Data Analysis in Research Paper

This chapter in the research have conducted a quantitative analysis based on the methods selected in the research. The survey questionnaire has been developed on a five point Likert scale and is based on the Hackman and Oldham’s job characteristics model.

0RESEARCH PAPER
Data Analysis
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author note

1RESEARCH PAPER
Chapter 4
Data Findings and Analysis
4.1 Introduction
This chapter in the research have conducted a quantitative analysis based on the
methods selected in the research. The survey questionnaire has been developed on a five
point Likert scale and is based on the Hackman and Oldham’s job characteristics model. This
model facilitated in understanding the factors influencing the job satisfaction of the
employees. The questionnaire consists of the five job characteristics to understand the
motivating factors at work in Guyana National Bureau of Standards (GNBS). A public
organization has been taken in the research which has facilitated in evaluating the job
characteristics and motivating factors for employees in the public sector. Moreover, in this
research, the data has been collected from 25 respondents which is relatively small so the
sampling error in the data is expected to high and results may deviate as it is difficult to
predict human behaviour.
4.2 Reliability Analysis
The reliability analysis of the collected data has been conducted using the Cronbach’s
Alpha test. The Cronbach’s Alpha test measures the internal consistency among the items in
the research and is a measure of scale reliability. It measures how closely related all the items
are as a group. It also states the questions used in the scale are one-dimensional in nature.
When the value of Cronbach’s Alpha is high, it means that the inter item correlation is high.
In general, a value of greater than 0.6 then it is acceptable. In this given research, the value of
Cronbach’s alpha is 0.963 which shows that there is high internal consistency between the
items and the scale reliability of the data is high. By referring to the appendix 1 in the
research, it can be seen that the item total statistics shows the value of alpha when one of the

2RESEARCH PAPER
item is deleted. In most of the cases, the value of alpha decreases, if one of the item is deleted
which shows that each item contributes to the scale reliability of the group of data. However,
in case of the second item which is a question on skill variety increases the value of alpha
when the item is deleted. This could mean that removing this variable will result in higher
reliability of the data but the inter item correlation shows a negative relationship with the
other questions. This is the reason that the value of alpha increases but this question is
significantly important in identifying the consistency in the data.
4.3 Demographic Data
Graph 1: Age
Source: (As created by author)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 25 - 35 24 48.0 48.0 48.0
36-45 18 36.0 36.0 84.0

3RESEARCH PAPER
46-55 8 16.0 16.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0
Table 1: Age
Source: (As created by author)
This demographic questions determines the age group of the respondents taking part
in the survey. The results show that 48% of the respondents belong to the age group of 25-35,
36% of the respondents belong to the age group of 36-45 and the remaining respondents
belong to the age group of 46-55. This shows that there is a diversity in the age group of the
respondents and it is expected to obtain diverse answers as different age groups is effected to
have different elements contributing to their motivation.
Graph 2: Tenure
Source: (As created by author)

4RESEARCH PAPER
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 0-5yrs 18 36.0 36.0 36.0
6 -10years 24 48.0 48.0 84.0
Over 10 years 8 16.0 16.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0
Table 2: Tenure
Source: (As created by author)
This questions aims to evaluate the tenure of the respondents in the survey. The
results show that 48% of the employees have been in the organization between 6-10 years,
36% of the respondents have been in the organization between 0-5 years and 16% of the
respondents have been over 10 years. This depicts in the sample population in the survey
which is expected to provide a reliable data.

5RESEARCH PAPER
Graph 3: Current position
Source: (As created by author)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Junior Staff 26 52.0 52.0 52.0
Management Staff 8 16.0 16.0 68.0
Senior Staff 16 32.0 32.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0
Table 3: Current position
Source: (As created by author)
The question highlighted the current position of the participants within the
organization. The findings show that 52% of the respondents are junior staffs, 32% of the
respondents are senior staffs and the remaining respondents are management staffs. The
opinion of the junior staffs is expected to vary from the senior and the management staffs.
Moreover, the management staffs would have a better understanding of the questions and are
expected to provide key insights. Moreover, the data collected from the junior staffs would
provide a perspective from the lower level of the hierarchy and the issues within the human
resource management strategies.

6RESEARCH PAPER
4.4 Data on Employee satisfaction, commitment and performance ( 1-strongly disagree,
2- disagree, 3- indifferent, 4- agree and 5- strongly agree)
12%
32%
4%
24%
28%
Total
1
2
3
4
5
Graph 4: Complex or high skill jobs
Source: (As created by author)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 6 12.0 12.0 12.0
2 16 32.0 32.0 44.0
3 2 4.0 4.0 48.0
4 12 24.0 24.0 72.0
5 14 28.0 28.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0
Table 4: Complex or high skill jobs
Source: (As created by author)

7RESEARCH PAPER
The question highlights whether the given job role requires the employee to use a
number of complex skills or not. The results show that 24% have agreed to the question and
28% have strongly agreed to the question and 4% are indifferent. On the contrary, 32% have
disagreed to the research question and 12% have strongly disagreed to the research question.
This shows that more than half of the employees have a varied skills set and they are able to
perform critical tasks. On the other hand, 44% of the respondents have disagreed to the
question which shows that their jobs are simple and boring which decreases their job
satisfaction. In respect to the Hackman & Oldham’s job characteristics model, it states that
quality of the task performed provides greater motivation to all the employees. In this respect,
the majority did not agree to the first statement which means a large section of the employees
perform job that is simple which makes it repetitive and monotonous (Ali et al. 2014). This
shows that even though the organisation has been able to design a better task profile for more
than half of the employees, there are still plenty of employees that are not satisfied with the
level of simplicity of their job role.
16%
32%
4%
24%
24%
Total
1
2
3
4
5
Graph 5: Simple and repeats itself
Source: (As created by author)

8RESEARCH PAPER
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 8 16.0 16.0 16.0
2 16 32.0 32.0 48.0
3 2 4.0 4.0 52.0
4 12 24.0 24.0 76.0
5 12 24.0 24.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0
Table 5: Simple and repeats itself
Source: (As created by author)
The question highlights whether the given job role is simple and repeats itself or not.
The results show that 24% have agreed to the question and 24% have strongly agreed to the
question and 4% are indifferent. On the contrary, 32% have disagreed to the research
question and 16% have strongly disagreed to the research question. This question is opposite
to the previous question which is the reason it can be seen than more than 50% of the
respondents have disagreed and more than 40% have agreed to the research question. This
means that organizations needs to look into this issue and provide these employees with
training and development programs so that they can have a different job role. This question is
linked to the previous question and address the same thing. This question also shows that
48% did agree to the question which shows that variety in skills is limited for almost half of
the respondents.

9RESEARCH PAPER
16%
8%
8%
36%
32%
Total
1
2
3
4
5
Graph 6: Necessary skills to perform all activities
Source: (As created by author)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 8 16.0 16.0 16.0
2 4 8.0 8.0 24.0
3 4 8.0 8.0 32.0
4 18 36.0 36.0 68.0
5 16 32.0 32.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0
Table 6: Necessary skills to perform all activities
Source: (As created by author)
The question highlights whether the employee has the necessary skills to perform all
tasks in the department or not. The results show that 36% have agreed to the question and
32% have strongly agreed to the question and 8% are indifferent. On the contrary, 8% have
disagreed to the research question and 16% have strongly disagreed to the research question.
This shows that majority of the employees have the necessary skills to perform all the

10RESEARCH PAPER
activities in the department. However, the major focus of the organization has to be on the
24% of the employees that do not have it. The organization needs to identify the key skills
areas that needs to addressed and develop a training and development program for them. This
question is confirmation for the previous questions which shows that more than half of the
employees does not have necessary skills to perform all activities in the department. This
signifies that all the employees are not provided with variety of skills to perform all activities
(Ozturk, Hancer and Im 2014).
4%
20%
4%
44%
28%
Total
1
2
3
4
5
Graph 7: Job description reflects current work
Source: (As created by author)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 2 4.0 4.0 4.0
2 10 20.0 20.0 24.0
3 2 4.0 4.0 28.0
4 22 44.0 44.0 72.0
5 14 28.0 28.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0

11RESEARCH PAPER
Table 7: Job description reflects current work
Source: (As created by author)
The question depicts whether the employee’s current job description reflects their
current work or not. The results show that 28% have agreed to the question and 44% have
strongly agreed to the question and 4% are indifferent. On the contrary, 20% have disagreed
to the research question and 4% have strongly disagreed to the research question. This shows
that majority of the employees are working according to their job role description expect the
24% that have disagreed. In terms of task identity, these respondents are not performing a job
that is pleasing to them which is a concern for the business entity. The majority of the
respondents feel that there is no proper disclosure of the job description which means that the
job structure is not clearly defined for majority of the employees. This means that their
current work structure does not properly reflect upon the work done by the employees
(Lăzăroiu 2015).
8%
16%
4%
44%
28%
Total
1
2
3
4
5
Graph 8: Job allows to complete an activity from finish to start
Source: (As created by author)

12RESEARCH PAPER
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 4 8.0 8.0 8.0
2 8 16.0 16.0 24.0
3 2 4.0 4.0 28.0
4 22 44.0 44.0 72.0
5 14 28.0 28.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0
Table 8: Job allows to complete an activity from finish to start
Source: (As created by author)
The question depicts whether the employee’s current job allows them to complete an
activity from finish to start or not. The results show that 44% have agreed to the question and
28% have strongly agreed to the question and 4% are indifferent. On the contrary, 16% have
disagreed to the research question and 8% have strongly disagreed to the research question.
This shows that the majority of the employees are allowed to finish their work but there are
24% of the employees that are only part of the certain activity. This is expected to reduce
their satisfaction level based on the Hackman and Oldham’s job characteristics model. There
is no proper distinction between the job roles and the employees do not have a clear
understanding of the boundaries of their work (Ali et al. 2014). This negatively affects their
job satisfaction and motivational level.

13RESEARCH PAPER
4%
20%
8%
20%
48%
Total
1
2
3
4
5
Graph 9: Job covers an entire work field and not just part of a bigger process
Source: (As created by author)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 2 4.0 4.0 4.0
2 10 20.0 20.0 24.0
3 4 8.0 8.0 32.0
4 10 20.0 20.0 52.0
5 24 48.0 48.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0
Table 9: Job covers an entire work field and not just part of a bigger process
Source: (As created by author)
The question depicts whether the employee’s current job covers an entire work field
and not just part of a bigger process or not. The results show that 20% have agreed to the
question and 48% have strongly agreed to the question and 8% are indifferent. On the
contrary, 20% have disagreed to the research question and 4% have strongly disagreed to the

14RESEARCH PAPER
research question. This shows that majority of the respondents feel that they are contributing
to the overall growth of the organization and society. On the other hand, 24% of the
employees do not feel that they are contributing the society and the organization which shows
that they are satisfied with their job role. The majority of the employees feel that their job
does not have substantial impact on the organisation or the society (Bakker and Demerouti
2014). They are only part of a bigger processes which reduces the importance of the work
they do. It is essential for the managers to provide significant motivation to the employees
working on smaller tasks.
12%
8%
16%
32%
32%
Total
1
2
3
4
5
Graph 10: Outcome of my work can significantly affect the work, lives, well-being of
others
Source: (As created by author)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 6 12.0 12.0 12.0
2 4 8.0 8.0 20.0
3 8 16.0 16.0 36.0

15RESEARCH PAPER
4 16 32.0 32.0 68.0
5 16 32.0 32.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0
Table 10: Outcome of my work can significantly affect the work, lives, well-being of
others
Source: (As created by author)
The question depicts whether the outcome of the employee’s work has significantly
affect the work, lives, well-being of others or not. The results show that 32% have agreed to
the question and 32% have strongly agreed to the question and 16% are indifferent. On the
contrary, 8% have disagreed to the research question and 12% have strongly disagreed to the
research question. This question is quite similar to the previous question which addresses task
significance and the results show that majority feel that they contribute to the well-being of
others. This means that public sector employees are more oriented towards the significance of
the task they are performing. The employees feel that their work does not have meaning or
significance for the society which makes the employees demotivating (Bacha 2014). The task
is losing its meaningfulness as the employees are unable to gauge importance of their job. It
is the duty of the managers to make the employees realise that they make a difference.

16RESEARCH PAPER
4%
20%
12%
32%
32%
Total
1
2
3
4
5
Graph 11: The work performed has an impact on other departments and persons
Source: (As created by author)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 2 4.0 4.0 4.0
2 10 20.0 20.0 24.0
3 6 12.0 12.0 36.0
4 16 32.0 32.0 68.0
5 16 32.0 32.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0
Table 11: The work performed has an impact on other departments and persons
Source: (As created by author)
The question depicts whether the outcome of the employee’s work has significantly
affect the work, lives, well-being of others or not. The results show that 32% have agreed to
the question and 32% have strongly agreed to the question and 12% are indifferent. On the

17RESEARCH PAPER
contrary, 20% have disagreed to the research question and 4% have strongly disagreed to the
research question. This is also a question which addresses task significance where majority of
the employees are satisfied with their job role but 24% of the employees are dissatisfied
which is reflected from their negative responses on this question. The majority of the
employees feel that their job does not have substantial impact on the organisation or the
society. They are only part of a bigger processes which reduces the importance of the work
they do (Bakker and Demerouti 2014). The previous two questions clearly show that there
has been significant issue in establishing task significance and a clear number of people have
problem identifying the significance of their task.
16%
8%
8%
32%
36%
Total
1
2
3
4
5
Graph 12: Department has the time, tools and resources necessary to effectively
accomplish its objectives
Source: (As created by author)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 8 16.0 16.0 16.0
2 4 8.0 8.0 24.0
3 4 8.0 8.0 32.0

18RESEARCH PAPER
4 16 32.0 32.0 64.0
5 18 36.0 36.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0
Table 12: Department has the time, tools and resources necessary to effectively
accomplish its objectives
Source: (As created by author)
The question depicts whether the department has the time, tools and resources
necessary to effectively accomplish its objectives or not. The results show that 32% have
agreed to the question and 36% have strongly agreed to the question and 8% are indifferent.
On the contrary, 8% have disagreed to the research question and 16% have strongly disagreed
to the research question. This results that most of the departments have necessary time, tools
and resources to accomplish the objectives. This shows that the department does have the
time and tool and resources to achieve their tasks but a clear segregation and definition is
missing (Bacha 2014). Therefore, it is essential for the managers to clearly use the resources
and time to define the work done by them.
8%
12%
12%
28%
40%
Total
1
2
3
4
5

19RESEARCH PAPER
Graph 13: Job gives opportunity of freedom
Source: (As created by author)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 4 8.0 8.0 8.0
2 6 12.0 12.0 20.0
3 6 12.0 12.0 32.0
4 14 28.0 28.0 60.0
5 20 40.0 40.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0
Table 13: Job gives opportunity of freedom
Source: (As created by author)
The question depicts whether the job gives me opportunity of freedom to the
employees in accomplishing their work or not. The results show that 28% have agreed to the
question and 40% have strongly agreed to the question and 12% are indifferent. On the
contrary, 12% have disagreed to the research question and 8% have strongly disagreed to the
research question. This questions is related to autonomy and the majority of the employee are
given autonomy at their job roles. However, there are 20% employees that do not receive
autonomy at their job roles. This has affected the satisfaction level of these employees due to
lack of autonomy. There are still 10% of the employees that do not receive autonomy in the
work they do and there is lack of freedom for few of them. In terms of task autonomy, the
results show that negative motivation is a result from this factor (Gillet and Vandenberghe
2014).

20RESEARCH PAPER
12%
8%
8%
40%
32%
Total
1
2
3
4
5
Graph 14: Autonomy to perform and take decisions independently
Source: (As created by author)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 6 12.0 12.0 12.0
2 4 8.0 8.0 20.0
3 4 8.0 8.0 28.0
4 20 40.0 40.0 68.0
5 16 32.0 32.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0
Table 14: Autonomy to perform and take decisions independently
Source: (As created by author)
The question portrays whether employees are provided autonomy to perform and take
decisions independently or not. The results show that 40% have agreed to the question and
32% have strongly agreed to the question and 8% are indifferent. On the contrary, 8% have
disagreed to the research question and 12% have strongly disagreed to the research question.

21RESEARCH PAPER
This shows that the majority of the employees are provided autonomy at their work which is
expected to improve their job satisfaction. Even though, majority of the employees are
provided autonomy, it is not widely established which affects the motivation level of the
employees. The lack of task autonomy for a significant percent of the employees impact their
job satisfaction and motivation which is being repeatedly highlighted in all the above
questions ((Gillet and Vandenberghe 2014).
4%
16%
4%
36%
40%
Total
1
2
3
4
5
Graph 15: Personal initiative, suggestions and comments are considered in decision
making
Source: (As created by author)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 2 4.0 4.0 4.0
2 8 16.0 16.0 20.0
3 2 4.0 4.0 24.0
4 18 36.0 36.0 60.0
5 20 40.0 40.0 100.0

22RESEARCH PAPER
Total 50 100.0 100.0
Table 15: Personal initiative, suggestions and comments are considered in decision
making
Source: (As created by author)
The question portrays whether employees personal initiative, suggestions and
comments are considered in decision making or not. The results show that 36% have agreed
to the question and 40% have strongly agreed to the question and 4% are indifferent. On the
contrary, 16% have disagreed to the research question and 4% have strongly disagreed to the
research question. This shows that the organization has implemented inclusion where
management values the opinions of the lower level employees. However, as considerable
amount of the survey is filled by management and senior level employees so their decisions
are considered. However, the employees having a negative response is expected to belong to
the junior staff category. Personal suggestions and comments are taken positively in majority
of the cases, but there are still significant percentage of the employee that are affected due to
lack of acceptance from the management level employees ((Gillet and Vandenberghe 2014).
8%
12%
12%
32%
36%
Total
1
2
3
4
5
Graph 16: Receive feedback

23RESEARCH PAPER
Source: (As created by author)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 4 8.0 8.0 8.0
2 6 12.0 12.0 20.0
3 6 12.0 12.0 32.0
4 16 32.0 32.0 64.0
5 18 36.0 36.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0
Table 16: Receive feedback
Source: (As created by author)
The question highlights whether employees receive feedback after completing a job or
not. The results show that 32% have agreed to the question and 36% have strongly agreed to
the question and 12% are indifferent. On the contrary, 12% have disagreed to the research
question and 8% have strongly disagreed to the research question. This shows that
management communicates with the staffs and guides them in performing in a better way.
However, they are still certain amount of employees that are not receiving feedback so it is
essential to re-evaluate the management of every department to enhance the feedback
process. The management has made significant effort in providing suggestions and feedback
for majority of the employees (Bacha 2014). However, there are considerable amount of
employees that are not provided feedback consistently by the managers.

24RESEARCH PAPER
8%
12%
8%
28%
44%
Total
1
2
3
4
5
Graph 17: Open communication between employee and management
Source: (As created by author)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 4 8.0 8.0 8.0
2 6 12.0 12.0 20.0
3 4 8.0 8.0 28.0
4 14 28.0 28.0 56.0
5 22 44.0 44.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0
Table 17: Open communication between employee and management
Source: (As created by author)
The question examines whether the communication between employees and
management is open or not. The results show that 28% have agreed to the question and 44%
have strongly agreed to the question and 8% are indifferent. On the contrary, 12% have
disagreed to the research question and 8% have strongly disagreed to the research question.

25RESEARCH PAPER
This shows that majority of the employees have a healthy communication with the managers
which facilitates in improving their satisfaction level. In majority of the cases, there is open
communication between the employees and management but still there is room for
improvement which can be seen that from the 20% negative response (Bacha 2014).
12%
12%
8%
32%
36%
Total
1
2
3
4
5
Graph 18: Constructive Feedback is received
Source: (As created by author)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 6 12.0 12.0 12.0
2 6 12.0 12.0 24.0
3 4 8.0 8.0 32.0
4 16 32.0 32.0 64.0
5 18 36.0 36.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0
Table 18: Constructive Feedback is received
Source: (As created by author)

26RESEARCH PAPER
The question examines whether the managers provide constructive feedback to the
employees or not. The results show that 36% have agreed to the question and 32% have
strongly agreed to the question and 8% are indifferent. On the contrary, 12% have disagreed
to the research question and 12% have strongly disagreed to the research question. This
shows that the majority of the employees receive constructive feedback from the employees
which has increased their job satisfaction. This shows that majority of the employees have
positive motivation and satisfaction towards their job as the management has been
significantly effective in providing constructive criticism to their employees (Bakker and
Demerouti 2014).
12%
8%
8%
32%
40%
Total
1
2
3
4
5
Graph 19: Effective Appraisal system
Source: (As created by author)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 6 12.0 12.0 12.0
2 4 8.0 8.0 20.0
3 4 8.0 8.0 28.0

27RESEARCH PAPER
4 16 32.0 32.0 60.0
5 20 40.0 40.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0
Table 19: Effective Appraisal system
Source: (As created by author)
The question examines whether the organization has an effective appraisal system or
not. The results show that 32% have agreed to the question and 40% have strongly agreed to
the question and 8% are indifferent. On the contrary, 8% have disagreed to the research
question and 12% have strongly disagreed to the research question. The results clearly
indicate the appraisal system is effective but the organization needs to address to the needs of
the employees of those employees that are given negative responses.
12%
8%
4%
40%
36%
Total
1
2
3
4
5
Graph 20: Training needs translated into training programmes
Source: (As created by author)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

28RESEARCH PAPER
Valid 1 6 12.0 12.0 12.0
2 4 8.0 8.0 20.0
3 2 4.0 4.0 24.0
4 20 40.0 40.0 64.0
5 18 36.0 36.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0
Table 20: Training needs translated into training programmes
Source: (As created by author)
The question examines whether the organization has been translating training needs
into training programmes or not. The results show that 40% have agreed to the question and
36% have strongly agreed to the question and 4% are indifferent. On the contrary, 8% have
disagreed to the research question and 12% have strongly disagreed to the research question.
This shows that in most of the cases, the training needs have been translated in training
programmes.
4.5 Correlation analysis
The correlation analysis of the data shows that there is significant relationship among
all the variables which is significant at two tailed. This shows that there is two way
relationship between the elements. This holds true because as per the Hackman and Oldham’s
job characteristics model as these factors are inter-related which is depicted from the
correlation. Referring to the appendix 2, it can be said that in case of the question on task
complexity and simplicity, there is negative correlation between these two elements and the
value is -.855 which shows a strong negative correlative. This means that the respondents
considering their job role to be complex is definitely expected to disagree on the question on
repetitiveness and simplicity of tasks.

28RESEARCH PAPER

29RESEARCH PAPER
4.6 Regression analysis
The regression analysis of the data collected shows that the model is high significant
and the correlation of the model is 0.903 which is quite high. This means that the model is
precise and its predictive ability is high. R square determines the variance in explaining
capability of the predictors and the goodness of fit of the model. The value of R square is
acceptable at 0.7 and in this current study, the value of R square is 0.815 which shows that
the goodness of fit is high and the model has explaining capability. However, the coefficient
table shows that some of the variables are not significant to the research and this is because of
the sampling error and unpredictability of human behaviour. The F value in the study is .000
which is less than 0.05 which means that the null hypothesis can be rejected and the
alternative hypothesis can be accepted. The current regression table measures the degree of
relationship between employee satisfaction, commitment and performance. The linear
relationship has been analysed using the job characteristics model developed by Hackman
and Oldham. These characteristics affect the satisfaction level of the consumers. As per the
model, it can be seen that there is significant relationship between employee satisfaction and
commitment. The employees that are highly satisfied are expected to be highly committed to
their job. On the other hand, the employees that are highly committed have high level of
expectation among the employees.
4.7 Discussion
The job characteristics model by Hackman and Oldham aims to measure the effective
performance by ensuring enhanced commitment through effective appraisal program. The
regression analysis has used by the same approach mentioned by Lee and Steers (2017) and
focused on the achievement of organisational performance by facilitating supportive
organisation climate and employee commitment. The author found out six major factors
communication, validity and legitimacy of the company, job standards, instrumentality and

30RESEARCH PAPER
expectations of the employees. These factors were necessary for developing a healthy
organisational climate. The current also shows that these factors are highly important in the
context of developing a better organisational culture. On the other employee well-being has
been considered as a major factor for improving the performance level, commitment and
satisfaction of the employees by Sharma, Kong and Kingshott (2016). These factors are quite
similar to the job characteristics as both aimed at improving the working conditions and the
performance of the employees.

31RESEARCH PAPER
References
Ali, S.A.M., Said, N.A., Kader, S.F.A., Ab Latif, D.S. and Munap, R., 2014. Hackman and
Oldham's job characteristics model to job satisfaction. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 129, pp.46-52.
Bacha, E., 2014. The relationship between transformational leadership, task performance and
job characteristics. Journal of Management Development, 33(4), pp.410-420.
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E., 2014. Job demands–resources theory. Wellbeing: A
complete reference guide, pp.1-28.
Gillet, N. and Vandenberghe, C., 2014. Transformational leadership and organizational
commitment: The mediating role of job characteristics. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 25(3), pp.321-347.
Lăzăroiu, G., 2015. Work motivation and organizational behavior. Contemporary Readings
in Law and Social Justice, 7(2), pp.66-75.
Ozturk, A.B., Hancer, M. and Im, J.Y., 2014. Job characteristics, job satisfaction, and
organizational commitment for hotel workers in Turkey. Journal of Hospitality Marketing &
Management, 23(3), pp.294-313.

32RESEARCH PAPER
Appendix
Appendix 1
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.963 17
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
TheJobrequiresmetouseanu
mberofcomplexorhighlevelski
3.24 1.465 50
Manyaspectsofmyjobisverysi
mpleanditrepeatsitselfcont
3.08 1.482 50
Ihavethenecessaryskillstoperf
ormallactivitiesofmydepa
3.60 1.429 50
Yourjobdescriptionsreflectsth
ecurrentworkyouundertake
3.72 1.196 50
Yourjoballowsyoutocomplete
anactivityfromstarttofinish
3.68 1.269 50
Iseemyjobcoveringanentirew
orkfieldandnotjustpartof
3.88 1.319 50
Theoutcomeofmyworkcansig
nificantlyaffecttheworklives
3.64 1.336 50
Theworkperformedhasanimp
actonotherdepartmentsandpe
rson
3.68 1.236 50

33RESEARCH PAPER
Yourdepartmenthasthetimeto
olsandresourcesnecessaryto
e
3.64 1.453 50
Thejobgivesmeopportunityoff
reedominhowIdomywork
3.80 1.309 50
Youhavetheautonomytoperfo
rmandtakedecisionsindepend
entl
3.72 1.325 50
Yourpersonalinitiativesuggest
ionsandcommentsareconside
re
3.92 1.209 50
AfterataskediscompletedIrec
eivefeedbackonhowwellitwa
3.76 1.287 50
Thereisanopencommunicatio
nbetweenemployeesandman
agement
3.88 1.319 50
Youreceiveconstructivefeedb
ackinordertoincreaseyourperf
3.68 1.392 50
Theorganizationhasaneffectiv
eappraisalsystem
3.80 1.370 50
Trainingneedsanalysedaretra
nslatedintotrainingprogramm
es
3.80 1.340 50
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected Item-
Total Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
TheJobrequiresmetouseanu
mberofcomplexorhighlevelski
59.28 292.777 .601 .963
Manyaspectsofmyjobisverysi
mpleanditrepeatsitselfcont
59.44 352.904 -.539 .981

34RESEARCH PAPER
Ihavethenecessaryskillstoper
formallactivitiesofmydepa
58.92 285.544 .776 .960
Yourjobdescriptionsreflectsth
ecurrentworkyouundertake
58.80 287.020 .904 .959
Yourjoballowsyoutocomplete
anactivityfromstarttofinish
58.84 285.362 .889 .959
Iseemyjobcoveringanentirew
orkfieldandnotjustpartof
58.64 283.990 .885 .959
Theoutcomeofmyworkcansig
nificantlyaffecttheworklives
58.88 282.557 .906 .958
Theworkperformedhasanimp
actonotherdepartmentsandpe
rson
58.84 288.790 .827 .960
Yourdepartmenthasthetimeto
olsandresourcesnecessaryto
e
58.88 280.108 .881 .958
Thejobgivesmeopportunityoff
reedominhowIdomywork
58.72 283.226 .911 .958
Youhavetheautonomytoperfo
rmandtakedecisionsindepend
entl
58.80 284.327 .872 .959
Yourpersonalinitiativesuggest
ionsandcommentsareconside
re
58.60 287.510 .880 .959
AfterataskediscompletedIrec
eivefeedbackonhowwellitwa
58.76 283.207 .928 .958
Thereisanopencommunicatio
nbetweenemployeesandman
agement
58.64 284.235 .879 .959
Youreceiveconstructivefeedb
ackinordertoincreaseyourperf
58.84 280.953 .904 .958
Theorganizationhasaneffectiv
eappraisalsystem
58.72 281.512 .907 .958

35RESEARCH PAPER
Trainingneedsanalysedaretra
nslatedintotrainingprogramm
es
58.72 282.573 .903 .958
Appendix 2
Correlations
TheJobr
equires
metouse
anumber
ofcomple
xorhighle
velski
Manyas
pectsof
myjobisv
erysimpl
eanditre
peatsitse
lfcont
Ihavethe
necessa
ryskillsto
performa
llactivitie
sofmyde
pa
Yourjobd
escriptio
nsreflect
sthecurr
entworky
ouundert
ake
Yourjoba
llowsyou
tocompl
eteanact
ivityfrom
starttofin
ish
Iseemyjo
bcoverin
ganentir
eworkfiel
dandnotj
ustpartof
Theoutc
omeofm
yworkca
nsignific
antlyaffe
ctthewor
klives
Thework
performe
dhasani
mpacton
otherdep
artments
andpers
on
TheJobrequires
metouseanumb
erofcomplexorhi
ghlevelski
Pearson
Correlation
1 -.855** .417** .692** .503** .691** .587** .720**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .003 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Manyaspectsof
myjobisverysim
pleanditrepeatsi
tselfcont
Pearson
Correlation
-.855** 1 -.486** -.448** -.398** -.517** -.480** -.565**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .000 .001 .004 .000 .000 .000
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Ihavethenecess
aryskillstoperfor
mallactivitiesof
mydepa
Pearson
Correlation
.417** -.486** 1 .674** .761** .667** .821** .573**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.003 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Yourjobdescripti
onsreflectsthec
Pearson
Correlation
.692** -.448** .674** 1 .720** .935** .829** .739**

36RESEARCH PAPER
urrentworkyouu
ndertake
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Yourjoballowsy
outocompletean
activityfromstart
tofinish
Pearson
Correlation
.503** -.398** .761** .720** 1 .733** .869** .818**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .004 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Iseemyjobcover
inganentirework
fieldandnotjustp
artof
Pearson
Correlation
.691** -.517** .667** .935** .733** 1 .785** .727**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Theoutcomeof
myworkcansigni
ficantlyaffectthe
worklives
Pearson
Correlation
.587** -.480** .821** .829** .869** .785** 1 .719**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Theworkperfor
medhasanimpa
ctonotherdepart
mentsandperso
n
Pearson
Correlation
.720** -.565** .573** .739** .818** .727** .719** 1
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Yourdepartment
hasthetimetools
andresourcesne
cessarytoe
Pearson
Correlation
.521** -.460** .892** .810** .799** .807** .898** .616**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Thejobgivesme
opportunityoffre
edominhowIdo
mywork
Pearson
Correlation
.707** -.538** .676** .928** .772** .955** .798** .792**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

37RESEARCH PAPER
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Youhavetheaut
onomytoperfor
mandtakedecisi
onsindependent
l
Pearson
Correlation
.519** -.362** .780** .799** .747** .774** .841** .592**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .010 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Yourpersonalini
tiativesuggestio
nsandcomment
sareconsidere
Pearson
Correlation
.472** -.338* .713** .774** .781** .787** .714** .774**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.001 .016 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Afterataskedisc
ompletedIreceiv
efeedbackonho
wwellitwa
Pearson
Correlation
.616** -.396** .724** .857** .877** .824** .898** .798**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .004 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Thereisanopenc
ommunicationb
etweenemploye
esandmanagem
ent
Pearson
Correlation
.522** -.371** .689** .754** .830** .742** .762** .827**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .008 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Youreceivecons
tructivefeedbac
kinordertoincrea
seyourperf
Pearson
Correlation
.719** -.541** .653** .877** .842** .868** .859** .841**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Theorganization
hasaneffectivea
ppraisalsystem
Pearson
Correlation
.574** -.394** .688** .812** .831** .754** .851** .829**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .005 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

38RESEARCH PAPER
Trainingneedsa
nalysedaretrans
latedintotraining
programmes
Pearson
Correlation
.524** -.423** .746** .754** .850** .771** .779** .823**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .002 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Correlations
Yourdep
artmenth
asthetim
etoolsan
dresourc
esneces
sarytoe
Thejobgi
vesmeo
pportunit
yoffreed
ominhow
Idomywo
rk
Youhave
theauton
omytope
rformand
takedeci
sionsind
ependen
tl
Yourper
sonaliniti
ativesug
gestions
andcom
mentsar
econside
re
Afteratas
kedisco
mpletedI
receivef
eedback
onhoww
ellitwa
Thereisa
nopenco
mmunic
ationbet
weenem
ployeesa
ndmana
gement
Yourecei
veconstr
uctivefee
dbackino
rdertoinc
reaseyo
urperf
Theorga
nizationh
asaneffe
ctiveapp
raisalsys
tem
TheJobrequires
metouseanumb
erofcomplexorhi
ghlevelski
Pearson
Correlation
.521** .707** .519** .472** .616** .522** .719** .574**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Manyaspectsof
myjobisverysim
pleanditrepeatsi
tselfcont
Pearson
Correlation
-.460** -.538** -.362** -.338* -.396** -.371** -.541** -.394**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.001 .000 .010 .016 .004 .008 .000 .005
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Ihavethenecess
aryskillstoperfor
mallactivitiesof
mydepa
Pearson
Correlation
.892** .676** .780** .713** .724** .689** .653** .688**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Yourjobdescripti
onsreflectsthec
Pearson
Correlation
.810** .928** .799** .774** .857** .754** .877** .812**

39RESEARCH PAPER
urrentworkyouu
ndertake
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Yourjoballowsy
outocompletean
activityfromstart
tofinish
Pearson
Correlation
.799** .772** .747** .781** .877** .830** .842** .831**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Iseemyjobcover
inganentirework
fieldandnotjustp
artof
Pearson
Correlation
.807** .955** .774** .787** .824** .742** .868** .754**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Theoutcomeof
myworkcansigni
ficantlyaffectthe
worklives
Pearson
Correlation
.898** .798** .841** .714** .898** .762** .859** .851**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Theworkperfor
medhasanimpa
ctonotherdepart
mentsandperso
n
Pearson
Correlation
.616** .792** .592** .774** .798** .827** .841** .829**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Yourdepartment
hasthetimetools
andresourcesne
cessarytoe
Pearson
Correlation
1 .776** .858** .773** .848** .765** .749** .803**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Thejobgivesme
opportunityoffre
edominhowIdo
mywork
Pearson
Correlation
.776** 1 .767** .840** .819** .789** .883** .842**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

40RESEARCH PAPER
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Youhavetheaut
onomytoperfor
mandtakedecisi
onsindependent
l
Pearson
Correlation
.858** .767** 1 .801** .821** .797** .769** .800**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Yourpersonalini
tiativesuggestio
nsandcomment
sareconsidere
Pearson
Correlation
.773** .840** .801** 1 .748** .940** .712** .852**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Afterataskedisc
ompletedIreceiv
efeedbackonho
wwellitwa
Pearson
Correlation
.848** .819** .821** .748** 1 .752** .914** .852**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Thereisanopenc
ommunicationb
etweenemploye
esandmanagem
ent
Pearson
Correlation
.765** .789** .797** .940** .752** 1 .735** .844**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Youreceivecons
tructivefeedbac
kinordertoincrea
seyourperf
Pearson
Correlation
.749** .883** .769** .712** .914** .735** 1 .801**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Theorganization
hasaneffectivea
ppraisalsystem
Pearson
Correlation
.803** .842** .800** .852** .852** .844** .801** 1
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

41RESEARCH PAPER
Trainingneedsa
nalysedaretrans
latedintotraining
programmes
Pearson
Correlation
.780** .814** .818** .896** .847** .863** .862** .822**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Correlations
Trainingneedsanalysedaret
ranslatedintotrainingprogra
mmes
TheJobrequiresmetouseanumberofcomplexorh
ighlevelski
Pearson Correlation .524**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 50
Manyaspectsofmyjobisverysimpleanditrepeatsi
tselfcont
Pearson Correlation -.423**
Sig. (2-tailed) .002
N 50
Ihavethenecessaryskillstoperformallactivitiesof
mydepa
Pearson Correlation .746**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 50
Yourjobdescriptionsreflectsthecurrentworkyouu
ndertake
Pearson Correlation .754**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 50
Yourjoballowsyoutocompleteanactivityfromstart
tofinish
Pearson Correlation .850**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 50
Iseemyjobcoveringanentireworkfieldandnotjust
partof
Pearson Correlation .771**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 50
Theoutcomeofmyworkcansignificantlyaffectthe Pearson Correlation .779**

42RESEARCH PAPER
worklives Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 50
Theworkperformedhasanimpactonotherdepart
mentsandperson
Pearson Correlation .823**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 50
Yourdepartmenthasthetimetoolsandresourcesn
ecessarytoe
Pearson Correlation .780**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 50
ThejobgivesmeopportunityoffreedominhowIdo
mywork
Pearson Correlation .814**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 50
Youhavetheautonomytoperformandtakedecisio
nsindependentl
Pearson Correlation .818**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 50
Yourpersonalinitiativesuggestionsandcomment
sareconsidere
Pearson Correlation .896**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 50
AfterataskediscompletedIreceivefeedbackonho
wwellitwa
Pearson Correlation .847**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 50
Thereisanopencommunicationbetweenemploy
eesandmanagement
Pearson Correlation .863**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 50
Youreceiveconstructivefeedbackinordertoincre
aseyourperf
Pearson Correlation .862**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 50
Theorganizationhasaneffectiveappraisalsystem Pearson Correlation .822**

43RESEARCH PAPER
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 50
Trainingneedsanalysedaretranslatedintotrainin
gprogrammes
Pearson Correlation 1
Sig. (2-tailed)
N 50
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Appendix 3
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate
1 .903a .815 .794 .622
a. Predictors: (Constant),
Yourjobdescriptionsreflectsthecurrentworkyouundertake,
TheJobrequiresmetouseanumberofcomplexorhighlevelski,
Theoutcomeofmyworkcansignificantlyaffecttheworklives,
AfterataskediscompletedIreceivefeedbackonhowwellitwa,
ThejobgivesmeopportunityoffreedominhowIdomywork
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 74.982 5 14.996 38.772 .000b
Residual 17.018 44 .387

44RESEARCH PAPER
Total 92.000 49
a. Dependent Variable: Theorganizationhasaneffectiveappraisalsystem
b. Predictors: (Constant), Yourjobdescriptionsreflectsthecurrentworkyouundertake,
TheJobrequiresmetouseanumberofcomplexorhighlevelski,
Theoutcomeofmyworkcansignificantlyaffecttheworklives,
AfterataskediscompletedIreceivefeedbackonhowwellitwa,
ThejobgivesmeopportunityoffreedominhowIdomywork
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) .159 .294 .542 .591
AfterataskediscompletedIrec
eivefeedbackonhowwellitwa
.325 .177 .305 1.834 .073
TheJobrequiresmetouseanu
mberofcomplexorhighlevelski
-.063 .087 -.067 -.728 .470
Thejobgivesmeopportunityoff
reedominhowIdomywork
.572 .189 .547 3.023 .004
Theoutcomeofmyworkcansig
nificantlyaffecttheworklives
.350 .157 .341 2.226 .031
Yourjobdescriptionsreflectsth
ecurrentworkyouundertake
-.222 .227 -.193 -.976 .334
a. Dependent Variable: Theorganizationhasaneffectiveappraisalsystem