Corelation Between Job Satisfaction And Job Compensation

Job Staisfaction Human life has become very complex and completed in now-a-days. In modern society the needs and requirements of the people are ever increasing and ever changing. When the people are ever increasing and ever changing when the peoples needs are not fulfilled they become dissatisfied. Dissatisfied people are likely to contribute very little for any purpose. Job satisfaction of industrial workers us very important for the industry to function successfully. Apart from managerial and technical aspects, employers can be considered as backbone of any industrial development. To utilize their contribution they should be provided with good working conditions to boost their job satisfaction.. Job satisfaction is important technique used to motivate the employees to work harder. It is often said that A HAPPY EMPLOYEE IS A PRODUCTIVE EMPLOYEE. A happy employee is generally that employee who is satisfied with his job. Job satisfaction is very important because most of the people spend a major portion of their life at working place. Moreover, job satisfaction has its impact on the general life of the employees also, because a satisfied employee is a contented and happy human being. A highly satisfied worker has better physical and mental well being. Definitions: In simple words , job satisfaction can defined as extent of positive feelings or attitudes that individuals have towards their jobs. When a person says that he has high job satisfaction , it means that he really likes his job, feels good about it and value his job dignity. -P. Robbins Job satisfaction is a general attitude towards ones job: the difference between the amount of reward workers receive and the amount they believe they should receive. Fieldman and Arnold Job satisfaction will be defined as amount of overall positive affect that individuals have towards their jobs. Maslows hierarchy of needs theory, a motivation theory, laid the foundation for job satisfaction theory. This theory explains that people seek to satisfy five specific needs in life physiological needs, safety needs, social needs, self-esteem needs, and self-actualization. This model served as a good basis from which early researchers could develop job satisfaction theories.

Factors Affecting Job Satisfaction: Job satisfaction can be influenced by a variety of factors, e.g. the quality of one's relationship with their supervisor, the quality of the physical environment in which they work, degree of fulfillment in their work, etc.. Numerous research results show that there are many factors affecting the job satisfaction. There are particular demographic traits (age, education level, tenure, position, marital status, years in service, and hours worked per week) of employees that significantly affect their job satisfaction. Satisfying factors motivate workers while dissatisfying ones prevent. Motivating factors are achievement, recognition, the job conducted, responsibility, promotion and the factors related to the job itself for personal development. Motivating factors in the working environment result in the job satisfaction of the person while protective ones dissatisfy him/her . Maslow connects the creation of the existence of people's sense of satisfaction with the maintenance of the classified needs. These are: physiological needs (eating, drinking, resting, etc.), security needs (pension, health insurance, etc.), the need to love (good relations with the environment, friendship, fellowship, to love and to be loved), need to self-esteem (selfconfidence, recognition, adoration, to be given importance, status, etc.) need of self-actualization (maximization of the latent[potential] power and capacity, development of abilities, etc.) . Insufficient education, inability to select qualified workers for the job, lack of communications, lack of job definitions, all affect job satisfaction negatively. It has been asserted that participating in the management, having the decision making power, independence on the job and the unit where the individual works, have positive impact upon the job satisfaction. The job itself (the work conducted), and achievement and recognition at work result in satisfaction while the management policy, relations with the managers and colleagues result in dissatisfaction. Factors related to the job itself such as using talents, creativity, responsibility, recognition have influence on the job satisfaction. Age is one of the factors affecting job satisfaction. Studies conducted in five different countries prove that the elder workers are more satisfied . Kose has also found a meaningful relation between the age and job satisfaction . There is a strong connection between feeling secure and saying one is satisfied with a job. People who state their job is secure have a much larger probability of reporting themselves happy with their work. Similarly, by some researchers, sex is also found to have an influence on job satisfaction . Besides, Wahba has found out that male librarians give more importance to personal development and free decision making in their jobs than the female librarians, and the female librarians are more dissatisfied than the male librarians . Job satisfaction and devotion to the job, affected each other reciprocally, and they have great impact upon performance. The most significant of the factors affecting performance are economical, technical, socio-political, cultural and demographical ones .

However, most efforts to improve performance seem to center on improving the conditions surrounding the work. These are worthwhile efforts, but they usually result only in short-term improvements in attitudes and productivity, and the situation often returns quickly to normal . HERZBERGS TWO FACTORS THEORY Behavioral scientist who has highlighted the importance of needs in motivated behavior is Herzberg. His ideas are significant because they move closer to organizational situations and circumstances. He has divided human needs into two broad categories: those which sustain motivation; and those which promote motivation. Interviewed engineers, accountants, and military officers in Pittsburgh area of USA and had asked them the questions: what type of things made them happy or satisfied, and what type of things made them unhappy or dissatisfied in their job situations. Analysis of the interview data thus collected revealed that peoples need could be classified into two broad categories, each of which influences their behaviour in a different way. When people feel satisfied with their jobs, they mainly appreciate the intrinsic nature of work and the opportunity it provides them in revealing their professional competence. But when they feel dissatisfied with their jobs, they mainly blame the work environment. In other words, the factors which made people feel satisfied, are embedded in the content of their jobs. But the factors which made them feel dissatisfied, are related to the context of their jobs. When we pay attention to the contextual factors like working conditions, status and interpersonal relations, at best, we stall the existing level of their motivation from going down. The first set of needs, therefore, is called Motivators and the others are called Hygiene or Maintenance Factors. Herzberg argues that both factors are equally important, but that good hygiene will only lead to average performance, preventing dissatisfaction, but not, by itself, creating a positive attitude or motivation to work. To motivate the employee management must enrich the content of the actual work they ask them to do. For example, building into tasks set a greater level of responsibility, and the opportunity to learn new skills. In advocating making work more interesting, and improving the quality of the work experience for the individual, Herzberg coined the phrase 'Quality of Working Life'. The table below lists the common hygiene factors and motivators identified within organisations. Factors Affecting Job Attitudes Leading to Dissatisfaction Leading to Satisfaction Company policy Supervision Relationship w/Boss Work conditions

Salary Relationship w/Peers Achievement Recognition Work itself Responsibility Advancement Growth Herzberg and Money: It is often wrongly assumed that Herzberg did not value money, in the sense that he did not consider it a motivator. This is misleading, as Herzberg argues that the absence of good hygiene factors including money, will lead to dissatisfaction and thus potentially block any attempt to motivate the worker. Herzberg prefers us to think of money as a force which will move an individual to perform a task, but not generate any internal desire to do the task well. In fact to get an individual to perform the task again, he argues, we will need to offer more money. Although the original studies have been repeated with different types of workers, and results have proved consistent with the original research, Herzberg's theory has been criticised. Critics point out that a single factor may be a satisfier for one person, but cause job dissatisfaction for another. For example increased responsibility may be welcomed by some, whilst dreaded by others. Whatever the criticisms, Herzberg has drawn our attention to the importance of job design in order to bring about job enrichment, emphasized in the phrase 'Quality of Working Life'. Data Analysis and Interpretation Table 1: To know the department in which the employees belong to Sl No. Department No of respondents Percentage 1 ISO

20 40 2 D2C 7 14 3 Brocking 11 22 4 Support & IT 5 10 5 Telestar 7 14 Total 50 100 From the above data we can see that 40% employee belong to ISO Channel

14% belong to D2c channel and another 14% belong to Telestar Channel 22% employee belong to Brocking channel Only 10% employee belong to Support Channel. Inferance: majority of the respondents belong to the ISO Channel. Table 2: To know the Marital Status of the employee Sl No Status No of respondent Percentage 1 Married 10 20 2 Single 40 80 Total 50 100 From the above data we can see that 80% of the respondents are Unmarried Only 20% of the respondents are Married

Inferance: Majority of the respondents are unmarried which signifies that the workforcw is mainly young in this company Table 3: To know the Gender distribution pof the respondents Sl No. Gender No of respondents Percentage 1 Male 30 60 2 Female 20 40 Total 50 100 From the above data we van see that 40% of the respondents are Female 60% of the respondents are Male Inferance: Here the male and female ration is 3:2 which signifies that the gender discrimination is absent here Table 4: To know the Age of the respondents

Sl No Age No of respondents Percentage 1 19-24 27 54 2 25-30 21 42 3 31-36 1 2 4 37 & above 1 2 Total 50 100

From the above data we can see that 54% of the respondents fall under the age group of 19 to 24 years 42% of the respondents fall under the age group of 25 to30 years It shows that majority of the employee are very young. Table 5: Educational Qualification of the respondents Sl No Educational Qualification No of respondents Percentage 1 Under Graduate 7 14 2 Graduate 31 62 3 Post Graduate 12 24 Total 50

100 From the above data we can see that 62% of the respondents are Graduate 24% of the respondents are Post graduate by qualification among them some have done MBA, some have done M.Com, some have specialized in other fields Only 24% of the respondents are Under Graduate, and these employees are mainly working as T.M.E. Inferance: Here majority of the employee are Graduate, which shows that the educational level is high Table 6: To know the relationship with the management and colleagues Sl No Relationship with management & colleagues No of respondent Percentage(%) 1 Highly Dissatisfied 2 4.00% 2 Dissatisfied 4 8.00% 3 Neither Satisfied nor dissatisfied 22

44.00% 4 Satisfied 16 32.00% 5 Highly Satisfied 6 12.00% Total 50 100.00% From the above data we can see that A major proportion of the respondent have a good relationship with the management and colleagues (32%) Very few people are dissatisfied with the relationship(4%) Inferance: It can be said that the majority of the employee are satisfied with the management and their collegues. Management maintain a clear and regular communication with the employee. Table 7: Monthly Salary of the respondents Sl No. CTC(in Rs.) No of respondents Percentage 1

5000-14000 40 80 2 15000-24000 6 12 3 25000-34000 2 4 4 35000 & above 2 4 Total 50 100 From the above data we can see that 80% of the respondemts draw a monthly salary between Rs. 5000 to Rs.14000 Inferance: Here the maximum employee draw a salary between Rs. 5000- Rs.14000. So the overall salary scale is quite low. Table 8: To know the level of satisfaction with the compensation paid to the employees Sl No

Incremental Benefits offered to employee No of respondent Percentage 1 Highly Dissatisfied 5 10 2 Dissatisfied 11 22 3 Neither Satisfied nor dissatisfied 23 46 4 Satisfied 7 14 5 Highly Satisfied 4 8

Total 50 100 From the above data we can see that only 14% respondents are satisfied with the compensation piad and 8% are highly satisfied. Whereas 10% respondents are highly dissatisfied with the compensation paid and 22% are dissatisfied with the compensation paid. Inferance: Here almost half of the respondents are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the compensation paid, 1/5th of the respondents are dissatisfied with the compensation structure. Which signify that the overall impression of the employee towards the company's compensation scheme is negative. Table 9: To know the level of satisfaction with the leave structure Sl No Level of satisfaction with the leave structure No of respondent Percentage 1 Highly Dissatisfied 6 12 2 Dissatisfied 18 36 3 Neither Satisfied nor dissatisfied 16

32 4 Satisfied 6 12 5 Highly Satisfied 4 8 Total 50 100 From the above data we can see that 36% of the respondents are dissatiesfied with the paid leave structure and only 12% of the respondents are satissified with the leave structure. Inferance: Most of the employss are dissatiesfied with the paid leave structure of the company, which once again shows the employee's dissatiesfaction with the compensation allowances (as paid leave is a part of the compensation) Table 10: To know the level of satisfaction with other facilities provided by the company Sl No Level of satisfaction with the leave structure No of respondent Percentage 1 Highly Dissatisfied

0 0 2 Dissatisfied 5 10 3 Neither Satisfied nor dissatisfied 9 18 4 Satisfied 17 34 5 Highly Satisfied 19 38 Total 50 100 From the above data we can see that most of the respondents are satisfied with other facilities provoded by the company and only 10% of the respondents are dissatiesfied with the facilities provided by the company.

Inferance: Here only 34% of the employee's are getting the benefit from the compsny's other benefit scheme like travelling allowances, telephone bill reimbursement facilities etc. So the company need to increase the number and make sure that the maximum number of employee should coverd under these facilities. Table 11: To know the reason for what the employee enjoy late sitting in the office Sl No Parameters CTC(monthly) For completion of work provides extra money provides food/snacks provides compensation allowance Total 1 5000-14000 2 20 0 15 37 2 15000-24000 0 3 2

3 8 3 25000-34000 0 1 1 1 3 4 35000 & above 1 0 0 1 2 50 Table 12: To know the level of job satisfaction of the respondents based on their salary Sl No. Monthly Salary Overall Job satisfaction Highly Dissatisfied Dissatisfied

Neither Satisfied nor dissatisfied Satisfied Highly Satisfied Total 1 5000-14000 3 16 6 15 0 40 2 15000-24000 0 4 1 1 0 6 3 25000-34000 0

1 0 1 0 2 4 35000 & above 0 0 0 1 1 2 50 CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS The chi square test is one of the simplest and most widely used non-parametric tests in statistical work. As a non-parametric test it can be used to determine if categorical data shows dependency or the two classifications are independent. It can also be used to make comparisons between theoretical population and actual data when categories are used. n Chi square, = (fo-fe) / fe i=1 Where, fo= observed frequency fe= expected frequency CHI SQUARE TEST IS CONDUCTED TO EXTEND THE

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE JOB SATISFACTION AND JOB COMPENSATION: Null Hypothesis (Ho): There is no significant relation between job satisfaction and job compensation Alternate Hypothesis (H1): There is a significant relation between job satisfaction and job compensation Observed Frequencies: Expected Frequencies: fe= row total* column total/total frequency Expected Frequencies Column Variable Monthly Salary Highly Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied nor dissatisfied Satisfied Highly Satisfied Total 5000-14000 2.4 16.8 5.6 14.4 0.8

40 15000-24000 0.36 2.52 0.84 2.16 0.12 6 25000-34000 0.12 0.84 0.28 0.72 0.04 2 35000 & above 0.12 0.84 0.28 0.72 0.04 2 Total

3 21 7 18 1 50 Calculation: Degree of freedom = (no of row-1)*(no of column-1) Level of significance = 0.05 or 0.01 Here we have taken it 0.05 The above result of the chi-square test shows that the Critical Value or Tabulated Value = 21.03 and the Calculate Value = 28.01. Here the calculated value is greater than the critical value. It means that the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternate hypothesis is accepted. After analysing the above result we can reject the null hypothesis(H0) i.e. There is no significant relation between job satisfaction and job compensation and accept the alternate hypothesis i.e. There is a significant relation between job satisfaction and job compensation. It means that the level of job satisfaction is highly related with salary paid to the employee. More the salary the more is the job satisfaction and vice-versa. Factor Analysis: Factor analysis attempts to identify underlying variables, or factors, that explain the pattern of correlations within a set of observed variables. Factor analysis is often used in data reduction to identify a small number of factors that explain most of the variance observed in a much larger number of manifest variables. Factor analysis can also be used to generate hypotheses regarding causal mechanisms or to screen variables for subsequent analysis (for example, to identify collinearity prior to performing a linear regression analysis).

In this survey I have used the factor analysis methodology to find out which is the most important factor that attracts the employee most. Whether it is the compensation schemes or the incentives or the gratuity policy or any other factor. The variable taken are as follows: The salary is commensurate to the responsibilities shouldered, denoted as variable15 The review system is a regular phenomenon, denoted as Variable 16 Availability of paid leave, denoted as Variable 17 Availability of the insuarance scheme, denoted as Variable 18 Effectiveness of the welfare schemes of the employee,denoted as Variable 19 Level of satisfaction with the gratuity policy of the company, denoted as Variable 20 Correlation Matrixa var15 var16 var17 var18 var19 var20 Correlation var15 1.000 .716 .662 .575 .405

.528 var16 .716 1.000 .563 .516 .439 .561 var17 .662 .563 1.000 .596 .431 .440 var18 .575 .516 .596 1.000 .644 .615 var19

.405 .439 .431 .644 1.000 .695 var20 .528 .561 .440 .615 .695 1.000 a. Determinant = .036 This correlation matrix is used to find out that how the common variance exist amongthe variables. The next step is to determine the factoability of the correlation matrix, for that we I have conducted two tests Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Kaiser- Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .836 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

Approx. Chi-Square 153.795 df 15 Sig. .000 Bartlett's test of sphericity Calculates the determinate of the matrix of the sums of products and cross-products (S) from which the intercorrelation matrix is derived. The determinant of the matrix is converted to a chisquare statistic and tested for significance. The null hypothesis is that the correlation matrix comes from a factor in which the variables are noncollinear (i.e. an identity matrix) And that the non-zero correlations in the sample matrix are due to sampling error. Test Result: 2 = 153.795 df = 15 Significance = 0.000 When the significance is 0.000, then it means that factor analysis is very much relevant for the the data set. Interpretation of the KMO as characterized by Kaiser, Meyer, and Olkin KMO Value Degree of Common Variance 0.90 to 1.00 Marvelous 0.80 to 0.89 Meritorious 0.70 to 0.79

Middling 0.60 to 0.69 Mediocre 0.50 to 0.59 Miserable 0.00 to 0.49 Don't Factor The KMO = 0.836 Interpretation: The degree of common variance among the six variables is "meritorious" bordering on "mervelous" If the factor analysis is conducted then the factors extracted will account for a significant amonut. Variety of methods have been developed to extract factors from an intercorrelation matrix. Among them the Principal Component Analysis is the most commonly used methodology. In the initial solution, each variable is standardized to have a mean of 0.0 and a standard deviation of 1.0. Thus The variance of each variable = 1.0 And the total variance to be explained is 6, i.e. 6 variables, each with a variance = 1.0 Since a single variable can account for 1.0 unit of variance A useful factor must account for more than 1.0 unit of variance, or have an eigenvalue l > 1.0 Otherwise the factor extracted explains no more variance than a single variable. Total Variance Explained

Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 3.799 63.315 63.315 3.799 63.315 63.315 2 .846 14.101 77.416 3 .515 8.579

85.995 4 .316 5.261 91.256 5 .281 4.688 95.944 6 .243 4.056 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. 6 factors (components) were extracted, the same as the number of variables factored. Factor I: The 1st factor has an eigenvalue = 3.799. Since this is greater than 1.0, it explains more variance than a single variable, in fact 3.799 times as much. The percent a variance explained (3.799 / 6 units of variance) (100) = 63.316% Factors 2 through 6 have eigenvalues less that 1, and therefore explain less variance that a single variable. The cumulative variance explained should be atleast 60% for the appropriateness odf the factor analysis. Here the first factor account for 63.315% of the variance, so all the remaining factor are not significant. The initial solution suggest that the final solution should not extract more than one factor.

Cattell's Scree Plot Another way to determine the number of factors to extract in the final solution is Cattell's scree plot. This is a plot of the eigenvalues associated with each of the factors extracted, against each factor. In the above diagram the graph is very stiff and we can also see that the first factor is very strongly influencing the level of satisfaction. Component Matrix The component matrix indicates the correlation of each variable with each factor. Component Matrixa Component 1 var15 .817 var16 .796 var17 .772 var18 .829 var19 .752 var20 .804 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a. 1 components extracted.

The variable sentence Correlates 0.817 with Factor I The total proportion of the variance in sentence explained by one factor is simply the sum of its squared factor loadings. (0.817)^2 = 0.668 This is called the communality of the variables The communalities of the 6 variables are as follows: Communalities Initial Extraction var15 1.000 .668 var16 1.000 .634 var17 1.000 .597 var18 1.000 .687 var19 1.000

.566 var20 1.000 .647 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Reproduced Correlations var15 var16 var17 var18 var19 var20 Reproduced Correlation var15 .668a .651 .631 .678 .615 .657 var16 .651 .634a

.615 .660 .599 .640 var17 .631 .615 .597a .640 .581 .621 var18 .678 .660 .640 .687a .624 .667 var19 .615 .599 .581 .624

.566a .605 var20 .657 .640 .621 .667 .605 .647a Residualb var15 .065 .031 -.102 -.210 -.129 var16 .065 -.052 -.144 -.160 -.080 var17

.031 -.052 -.044 -.150 -.181 var18 -.102 Factors Affecting Job Attitudes Leading to Dissatisfaction Leading to Satisfaction Company policy Supervision Relationship w/Boss Work conditions Salary Relationship w/Peers Achievement Recognition Work itself Responsibility Advancement Growth Herzberg and Money: It is often wrongly assumed that Herzberg did not value money, in the sense that he did not consider it a motivator. This is misleading, as Herzberg argues that the

absence of good hygiene factors including money, will lead to dissatisfaction and thus potentially block any attempt to motivate the worker. Herzberg prefers us to think of money as a force which will move an individual to perform a task, but not generate any internal desire to do the task well. In fact to get an individual to perform the task again, he argues, we will need to offer more money. Although the original studies have been repeated with different types of workers, and results have proved consistent with the original research, Herzberg's theory has been criticised. Critics point out that a single factor may be a satisfier for one person, but cause job dissatisfaction for another. For example increased responsibility may be welcomed by some, whilst dreaded by others. Whatever the criticisms, Herzberg has drawn our attention to the importance of job design in order to bring about job enrichment, emphasized in the phrase 'Quality of Working Life'. Data Analysis and Interpretation Table 1: To know the department in which the employees belong to Sl No. Department No of respondents Percentage 1 ISO 20 40 2 D2C 7 14 3 Brocking 11

22 4 Support & IT 5 10 5 Telestar 7 14 Total 50 100 From the above data we can see that 40% employee belong to ISO Channel 14% belong to D2c channel and another 14% belong to Telestar Channel 22% employee belong to Brocking channel Only 10% employee belong to Support Channel. Inferance: majority of the respondents belong to the ISO Channel. Table 2: To know the Marital Status of the employee Sl No Status No of respondent Percentage

1 Married 10 20 2 Single 40 80 Total 50 100 From the above data we can see that 80% of the respondents are Unmarried Only 20% of the respondents are Married Inferance: Majority of the respondents are unmarried which signifies that the workforcw is mainly young in this company Table 3: To know the Gender distribution pof the respondents Sl No. Gender No of respondents Percentage 1 Male 30

60 2 Female 20 40 Total 50 100 From the above data we van see that 40% of the respondents are Female 60% of the respondents are Male Inferance: Here the male and female ration is 3:2 which signifies that the gender discrimination is absent here Table 4: To know the Age of the respondents Sl No Age No of respondents Percentage 1 19-24 27 54 2 25-30

21 42 3 31-36 1 2 4 37 & above 1 2 Total 50 100 From the above data we can see that 54% of the respondents fall under the age group of 19 to 24 years 42% of the respondents fall under the age group of 25 to30 years It shows that majority of the employee are very young. Table 5: Educational Qualification of the respondents Sl No Educational Qualification No of respondents Percentage 1

Under Graduate 7 14 2 Graduate 31 62 3 Post Graduate 12 24 Total 50 100 From the above data we can see that 62% of the respondents are Graduate 24% of the respondents are Post graduate by qualification among them some have done MBA, some have done M.Com, some have specialized in other fields Only 24% of the respondents are Under Graduate, and these employees are mainly working as T.M.E. Inferance: Here majority of the employee are Graduate, which shows that the educational level is high Table 6: To know the relationship with the management and colleagues Sl No Relationship with management & colleagues

No of respondent Percentage(%) 1 Highly Dissatisfied 2 4.00% 2 Dissatisfied 4 8.00% 3 Neither Satisfied nor dissatisfied 22 44.00% 4 Satisfied 16 32.00% 5 Highly Satisfied 6 12.00% Total

50 100.00% From the above data we can see that A major proportion of the respondent have a good relationship with the management and colleagues (32%) Very few people are dissatisfied with the relationship(4%) Inferance: It can be said that the majority of the employee are satisfied with the management and their collegues. Management maintain a clear and regular communication with the employee. Table 7: Monthly Salary of the respondents Sl No. CTC(in Rs.) No of respondents Percentage 1 5000-14000 40 80 2 15000-24000 6 12 3 25000-34000 2

4 4 35000 & above 2 4 Total 50 100 From the above data we can see that 80% of the respondemts draw a monthly salary between Rs. 5000 to Rs.14000 Inferance: Here the maximum employee draw a salary between Rs. 5000- Rs.14000. So the overall salary scale is quite low. Table 8: To know the level of satisfaction with the compensation paid to the employees Sl No Incremental Benefits offered to employee No of respondent Percentage 1 Highly Dissatisfied 5 10 2 Dissatisfied 11

22 3 Neither Satisfied nor dissatisfied 23 46 4 Satisfied 7 14 5 Highly Satisfied 4 8 Total 50 100 From the above data we can see that only 14% respondents are satisfied with the compensation piad and 8% are highly satisfied. Whereas 10% respondents are highly dissatisfied with the compensation paid and 22% are dissatisfied with the compensation paid. Inferance: Here almost half of the respondents are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the compensation paid, 1/5th of the respondents are dissatisfied with the compensation structure. Which signify that the overall impression of the employee towards the company's compensation scheme is negative. Table 9: To know the level of satisfaction with the leave structure Sl No Level of satisfaction with the leave structure

No of respondent Percentage 1 Highly Dissatisfied 6 12 2 Dissatisfied 18 36 3 Neither Satisfied nor dissatisfied 16 32 4 Satisfied 6 12 5 Highly Satisfied 4 8 Total

50 100 From the above data we can see that 36% of the respondents are dissatiesfied with the paid leave structure and only 12% of the respondents are satissified with the leave structure. Inferance: Most of the employss are dissatiesfied with the paid leave structure of the company, which once again shows the employee's dissatiesfaction with the compensation allowances (as paid leave is a part of the compensation) Table 10: To know the level of satisfaction with other facilities provided by the company Sl No Level of satisfaction with the leave structure No of respondent Percentage 1 Highly Dissatisfied 0 0 2 Dissatisfied 5 10 3 Neither Satisfied nor dissatisfied 9 18

4 Satisfied 17 34 5 Highly Satisfied 19 38 Total 50 100 From the above data we can see that most of the respondents are satisfied with other facilities provoded by the company and only 10% of the respondents are dissatiesfied with the facilities provided by the company. Inferance: Here only 34% of the employee's are getting the benefit from the compsny's other benefit scheme like travelling allowances, telephone bill reimbursement facilities etc. So the company need to increase the number and make sure that the maximum number of employee should coverd under these facilities. Table 11: To know the reason for what the employee enjoy late sitting in the office Sl No Parameters CTC(monthly) For completion of work provides extra money provides food/snacks provides compensation allowance

Total 1 5000-14000 2 20 0 15 37 2 15000-24000 0 3 2 3 8 3 25000-34000 0 1 1 1 3 4

35000 & above 1 0 0 1 2 50 Table 12: To know the level of job satisfaction of the respondents based on their salary Sl No. Monthly Salary Overall Job satisfaction Highly Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied nor dissatisfied Satisfied Highly Satisfied Total 1 5000-14000 3 16 6 15

0 40 2 15000-24000 0 4 1 1 0 6 3 25000-34000 0 1 0 1 0 2 4 35000 & above 0 0 0

1 1 2 50 CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS The chi square test is one of the simplest and most widely used non-parametric tests in statistical work. As a non-parametric test it can be used to determine if categorical data shows dependency or the two classifications are independent. It can also be used to make comparisons between theoretical population and actual data when categories are used. n Chi square, = (fo-fe) / fe i=1 Where, fo= observed frequency fe= expected frequency CHI SQUARE TEST IS CONDUCTED TO EXTEND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE JOB SATISFACTION AND JOB COMPENSATION: Null Hypothesis (Ho): There is no significant relation between job satisfaction and job compensation Alternate Hypothesis (H1): There is a significant relation between job satisfaction and job compensation Observed Frequencies: Expected Frequencies: fe= row total* column total/total frequency Expected Frequencies Column Variable

Monthly Salary Highly Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied nor dissatisfied Satisfied Highly Satisfied Total 5000-14000 2.4 16.8 5.6 14.4 0.8 40 15000-24000 0.36 2.52 0.84 2.16 0.12 6 25000-34000 0.12

0.84 0.28 0.72 0.04 2 35000 & above 0.12 0.84 0.28 0.72 0.04 2 Total 3 21 7 18 1 50 Calculation: Degree of freedom = (no of row-1)*(no of column-1) Level of significance = 0.05 or 0.01 Here we have taken it 0.05

The above result of the chi-square test shows that the Critical Value or Tabulated Value = 21.03 and the Calculate Value = 28.01. Here the calculated value is greater than the critical value. It means that the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternate hypothesis is accepted. After analysing the above result we can reject the null hypothesis(H0) i.e. There is no significant relation between job satisfaction and job compensation and accept the alternate hypothesis i.e. There is a significant relation between job satisfaction and job compensation. It means that the level of job satisfaction is highly related with salary paid to the employee. More the salary the more is the job satisfaction and vice-versa. Factor Analysis: Factor analysis attempts to identify underlying variables, or factors, that explain the pattern of correlations within a set of observed variables. Factor analysis is often used in data reduction to identify a small number of factors that explain most of the variance observed in a much larger number of manifest variables. Factor analysis can also be used to generate hypotheses regarding causal mechanisms or to screen variables for subsequent analysis (for example, to identify collinearity prior to performing a linear regression analysis). In this survey I have used the factor analysis methodology to find out which is the most important factor that attracts the employee most. Whether it is the compensation schemes or the incentives or the gratuity policy or any other factor. The variable taken are as follows: The salary is commensurate to the responsibilities shouldered, denoted as variable15 The review system is a regular phenomenon, denoted as Variable 16 Availability of paid leave, denoted as Variable 17 Availability of the insuarance scheme, denoted as Variable 18 Effectiveness of the welfare schemes of the employee,denoted as Variable 19 Level of satisfaction with the gratuity policy of the company, denoted as Variable 20 Correlation Matrixa var15

var16 var17 var18 var19 var20 Correlation var15 1.000 .716 .662 .575 .405 .528 var16 .716 1.000 .563 .516 .439 .561 var17 .662 .563

1.000 .596 .431 .440 var18 .575 .516 .596 1.000 .644 .615 var19 .405 .439 .431 .644 1.000 .695 var20 .528 .561 .440 .615

.695 1.000 a. Determinant = .036 This correlation matrix is used to find out that how the common variance exist amongthe variables. The next step is to determine the factoability of the correlation matrix, for that we I have conducted two tests Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Kaiser- Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .836 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 153.795 df 15 Sig. .000 Bartlett's test of sphericity Calculates the determinate of the matrix of the sums of products and cross-products (S) from which the intercorrelation matrix is derived. The determinant of the matrix is converted to a chisquare statistic and tested for significance. The null hypothesis is that the correlation matrix comes from a factor in which the variables are noncollinear (i.e. an identity matrix) And that the non-zero correlations in the sample matrix are due to sampling error. Test Result:

2 = 153.795 df = 15 Significance = 0.000 When the significance is 0.000, then it means that factor analysis is very much relevant for the the data set. Interpretation of the KMO as characterized by Kaiser, Meyer, and Olkin KMO Value Degree of Common Variance 0.90 to 1.00 Marvelous 0.80 to 0.89 Meritorious 0.70 to 0.79 Middling 0.60 to 0.69 Mediocre 0.50 to 0.59 Miserable 0.00 to 0.49 Don't Factor The KMO = 0.836 Interpretation: The degree of common variance among the six variables is "meritorious" bordering on "mervelous"

If the factor analysis is conducted then the factors extracted will account for a significant amonut. Variety of methods have been developed to extract factors from an intercorrelation matrix. Among them the Principal Component Analysis is the most commonly used methodology. In the initial solution, each variable is standardized to have a mean of 0.0 and a standard deviation of 1.0. Thus The variance of each variable = 1.0 And the total variance to be explained is 6, i.e. 6 variables, each with a variance = 1.0 Since a single variable can account for 1.0 unit of variance A useful factor must account for more than 1.0 unit of variance, or have an eigenvalue l > 1.0 Otherwise the factor extracted explains no more variance than a single variable. Total Variance Explained Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 3.799

63.315 63.315 3.799 63.315 63.315 2 .846 14.101 77.416 3 .515 8.579 85.995 4 .316 5.261 91.256 5 .281 4.688 95.944 6 .243

4.056 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. 6 factors (components) were extracted, the same as the number of variables factored. Factor I: The 1st factor has an eigenvalue = 3.799. Since this is greater than 1.0, it explains more variance than a single variable, in fact 3.799 times as much. The percent a variance explained (3.799 / 6 units of variance) (100) = 63.316% Factors 2 through 6 have eigenvalues less that 1, and therefore explain less variance that a single variable. The cumulative variance explained should be atleast 60% for the appropriateness odf the factor analysis. Here the first factor account for 63.315% of the variance, so all the remaining factor are not significant. The initial solution suggest that the final solution should not extract more than one factor. Cattell's Scree Plot Another way to determine the number of factors to extract in the final solution is Cattell's scree plot. This is a plot of the eigenvalues associated with each of the factors extracted, against each factor. In the above diagram the graph is very stiff and we can also see that the first factor is very strongly influencing the level of satisfaction. Component Matrix The component matrix indicates the correlation of each variable with each factor. Component Matrixa Component 1 var15 .817

var16 .796 var17 .772 var18 .829 var19 .752 var20 .804 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a. 1 components extracted. The variable sentence Correlates 0.817 with Factor I The total proportion of the variance in sentence explained by one factor is simply the sum of its squared factor loadings. (0.817)^2 = 0.668 This is called the communality of the variables The communalities of the 6 variables are as follows: Communalities Initial Extraction var15 1.000

.668 var16 1.000 .634 var17 1.000 .597 var18 1.000 .687 var19 1.000 .566 var20 1.000 .647 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Reproduced Correlations var15 var16 var17 var18 var19

var20 Reproduced Correlation var15 .668a .651 .631 .678 .615 .657 var16 .651 .634a .615 .660 .599 .640 var17 .631 .615 .597a .640 .581 .621

var18 .678 .660 .640 .687a .624 .667 var19 .615 .599 .581 .624 .566a .605 var20 .657 .640 .621 .667 .605 .647a Residualb var15

.065 .031 -.102 -.210 -.129 var16 .065 -.052 -.144 -.160 -.080 var17 .031 -.052 -.044 -.150 -.181 var18 -.102