-factor test was conducted to see if all the items loaded on one factor
using a principal component factor analysis. This method has been used by Sukoco
and Wu (2010). The results of the factor analysis revealed that 6 factors were
generated accounting for 59% of the total variance. Thus, the results indicate that
92
all the items did not load on a single factor, thereby indicating that discriminant
validity exists among the study scales. Tables 4.17 A & B present the results of
EFA.
Table 4.17 A: All Scales -Total Variance Explained

Loadings
Component
Total Total
1 8.230 27.434 27.434 8.230 27.434 27.434
2 3.354 11.179 38.613 3.354 11.179 38.613
3 2.354 7.847 46.459 2.354 7.847 46.459
4 1.439 4.798 51.257 1.439 4.798 51.257
5 1.363 4.542 55.799 1.363 4.542 55.799
6 1.067 3.556 59.356 1.067 3.556 59.356
7 .928 3.092 62.448
8 .826 2.752 65.200
9 .808 2.692 67.892
10 .677 2.255 70.147
11 .643 2.142 72.290
12 .612 2.041 74.331
13 .607 2.024 76.355
14 .604 2.014 78.369
15 .587 1.956 80.325
16 .539 1.798 82.123
17 .513 1.709 83.831
18 .500 1.666 85.497
19 .465 1.551 87.048
20 .454 1.514 88.561
21 .422 1.407 89.968
22 .404 1.348 91.316
23 .376 1.253 92.570
24 .372 1.239 93.808
25 .347 1.157 94.965
26 .341 1.136 96.101
27 .315 1.051 97.152
28 .300 1.002 98.153
29 .288 .959 99.112
30 .266 .888 100.000
93
Table 4.17 B : All Scales Rotated-Component Matrix
Component
Items 1 2 3 4 5 6
HYG-1 .347 -.060 .612 .003 -.110 -.345
HYG-2 .357 -.093 .600 -.283 .228 -.093
HYG-3 .435 .017 .650 .110 -.149 -.103
HYG-4 .278 -.064 .312 .182 .230 .280
MOT-1 .609 -.363 -.154 -.177 .265 .135
MOT-2 .647 -.269 .288 -.214 .031 .029
MOT-3 .688 -.352 .015 -.036 .093 -.082
MOT-4 .669 -.357 -.127 -.016 .144 .078
MOT-5 .657 -.426 -.174 .020 .050 .081
MOT-6 .644 -.362 .068 .106 -.247 .151
MOT-7 .676 -.345 -.092 .143 .018 .002
MOT-8 .451 -.215 .223 .402 -.383 -.154
MA-1 .626 -.268 .101 .057 .171 .021
MA-2 .531 -.435 -.348 .088 .036 .076
MA-3 .515 -.444 -.193 .210 -.033 -.071
COXT-1 .485 .413 .076 .035 .420 -.176
COXT-2 .272 .427 .091 .424 .360 .223
COXT-3 .427 .496 .000 .288 .240 -.142
COXT-4 .558 .352 -.020 -.320 .019 -.233
COXT-5 .364 .296 .473 -.285 -.017 .123
COXT-6 .580 .294 -.245 -.053 .123 -.188
COXT-7 .160 .457 .237 .446 .006 .466
COXT-8 .468 .328 .115 -.319 -.255 .292
COXT-9 .560 .435 -.241 .011 .121 -.181
COXT-10 .389 .301 -.089 .382 -.304 -.306
CONT-1 .473 .369 -.251 -.108 -.109 .023
CONT-2 .560 .236 .037 -.060 -.473 .218
CONT-3 .594 .367 -.194 -.255 -.014 .234
CONT-4 .613 .253 -.314 .002 -.035 -.125
CONT-5 .559 .249 -.283 -.092 -.305 .028

6 components extracted.
Another indicator of discriminant analysis is to test for correlation between the

constructs. Correlation values between scales should not be very high. Low to
moderate correlation values confirm that the scale is acceptably different from
other related scales (Hair et al., 2009). The results of Pearson Correlation among
the scales reveal that values show low to moderate correlation between constructs,
indicating discriminant validity. Results are presented in Table 4.18 below.
94
Table 4.18 : Discriminant Analysis - Correlation between Constructs
CONSTRUCTS HYG MOT MAT COXT CONT

HYG 1 .429 .246 .340 .166
MOT .429 1 .721 .327 .461
MAT .246 .721 1 .218 .338
COXT .340 .327 .218 1 .691
CONT .166 .461 .338 .691 1
4.7 Tests of Differences
In order to ascertain differences among respondents on the study variables, various

demographic and organizational variables were considered. This involved testing
of differences on each of the three constructs under Job Attractiveness and two
constructs under Employee Turnover factors on the basis of demographic factors
such as Gender (Males and Females), Present Experience (number of years
worked in the present position) and Total Experience (comparison based on total
number of years worked).
The organizational variables considered to test differences were Nationality

(country of origin of the present organization i.e., Indian and Foreign
organization) and Size of the organization measured in terms of number of
employees (small, medium, large and very large).
Independent samples T-test was carried out in order to test the hypotheses H01 to
H020. For hypotheses H021 to H035, One-way ANOVA was deployed since it
involved comparing three or more groups.
4.7.1 Independent Sample T-Tests
These tests were conducted with study variables on the basis of Gender (Males
and Females), Experience in Present Position (Low and High), Total Experience
(Low and High), and Country of Origin (Indian and Foreign) as described below:
95
On the Basis of Gender (Males and Females)
H01: There is no significant difference in the mean scores of Hygiene factors

(HYG) between male and female employees.
Significant differences were not observed on the dimension HYG (t = -1.734), p

(or sig 2-tailed) >0.05 between males (Mean=3.61, SD=0.812) and females
(Mean=3.74, SD=0.702). Thus, the null hypothesis H01was not rejected.
H02: There is no significant difference in the mean scores of Motivator Factors

(MOT), between male and female employees.
Significant differences were observed on the dimension MOT (t =-3.078), p (or

sig 2-tailed) < 0.05 between males (Mean=4.01, SD=0.726) and females
(Mean=4.22, SD=0.584). Thus, the null hypothesis H02 was rejected.
H03: There is no significant difference in the mean scores of Mission Attachment

Factors (MAT), between male and female employees.
Significant differences were observed on the dimension MAT (t =-2.045), p (or

H04: There is no significant difference in the mean scores of Job Context Factors
(COXT) , between male and female employees.
Significant differences were observed on the dimension COXT (t =-2.302), p (or

96
H05: There is no significant difference in the mean scores of Job Content
Factors (CONT), between male and female employees.
Significant differences were observed on the dimension CONT (t =-2.231), p (or

Tables 4.19A and 4.19B present group statistics and results of t-test:
Table 4.19 A: Group Statistics for Gender
Std. Std. Error

Construct Gender N Mean
Deviation Mean
Male 340 3.61 .812 .044
HYG
Female 160 3.74 .702 .055
Male 340 4.01 .726 .039
MOT
Female 160 4.22 .584 .046
Male 340 4.08 .809 .044
MAT
Female 160 4.23 .713 .056
Male 340 3.44 .674 .037
COXT
Female 160 3.59 .681 .054
Male 340 3.54 .772 .042
CONT
Female 160 3.71 .793 .063
Table 4.19 B: Independent Samples T-Test
Levene's Test for t-test for equality of

equality of variances means
Construct Nature of Variance
Sig. (2-
F Sig. t df
tailed)
HYG Equal variances assumed 4.444 .036 -1.734 498 .084
MOT Equal variances assumed 4.020 .045 -3.078 498 .002
MAT Equal variances assumed 2.387 .123 -2.045 498 .041
COXT Equal variances assumed .009 .926 -2.302 498 .022
CONT Equal variances assumed .003 .955 -2.231 498 .026
97
On the Basis of Experience in Present Position (Low & High)
H06: There is no significant difference in the mean scores of Hygiene Factors

(HYG) between low and high level of experience in present position.
Significant differences were not observed on the dimension HYG (t =-.537), p (or
sig 2-tailed) > 0.05 between employees having low level of experience in present
position (Mean=3.64, SD=0.745) and high level of experience in present position
(Mean=3.68, SD=0.862). Thus, the null hypothesis H06 was not rejected.

(MOT) between low and high level of experience in present position.
Significant differences were not observed on the dimension MOT (t = .929), p (or
H08: There is no significant difference in the mean scores of Mission

Attachment Factors (MAT) between low and high level of experience in present
position.
Significant differences were not observed on the dimension MAT (t = .048), p (or
H09: There is no significant difference in the mean scores of Job Context

Factors (COXT) between low and high level of experience in present position.
Significant differences were observed on the dimension COXT (t = 2.211), p (or

sig 2-tailed) < 0.05 between employees having low level of experience in present
98
Factors (CONT) between low and high level of experience in present position.
Significant differences were observed on the dimension CONT (t = 2.003), p (or

sig 2-tailed) < 0.05 between employees having low level of experience in present
Table 4.20 A: Group Statistics for Present Experience
Std.
Construct Present Experience N Mean Std. Error Mean
Deviation
0 to 5 Years 353 3.64 .745 .040
HYG
6 Years and above 147 3.68 .862 .071
0 to 5 Years 353 4.10 .666 .035
MOT
6 Years and above 147 4.03 .743 .061
0 to 5 Years 353 4.13 .794 .042
MAT
6 Years and above 147 4.12 .754 .062
0 to 5 Years 353 3.53 .699 .037
COXT
6 Years and above 147 3.38 .618 .051
0 to 5 Years 353 3.64 .764 .041
CONT
6 Years and above 147 3.49 .815 .067
Levene's Test for

t-test for equality of means
equality of variances
Sig. (2-
F Sig. t df
tailed)
HYG Equal variances assumed 4.218 .041 -.537 498 .591
MOT Equal variances assumed 2.942 .087 .929 498 .353
MAT Equal variances assumed .265 .607 .048 498 .962
COXT Equal variances assumed 1.343 .247 2.211 498 .027
CONT Equal variances assumed 1.961 .162 2.003 498 .046
99
On the Basis of Total Experience (Low & high)

(HYG) between low and high level of total experience.
Significant differences were not observed on the dimension HYG (t =1.317), p (or
sig 2-tailed) > 0.05 between employees having low level of total experience
(Mean=3.70, SD=0.703) and high level of total experience (Mean=3.61,
SD=0.836). Thus, the null hypothesis H011 was not rejected.
H012: There is no significant difference in the mean scores of Motivator

Factors (MOT) between low and high level of total experience.
Significant differences were not observed on the dimension MOT (t = .760), p (or
sig 2-tailed) > 0.05 between employees having low level of total experience

Attachment Factors (MAT) between low and high level of total experience.
Significant differences were not observed on the dimension MAT (t =-1.930), p

(or sig 2-tailed) > 0.05 between employees having low level of total experience

Factors (COXT) between low and high level of total experience.
Significant differences were not observed on the dimension COXT (t =1.595), p

(or sig 2-tailed) > 0.05 between employees having low level of total experience
100
Factors (CONT) between low and high level of total experience.
Significant differences were observed on the dimension CONT (t = 2.434), p (or

sig 2-tailed) < 0.05 between employees having low level of total experience
SD=0.784).
Thus, the null hypothesis H015 was rejected.
Table 4.21 A: Group Statistics for Total Experience
Std. Std. Error

Construct Total Experience N Mean
Deviation Mean
0 to 10 Years 223 3.70 .703 .047
HYG
11 Years and above 277 3.61 .836 .050
0 to 10 Years 223 4.11 .683 .046
MOT
11 Years and above 277 4.06 .695 .042
0 to 10 Years 223 4.05 .754 .050
MAT
11 Years and above 277 4.19 .800 .048
0 to 10 Years 223 3.54 .661 .044
COXT
11 Years and above 277 3.44 .692 .042
0 to 10 Years 223 3.69 .770 .052
CONT
11 Years and above 277 3.52 .784 .047

Sig. (2-
F Sig. t df
tailed)
HYG Equal variances assumed 6.547 .011 1.317 498 .188
MOT Equal variances assumed .000 .985 .760 498 .447
MAT Equal variances assumed 1.104 .294 -1.930 498 .054
COXT Equal variances assumed 3.177 .075 1.595 498 .111
CONT Equal variances assumed 1.037 .309 2.434 498 .015
101
On the Basis of Country of Origin (Indian & Foreign)

(HYG), between organizations based in India and based in other countries.
Significant differences were observed on the dimension HYG (t =-2.556), p (or sig
2-tailed) < 0.05 between employees of Indian organizations (Mean=3.56,
SD=0.818) and employees of foreign organizations (Mean=3.73, SD=0.737). Thus,
the null hypothesis H016 was rejected.

(MOT) between organizations based in India and based in other countries.
Significant differences were not observed on the dimension MOT (t =-0.503), p (or
sig 2-tailed) > 0.05 between employees of Indian organizations (Mean=4.06,
the null hypothesis H017 was not rejected.

Attachment Factors (MAT), between organizations based in India and based in
other countries.
Significant differences were not observed on the dimension MAT (t =-1.598), p (or
sig 2-tailed) > 0.05 between employees of Indian organizations (Mean=4.07,
SD=0.747) and employees of foreign organizations (Mean=4.18, SD=0.810).
Thus, the null hypothesis H018 was not rejected.

Factors (COXT) , between organizations based in India and based in other
countries.
Significant differences were not observed on the dimension COXT (t =-0.777), p

(or sig 2-tailed) > 0.05 between employees of Indian organizations (Mean=3.51,
the null hypothesis H020 was not rejected.
102
Factors (CONT) , between organizations based in India and based in other
countries.
Significant differences were observed on the dimension CONT (t =-2.824), p (or

sig (2-tailed) < 0.05 between employees of Indian organizations (Mean=3.70,
the null hypothesis H020 was rejected.
Table 4.22 A: Group Statistics for Country of Origin
Std. Std. Error

Construct Nationality N Mean
Deviation Mean
Indian 235 3.56 .818 .053
HYG
Foreign 265 3.73 .737 .045
Indian 235 4.06 .668 .044
MOT
Foreign 265 4.09 .709 .044
Indian 235 4.07 .747 .049
MAT
Foreign 265 4.18 .810 .050
Indian 235 3.51 .650 .042
COXT
Foreign 265 3.46 .705 .043
Indian 235 3.70 .758 .049
CONT
Foreign 265 3.51 .792 .049

Sig. (2-
F Sig. t df
tailed)
HYG Equal variances assumed 5.291 .022 -2.556 498 .011
MOT Equal variances assumed .004 .952 -.503 498 .615
MAT Equal variances assumed .181 .670 -1.598 498 .111
COXT Equal variances assumed 2.271 .132 .777 498 .438
CONT Equal variances assumed .628 .429 2.824 498 .005
103
4.7.2 One Way ANOVA
These tests were conducted with study variables on the basis of Age (Various age
bands), Designation level (Junior, Middle & Senior) and Size (Number of
employees in the organization), as described below:
On the Basis of Age (Various age bands)
H021: There is no significant difference in the mean scores of Hygiene factors

(HYG) between employees in various age bands.
Significant differences were not observed in the mean scores of employees in

various age bands on HYG (p or sig >0.05). Thus, the null hypothesis H021 was
not rejected.

Factors (MOT) between employees in various age bands.

various age bands on MOT (p or sig >0.05). Thus, the null hypothesis H022 was
not rejected.

Attachment Factors (MAT) between employees in various age bands.
Significant differences were observed in the mean scores of employees in various

age bands on MAT (p or sig <0.05). Thus, the null hypothesis H023 was rejected.

Factors (COXT) between employees in various age bands.

various age bands on COXT (p or sig >0.05). Thus, the null hypothesis H024 was
not rejected.
104
Factors (CONT) between employees in various age bands.
Significant differences were observed in the mean scores of employees in various

age bands on CONT (p or sig <0.05). Thus, the null hypothesis H025 was rejected.
Tables 4.23A and 4.23B present ANOVA descriptives and results of ANOVA:
Table 4.23 A: ANOVA Descriptives for Age
Constructs Age Group N Mean Std. Deviation

21 to 30 Years 124 3.65 .734
HYG 31 to 40 Years 204 3.71 .722
41 to 60 Years 172 3.57 .871
Total 500 3.65 .780
21 to 30 Years 124 4.11 .623
MOT 31 to 40 Years 204 4.05 .766
41 to 60 Years 172 4.10 .639
Total 500 4.08 .689
21 to 30 Years 124 4.05 .722
MAT 31 to 40 Years 204 4.06 .835
41 to 60 Years 172 4.26 .746
Total 500 4.13 .782
21 to 30 Years 124 3.50 .747
COXT 31 to 40 Years 204 3.53 .638
41 to 60 Years 172 3.42 .674
Total 500 3.49 .679
21 to 30 Years 124 3.74 .798
31 to 40 Years 204 3.58 .766
CONT 41 to 60 Years 172 3.52 .780
Total 500 3.60 .782
Table 4.23 B: ANOVA Results

Sum of Mean
Construct df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 1.956 2 .978 1.611 .201
HYG Within Groups 301.806 497 .607
Total 303.762 499
Between Groups .336 2 .168 .353 .703
MOT Within Groups 236.789 497 .476
Total 237.125 499
Between Groups 4.336 2 2.168 3.582 .029
MAT Within Groups 300.780 497 .605
Total 305.115 499
Between Groups 1.201 2 .600 1.303 .273
COXT Within Groups 228.981 497 .461
Total 230.182 499
Between Groups 3.687 2 1.843 3.041 .049
CONT Within Groups 301.231 497 .606
Total 304.918 499
105
On the Basis of Designation Level (Junior, Middle and Senior level)

(HYG) between junior, middle and senior levels.
Significant differences were observed in the mean scores of employees at junior,

middle and senior levels on HYG (p or sig <0.05). Thus, the null hypothesis H026
was rejected.

Factors (MOT) between junior, middle and senior levels.
Significant differences were not observed in the mean scores of employees at

junior, middle and senior levels on MOT (p or sig >0.05). Thus, the null
hypothesis H027 was not rejected.

Attachment Factors (MAT) between junior, middle and senior levels.

junior, middle and senior levels on MAT (p or sig >0.05). Thus, the null

Factors (COXT) between junior, middle and senior levels.

junior, middle and senior levels on COXT (p or sig >0.05). Thus, the null

Factors (CONT) between junior, middle and senior levels.

junior, middle and senior levels on CONT (p or sig >0.05). Thus, the null
Tables 4.24A and 4.24B present ANOVA descriptives and results of ANOVA:
106
Table 4.24 A: ANOVA Descriptives for Designation Level
Constructs Level N Mean Std. Deviation

JUNIOR 95 3.75 .751
HYG MIDDLE 240 3.70 .734
SENIOR 165 3.52 .846
Total 500 3.65 .780
JUNIOR 95 4.03 .669
MOT MIDDLE 240 4.09 .726
SENIOR 165 4.09 .647
Total 500 4.08 .689
JUNIOR 95 4.04 .694
MAT MIDDLE 240 4.13 .832
SENIOR 165 4.18 .754
Total 500 4.13 .782
JUNIOR 95 3.45 .751
COXT MIDDLE 240 3.53 .677
SENIOR 165 3.45 .639
Total 500 3.49 .679
JUNIOR 95 3.51 .784
MIDDLE 240 3.66 .793
CONT SENIOR 165 3.56 .762
Total 500 3.60 .782
Sum of Mean
Construct Df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 4.578 2 2.289 3.803 .023
Total 303.762 499
Between Groups .313 2 .157 .329 .720
Total 237.125 499
Between Groups 1.202 2 .601 .983 .375
Total 305.115 499
Between Groups .812 2 .406 .879 .416
Total 230.182 499
Between Groups 1.782 2 .891 1.461 .233
Total 304.918 499
107
On the Basis of Size (Small, Medium, Large and Very large)
(HYG) between small, medium, large and very large organizations.
Significant differences were observed in the mean scores of small, medium, large
and very large organizations on HYG (p or sig <0.05). Thus, the null hypothesis
H031 was rejected.

Factors (MOT) as important to attract an employee to join a Non-Profit
organization, between small, medium, large and very large organizations.
Significant differences were not observed in the mean scores of small, medium,
large and very large organizations on MOT (p or sig >0.05). Thus, the null

Attachment Factors (MAT) between small, medium, large and very large
organizations.
large and very large organizations on MAT (p or sig >0.05). Thus, the null

Factors (COXT) between small, medium, large and very large organizations.
large and very large organizations on COXT (p or sig >0.05). Thus, the null
H035: There is no significant difference in the Job Content Factors (CONT)

between small, medium, large and very large organizations.
large and very large organizations on CONT (p or sig >0.05). Thus, the null
Tables 4.25A and 4.25B present ANOVA Descriptives and results of ANOVA:
108
Table 4.25 A: ANOVA Descriptives for Size of Organization
Constructs Size N Mean Std. Deviation

Small 171 3.49 .799
Medium 64 3.64 .745
HYG Large 131 3.66 .782
Very large 134 3.84 .732
Total 500 3.65 .780
Small 171 4.04 .733
Medium 64 4.00 .800
MOT Large 131 4.11 .634
Very large 134 4.14 .625
Total 500 4.08 .689
Small 171 4.14 .770
Medium 64 4.01 .914
MAT Large 131 4.06 .752
Very large 134 4.23 .752
Total 500 4.13 .782
Small 171 3.41 .690
Medium 64 3.38 .796
COXT Large 131 3.54 .647
Very large 134 3.58 .625
Total 500 3.49 .679
Small 171 3.59 .817
Medium 64 3.56 .930
CONT Large 131 3.62 .722
Very large 134 3.61 .720
Total 500 3.60 .782
Sum of Mean
Construct df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 9.328 3 3.109 5.238 .001
Total 303.762 499
Between Groups 1.237 3 .412 .867 .458
Total 237.125 499
Between Groups 2.877 3 .959 1.574 .195
Total 305.115 499
Between Groups 3.159 3 1.053 2.301 .076
Total 230.182 499
Between Groups .219 3 .073 .119 .949
Total 304.918 499
109
4.7.3 Summary of Tests of Differences
Based on the results of hypotheses testing , a summary of results of analysis is

presented in Table 4.26 :
Table 4.26 : Summary of T-test & ANOVA
Demographic Value of p Significant

Factor (Sig) Difference
Category Construct
(p < .05)
(Yes/No)
Gender .084 No
Nationality .011 Yes
Present Experience .591 No
Hygiene Factors
Total Experience .188 No
Age .201 No
Designation Level .023 Yes
Size .001 Yes
Gender .002 Yes
Nationality .615 No
Job
Attractiveness Motivator Factors
Factors Age .703 No
Designation Level .720 No
Size .458 No
Gender .041 Yes
Nationality .111 No
Mission Attachment
Factors
Age .029 Yes
Size .195 No
Gender .022 Yes
Nationality .438 No
Present Experience .027 Yes
Job Context Factors
Age .273 No
Employee
Size .076 No
Turnover Gender .026 Yes
Factors Nationality .005 Yes
Present Experience .046 Yes
Job Content Factors
Total Experience .015 Yes
Age .049 Yes
Size .949 No
Note: Shaded boxes depict factors which are found to have significant differences
110
4.8 Tests of Association
Chi-square test was performed in order to establish association, if any, between

Job Attractiveness Factors (HYG, MOT and MAT), Employee Turnover Factors
(COXT and CONT) on the one hand and demographic, organizational and
respondent profile variables such as Gender, Nationality of organization, Present
experience, Total experience, Age, Designation level and Size of organization, on
the other . This was carried out only in respect of factors that were found to have
significant difference (p < .05) as revealed by Test of Significance carried out
under previous section. Following are the details of Chi-square tests conducted.
Association between Hygiene Factors and Nationality
Significant association does not exist between Nationality (i.e. Indian and Foreign
Organization) and perception on Hygiene factors as sig > .05. The results are shown
in table 4.27 A & B below.
Table 4.27 A : Crosstab (Nationality)
Cumulative HYG Categories

Nationality Total
Low Medium High
Indian 13 158 64 235
Foreign 11 169 85 265
Total 24 327 149 500
Table 4.27 B : Chi-Square Tests (Nationality)
Measures Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 1.703 2 .427
Likelihood Ratio 1.705 2 .426
Linear-by-Linear Association 1.698 1 .193
N of Valid Cases 500
111
Association between Hygiene Factors and Size of Organization
Significant association exists between Size (i.e. No. of employees in the

organization) and perception on Hygiene factors as sig < .05. The results are shown
in table 4.28 A & B below.
Table 4.28 A: Crosstab (Size)
Number of Cumulative HYG Categories

Total
Employees Low Medium High
1 to 50 9 125 37 171
51 to 100 3 44 17 64
101 to 500 8 81 42 131
Above 500 4 77 53 134
Total 24 327 149 500
Table 4.28 B: Chi-Square Tests (Size)
Measures Value Df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Association between Hygiene Factors and Designation Level
Significant association does not exist between Designation Level and perception on
Hygiene factors as sig > .05. The results are shown in table 4.29A & B below.
Table 4.29 A: Crosstab (Designation level)
Designation Cumulative HYG Categories

Total
Level Low Medium High
Junior 4 53 38 95
Middle 10 158 72 240
Senior 10 116 39 165
Total 24 327 149 500
112
Table 4.29 B: Chi-Square Tests (Designation level)

Association between Motivator Factors and Gender
Significant association does not exist between Gender (i.e. male and female) and
perception on Motivator factors as sig > .05. The results are shown in table 4.30 A
& B below.
Table 4.30 A: Crosstab (Gender)
Cumulative MOT Categories

Gender Total
Low Medium High
Male 11 135 194 340
Female 2 51 107 160
Total 13 186 301 500
Table 4.30 B: Chi-Square Tests (Gender)

Association between Mission Attachment Factors and Gender
perception on Mission Attachment factors as sig > .05. The results are shown in
table 4.31 A & B below:
113
Cumulative MAT Categories

Gender Total
Low Medium High
Male 12 152 176 340
Female 3 60 97 160
Total 15 212 273 500

Association between Mission Attachment Factors and Age
Significant association exists between Age and perception on Mission Attachment

factors as sig < .05. The results are shown in table 4.32 A & B below.
Table 4.32 A: Crosstab (Age)
Age Cumulative MAT Categories

Total
(Years) Low Medium High
20 to 30 2 65 57 124
31 to 40 8 89 107 204
41 to 60 5 58 109 172
Total 15 212 273 500
Table 4.32 B: Chi-Square Tests (Age)

114
Association between Job Context Factors and Gender
perception on Job Context factors as sig > .05. The results are shown in table 4.33A
& B below.
Cumulative COXT Categories

Gender Total
Low Medium High
Male 14 257 69 340
Female 5 116 39 160
Total 19 373 108 500

Association between Job Context Factors and Present Experience
Significant association does not exist between Experience in Present position and
perception on Job Context factors as sig > .05. The results are shown in table 4.34
A & B below.
Table 4.34 A: Crosstab (Present Experience)
Present Cumulative COXT Categories

Experience Total
0 to 5 15 255 83 353
6 and Above 4 118 25 147
Total 19 373 108 500
115
Table 4.34 B: Chi-Square Tests (Present Experience)

Association between Job Content Factors and Gender
perception on Job Content factors as sig > .05. The results are shown in table 4.35
A & B below.
Cumulative CONT Categories

Gender Total
Low Medium High
Male 17 238 85 340
Female 5 105 50 160
Total 22 343 135 500

Association between Job Content Factors and Nationality
Significant association does not exist between Nationality (i.e. Indian and Foreign
Organization) and perception on Job Content factors as sig > .05. The results are
shown in table 4.36 A & B below.
116
Table 4.36 A: Crosstab (Nationality)
Cumulative CONT Categories

Nationality Total
Low Medium High
Indian 8 152 75 235
Foreign 14 191 60 265
Total 22 343 135 500
Table 4.36 B: Chi-Square Tests (Nationality)

Association between Job Content Factors and Present Experience
Significant association does not exist between Experience in Present Position and
perception on Job Content factors as sig > .05. The results are shown in table 4.37
A & B below.
Table 4.37 A: Crosstab (Present Experience)
Present Cumulative CONT Categories

Experience Total
0 to 5 15 236 102 353
6 and Above 7 107 33 147
Total 22 343 135 500
Table 4.37 B: Chi-Square Tests (Present Experience)

117
Association between Job Content Factors and Total Experience
Significant association does not exist between Total Experience and perception on
Job Content factors as sig > .05. The results are shown in table 4.38 A & B below.
Table 4.38 A: Crosstab (Total Experience)
Present Cumulative CONT Categories

Experience Total
0 to 10 10 146 67 223
11 and Above 12 197 68 277
Total 22 343 135 500
Table 4.38 B: Chi-Square Tests (Total Experience)

Association between Job Content Factors and Age
Significant association does not exist between Age and perception on Job Content
factors as sig > .05. The results are shown in table 4.39 A & B below.
Table 4.39 A: Crosstab (Age)
Age Cumulative CONT Categories

Total
20 to 30 7 75 42 124
31 to 40 8 144 52 204
41 to 60 7 124 41 172
Total 22 343 135 500
118

Chapter 4: Analysis and Intepretation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 4: Analysis and Intepretation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS AND INTEPRETATION

4.1 Plan of Analysis

4.2 Profile of Respondents and Responding Organizations

A profile of the respondents as well as responding organizations was generated

Table 4.1: Respondent Profile- Gender

Designation: About 33% of respondents occupied senior level positions, 48%

Table 4.2: Respondent Profile- Designation

Experience in present position: In terms of experience in their current

Table 4.3: Respondent Profile- Experience in Present Position

Table 4.4: Respondent Profile- Total Experience

Table 4.5: Respondent Profile- Age

Profile of Responding Organizations

Nationality: On the basis of country of origin, organizations were classified as

Table 4.7: Responding Organizations- Size

4.3 Estimation of Response Rate

Usually low response rates are common in employee-based researches. Response

In addition to response rate, item completion rate is used as another measure of

4.4 Study Scales and Items Considered

Variables and their Items

4.5 Factor Analysis

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Table 4.9: KMO and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

Table 4.10 A: HYG Scale-Total Variance Explained

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis

Table 4.11 A: MOT Scale-Total Variance Explained

Extraction Sums of Squared

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis

Table 4.12 A: MAT Scale-Total Variance Explained

Extraction Sums of Squared

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis

Table 4.12 B: MAT Scale-Component Matrix

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis

Table 4.13 A: COXT Scale-Total Variance Explained

Extraction Sums of Squared

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis

Table 4.13 B : Component Matrix

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Extraction Sums of Squared

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis

Table 4.14 B: CONT Scale-Component Matrix

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis

4.6 Scale Reliability and Validity

Before proceeding with further data analysis, reliability was ascertained.

Indicator Reliability: Indicators are items used to measure a particular construct

Table 4.15: Indicator Reliability of the Scales

Indicators HYG MOT MAT COXT CONT

Note: Shaded boxes represent indicator with highest reliability

Scale Reliability: Reliability is an assessment of the degree of dependability,

Table 4.16: Scale Reliability Estimates

Scale Cronbach Alpha

Convergent Validity: A construct is said to possess convergent validity if items of

Discriminant Validity: It is the degree to which two theoretically alike concepts

Two important methods were deployed to test discriminant validity. Firstly,

Table 4.17 A: All Scales -Total Variance Explained

Extraction Sums of Squared

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis

Another indicator of discriminant analysis is to test for correlation between the

CONSTRUCTS HYG MOT MAT COXT CONT