Correlations were calculated to describe the relationships between academicstaff’s hygiene factor in terms of job security and selected demographic variables (table3.7).Based on the results, hygiene factorsin terms of job securityshows significant25

correlation with respondents profile in terms ofage ( t = 3.188>0.710,df=10), gender (t = 3.580>0.873,df=4), level of education ( t = 4.907>0.910,df=5), length of service( t = 3.408>0.812,df=6) of the administrative staff as revealed in the computed t-valuegreater than the tabular value at 0.05 level of significance.This rejects the nullhypothesis stating that there is no significant correlation between respondent’s profileand hygiene factors in terms of job security. However, civil status ( t=1.259> 0.533, df=4)shows no significant correlation with respondents profile.This implies that while demographic factors have no significant impact on jobsatisfaction, the hygiene factor such job security has substantial relation with civil statusand is highly related to age, gender, level of education and length of service on jobsatisfaction.Security of service is a feature that has a considerable affiliation with the jobsatisfaction. It is essential to proper and effective working.Permanent employees are more pleased with their jobs in comparison to theemployees who are on contract. As the staff feel relaxed and considered themselves asa permanent part of organization, they feel satisfied and happy with their job and aswell with the institution. However, those staff who where on contractual basis feeltensed and under-pressure of losing their jobs.26

Problem number 3.Is there significant correlation between profile and jobsatisfaction in terms of:b. Motivating FactorsTable 4.1Correlation Between Respondents’ Profile and MotivationalFactors in Terms of RecognitionProfileMotivational Factorsin Terms of Recognitionr-valueComputedt-valuedfCriticalt-value(0.05)DecisionAgeGenderCivil StatusLevel of EducationLength of Service0.8130.8940.8410.7870.8014.4153.9913.1082.8523.2771044562.2282.7762.7762.5712.447Ho: RejectedHo: RejectedHo: RejectedHo: RejectedHo: RejectedLegend:Interpretation for CorrelationInterval EstimateInterpretation1.00-Perfect Correlation0.70 -0.99-Very High Correlation0.40 -0.69-Substantial Correlation0.20 -0.39-Low Correlation0.01 -0.19-Negligible Correlation0.00-Zero/No CorrelationTable 4.1 shows correlation between respondent’s profile and motivationalfactors in terms of Recognition.Correlations were calculated to describe the relationships between academicstaff’s motivational factor in terms of recognition and selected demographic variables(table 4.1).Based on the results, motivational factorsin terms of recognitionshowssignificant correlation with respondents profile in terms ofage ( t = 4.415>0.813,27

df=10), gender ( t = 3.991>0.894,df=4), civil status ( t = 3.108>0.841,df=4), level ofeducation ( t = 2.852>0.787,df=5), lengthof service( t = 3.277>0.801,df=6) of theadministrative staff as revealed in the computed t-value greater than the tabular valueat 0.05 level of significance.This rejects the null hypothesis stating that there is nosignificant correlation between respondent’s profile and motivational factors in terms ofrecognition.

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

End of preview. Want to read all 65 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Term

Fall

Professor

N/A

Tags

motivational factors, hygiene factors