Global Journal of Management and Business Research, A: Administration and Management, Volume 23 Issue 5

Table 16: Test of Normality on Job Satisfaction Due to Motivational and De-Motivational Work Environment Work Environment Shapiro-Wilk Statistic df Sig. Job Satisfaction Motivational Work Environment 0.994 172 0.668 De-motivational Work Environment 0.974 28 0.697 Table 17: Group Statistics of Motivational and De-Motivational Work Environment Work Environment N Mean Std. Deviation Job Satisfaction Motivational Work Environment 172 39.8953 6.53560 De-motivational Work Environment 28 45.6786 4.02817 Table 18: Independent Sample T-Test Result for Work Environment as a Factor Leading to Job Satisfaction Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means F Sig. t df Sig. (2- tailed) Job Satisfaction Equal variances assumed 5.920 0.016 -4.538 198 0.000 Equal variances not assumed -6.356 53.55 0.000 Table 19: Test of Normality on Job Satisfaction Due to Motivational and De-Motivational Relations with Colleagues Relationship With Colleagues Shapiro-Wilk Statistic df Sig. Job Satisfaction Motivational Relation with Colleagues 0.994 193 0.587 De-motivational Relation with Colleagues 0.912 7 0.407 An Empirical Study on Factors Influencing Job Satisfaction of Human Resource in Banks and Insurance Companies of Nepal 18 Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XXIII Issue V Version I Year 2023 ( ) A © 2023 Global Journals The above table shows us the p-value of the job satisfaction ( p=0.668) is greater than the alfa value ( α =0.05) in the motivational work environment. Therefore, job satisfaction is normally distributed within the sample size of human resources enjoying a motivational work environment. Similarly, the p-value of job satisfaction ( p=0.697) is greater than the alfa value ( α =0.05) in de-motivational work environment. Therefore, job satisfaction is normally distributed within the sample size of human resources getting de-motivational work environment. The above table shows us that, out of 200 respondents in the field survey, 172 respondents have been enjoying the work environment that motivates them to do their job, whereas 28 respondents have been receiving the work environment that demotivates them to do their job. Here, the mean score of job dis-satisfaction ( M=45.6786) of human resources who have been receiving de-motivational work environment is higher than the mean score of job satisfaction ( M=39.8953) of human resources who have been enjoying motivational work environment. In the above table, F-test (Levene‘s test) has been done to evaluate the equality of variance. It can be seen that the p-value is 0.016(which is lesser than 0.05). It indicates that the variances are significantly unequal. Hence, the case of “Equal Variances Not Assumed” has been considered. The values under the “t-test for Equality of Means” has been examined. So, the p-value for the unequal variances t-test is p=0.000 . Since this p-value is lesser than 0.05, it is concluded that there is a statistically significant mean difference in the level of job satisfaction due to the difference in providing a work environment to the human resources. The above table shows us the p-value of the job satisfaction ( p=0.587) is greater than the alfa value ( α =0.05) in motivational relation with colleagues. Therefore, job satisfaction is normally distributed within the sample size of human resources who have motivational relations with their colleagues. Similarly, the p-value of job satisfaction ( p=0.407) is greater than the alfa value ( α =0.05) in de-motivational relation with colleagues. Therefore, job satisfaction is normally distributed with in the sample size of human resources who have de-motivational relationswith their colleagues.