You are on page 1of 74

A

Project Study Report


On

MAX-NEW YORK LIFE ISURENCE

“A STUDY ON JOB SATISFACTION OF EMPLOYEES ‘’

Submitted in partial fulfillment for the


Award of degree of
Master of Business Administration

Submitted By:
Submitted TO

KHUSBU JAIN DR.MAHIMA


BIRLA
MBA PART

CERTIFICATE

This is certify that the project work done on A STUDY ON JOB SATISFACTION

OF EMPLOYEES

Submitted to MAX-NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE LIMITED, UDAIPUR for the

partial fulfillment of requirement of award of MBA programme.

This benefited work is carried out by at MAX-NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE

LIMITED,UDAIPUR., (Raj).

DATE :- KHUSBU JAIN


PLACE:- MBA YEAR [ 07-09 ]
PACIFIC INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, UDAIPUR

PREFACE

The project work entitled “A STUDY ON JOB SATISFACTION OF


EMPLOYEES OF
MAX-NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE LIMITED,UDAIPUR”
Job Satisfaction is the favorableness or un-favorableness with
which the employee views his work. It expresses the amount of
agreement between one’s expectation of the job and the rewards that the
job provides. Job Satisfaction is a part of life satisfaction. The nature of
one’s environment of job is an important part of life as Job Satisfaction
influences one’s general life satisfaction.
Job Satisfaction, thus, is the result of various attitudes possessed by an
employee. In a narrow sense, these attitudes are related to the job under
condition with such specific factors such as wages. Supervisors of
employment, conditions of work, social relation on the job, prompt
settlement of grievances and fair treatment by employer.
However, more comprehensive approach requires that many factors are
to be included before a complete understanding of job satisfaction can be
obtained. Such factors as employee’s age, health temperature, desire and
level of aspiration should be considered. Further his family relationship,
Social status, recreational outlets, activity in the organizations etc.
Contribute ultimately to job satisfaction.

Place: Signature of
the student
Date

3
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I am indebted to the all powerful ALMIGHTY GOD for all the blessings
he
showered on me and for being with me throughout the study.
I would like to express my sincere thanks to EMPLOYEE OF MAX-NEW
YORK LIFE management who provided me an opportunity to do this
project.
I am deeply obliged to Mr. RAYMOND LOBO (VICE PRESIDENT-HR) AND
MS. MALINI (HR-MANAGER) for his exemplary guidance and support
without
whose help this project would not have been success.
I would like to place on record my sincere gratitude and appreciation
to my project guide
MRS. MAHIMA BIRLA Pacific institute of management, for his kind
cooperation
and guidance which enabled me to complete my project.
I also take this opportunity to express my deed gratitude to my loving
parents and
friends who are a constant source of motivation and for their never
ending support and
encouragement during this project.

4
CONTENT :

SR. NO. SUBJECTS PAGES


COVERED

1. PROJECT 1-4
PROPOSED

2. INTRODUCTION 5

3. REVIEW OF 7
LITERATURE

4. OBJECTIVE OF THE
STUDY

5. INDUSTRY PROFILE

6. RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY
DATA ANALYSIS AND
7. INTERPRETATION

8. FINDINGS

5
9. QUESTIONIAR

CHAPTER -1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Job Satisfaction:


Job Satisfaction is the favorableness or un-favorableness with
which the employee views his work. It expresses the amount of
agreement between one’s expectation of the job and the rewards that the
job provides. Job Satisfaction is a part of life satisfaction. The nature of
one’s environment of job is an important part of life as Job Satisfaction
influences one’s general life satisfaction.
Job Satisfaction, thus, is the result of various attitudes possessed by an
employee. In a narrow sense, these attitudes are related to the job under
condition with such specific factors such as wages. Supervisors of
employment, conditions of work, social relation on the job, prompt
settlement of grievances and fair treatment by employer.
However, more comprehensive approach requires that many factors are
to be included before a complete understanding of job satisfaction can be
obtained. Such factors as employee’s age, health temperature, desire and
level of aspiration should be considered. Further his family relationship,
Social status, recreational outlets, activity in the organizations etc.
Contribute ultimately to job satisfaction.

6
1.2 FACTORS INFLUENCING JOB SATISFACTION
The major factors influencing job satisfaction are presented below:

SUPERVISION
To a worker, Supervision is equally a strong contributor to the job
satisfaction as well as to the job dissatisfaction. The feelings of workers
towards his supervisors are usually similar to his feeling towards the
company. The role of supervisor is a focal point for attitude formation.
Bad supervision results in absenteeism and labor turnover. Good
supervision results in higher production and good industrial relations.

CO-WORKERS
Various studies had traced this factor as a factor of intermediate
importance. One’s associates with others had frequently been motivated
as a factor in job satisfaction. Certainly, this seems reasonable because
people like to be near their friends. The workers derive satisfaction when
the co-workers are helpful, friendly and co-operative.

PAY
Studies also show that most of the workers felt satisfied when they are

7
paid more adequately to the work performed by them. The relative
important of pay would probably changing factor in job satisfaction or
dissatisfaction.

AGE
Age has also been found to have a direct relationship to level job of
satisfaction of employees. In some groups job satisfaction is higher with
increasing age, in other groups job satisfaction is lower and in other
there is no difference at all.

MARITAL STATUS
Marital status has an important role in deciding the job satisfaction.
Most of the studies have revealed that the married person finds
dissatisfaction in his job than his unmarried counterpart. The reasons
stated to be are that wages were insufficient due to increased cost of
living, educations to children etc.

EDUCATION
Studies conducted among various workers revealed that most of workers
who had not completed their school education showed higher satisfaction
level. However, educated workers felt less satisfied in their job.

8
WORKING CONDITION
The result of various studies shows that working condition is an
important factor. Good working atmosphere and pleasant surroundings
help increasing the production of industry. Working conditions are more
important to women workers than men workers.

1.3 REVIEW OF LITERATURE:


JOB SATISFACTION OF MAX-NEW YORK LIFE IN india

– by NAZRUL ISLAM & GOUR CHANDRA SAHA

This study attempts to evaluate job satisfaction of MAX-NEW YORK LIFE

in

india. It focuses on the relative importance of job satisfaction

factors and their impacts on the overall job satisfaction of officers. It also

investigates the impacts of bank type, work experience, age, and sex

differences on the attitudes toward job Satisfaction.

The result shows that salary, efficiency in work, fringe

supervision, and co-worker relation are the most important factors

contributing to job satisfaction. Private MAX-NEW YORK LIFE have

higher levels

of job satisfaction than those from public sectors as they enjoy better

facilities and supportive work environment. Sex and age differences have

relatively lower level of impact on it. The overall job satisfaction of the

MAX-NEW YORK LIFE is at the positive level.

9
.

1.4 Objective of the study:

1. To Study the job satisfaction of employees in MAX-NEW YORK LIFE


Insurance, Udaipur.

2. To Measure the satisfaction levels of employees on various factors


and give suggestions for improving the same.

3. To find out whether experience have an effect on Job Factors.

4. To find the significance difference among age groups with respect


to job Factors.

10
5. To find the significance difference among male and female
employees with respect to job Factors.

1.5 Limitations of the study:

1. Sample size of the study is only 37.

2. Some of the respondents were not responding to some of the


questions.

3. Due to time constraint the researcher was not able to complete the
project to desired level.

11
INDUSTRY PROFILE
.
Indian insurance industry

History:

Life insurance came to India from England in 1818 when oriental life

insurance company started in Calcutta by Europeans. After this many insurance

companies had been started in India. But these companies were looking after

only the needs of European community established in India. Indian people were

not being insured by these companies. First Indian life insurance company came

as Bombay mutual life insurance assurance. Second company was Bharat

insurance company came in 1896. After this the united India in madras, national

12
Indian and national insurance in Calcutta and the co-operative assurance in

Lahore were established in 1906.

To regulate Indian insurance business first insurance act came in

1912 as life insurance company act and provident fund act. These acts consist of

premium rates tables and periodical valuations of companies. In the first two

decade of 20th century many life insurance companies were started. So the

insurance act came in 1938 to governing life and non life insurance companies

and to provide strict state control. In 1956 the life insurance business in India was

nationalized. In 1956 life insurance corporation of India (LIC) was created to

spreading life insurance much more widely particularly in rural areas. In that year

LIC had 5 zonal offices, 33 divisional offices and 212 branch offices. In 1957 the

business of LIC of sum assured of 200crores, 1000crores in 1970, and

7000crores in 1986.

Indian regulatory development authority:

In 1999, the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) was

constituted as an autonomous body to regulate and develop the insurance

industry. The IRDA was incorporated as a statutory body in April, 2000. The key

objectives of the IRDA include promotion of competition so as to enhance

customer satisfaction through increased consumer choice and lower premiums,

while ensuring the financial security of the insurance market. The IRDA opened

13
up the market in August 2000 with the invitation for application for registrations.

Foreign companies were allowed ownership of up to 26%. The Authority has the

power to frame regulations under Section 114A of the Insurance Act, 1938 and

has from 2000 onwards framed various regulations ranging from registration of

companies for carrying on insurance business to protection of policyholders’

interests.

Role of IRDA:

• Protecting the interests of policyholders.

• Establishing guidelines for the operations of insurers, and brokers.

• Specifying the code of conduct, qualifications, and training for insurance

intermediaries and agents.

• Promoting efficiency in the conduct of insurance business.

• Regulating the investment of funds by insurance companies.

• Specifying the percentage of business to be written by insurers in rural

sectors.

• Handling disputes between insurers and insurance intermediaries.

Changing perception of Indian customers:

Indian Insurance consumers are like Indian Voters, they are soft but when time is

right and ripe, they demand and seek necessary changes. De-tariff of many

14
Insurance Products are the reflection of changing aspirations and growing

demand of Indian consumers.

For historical years, Indian consumers were at receiving end. Insurance Product

was underwritten and was practically forced onto consumers on a “Take-it-As-it-

basis”. All that got changed with passage of IRDA act in 1999. New insurance

companies have come into existence leading to open competition and hence

better products for customers.

Indian customers have become very sensitive to Coverage / Premium as well as

the Products (read Risk Solution), that is given to them. There are not ready to

accept any product, no matter even if that is coming from the market leader,

should that product is not serving the purpose. A case in point is ULIP Product /

Group Life and Credit Life in Life Insurance segment and Travel / Family Floater

Health and Liability Insurance in the Non-life segment are new age Avatar. The

new products are constantly being demanded by Indian consumers, which is

putting huge pressures on Insurance companies (Read Risk Under-writers) and

Brokers to respond.

Customers are looking at Insurance for covering Pure Risk now which I have

covered in my next section. Another good reason why we are seeing quick

changes in the buying behavior of Insurance from mere Investment to risk

15
mitigation is the cost of Replacement of Goods (ROG) or Cost of Services

(COS).

Now Indian customers are aware of insurance industry and insurance products

provided by companies. They have become more sensitive. They would not

accept any type of insurance product unless it fulfills their requirements and

needs. In historic day’s customers looking at insurance products as a life cover

which can provide security against any unacceptable events, but now customers

look at insurance products as an investment as well as life cover. So today’s

customers wants good return from the insurance companies. The Indian

customer’s forms the pivot of each company’s strategy.

Investment of Indian household savings (as a % in different sector)

BANK DEPOSITS 39%


CORP. BANKS 2%
SHARES AND DEBENTURES 1%

MUTUAL FUNDS 2%
NBFC’S 3%
GOVT. BONDS 13%
INSURANCE 13%
PF/ RETIRE FUNDS 21%
CURRENCY 6%

Changing face of Indian insurance industry:

After the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act have been

passed there has been establishment of many private insurance companies in

India. Previously there was a monopoly business for Life Insurance Corporation

16
of India (L.I.C.) who was the only life-insurance company for the people till 2000.

L.I.C. still holds 71.4% of the market share in 2006. But after the introduction of

private life insurance companies there is a great competition in Indian market

now. Everyone is trying to capture the fresh market here and penetrate it with

aggressive marketing strategies. Today life-insurance is not only limited up to just

life risk cover and maturity period bonuses but changed to greater return from the

investments. With the introduction of the unit linked insurance policies these

companies are investing the money in different investment instruments like

shares, bonds, debentures, government and other securities. People are

demanding for higher returns with the life risk cover and private companies are

giving 30-40% average growth per annum. These life-insurance companies have

every kind of policies suiting every need right from financial needs of, marriage,

giving birth and rearing up a child, his education, meeting daily financial needs of

life, pension solutions after retirement. These companies have every aspects and

needs of our life covered along with the death-benefit.

In India only 25% of the population has life

insurance. So Indian life-insurance market is the target market of all the

companies who either want to extend or diversify their business. To tap the

Indian market there has been tie-ups between the major Indian companies with

other International insurance companies to start up their business. The

government of India has set up rules that no foreign insurance company can set

up their business individually here and they have to tie up with an Indian

17
company and this foreign insurance company can have an investment of only

24% of the total start-up investment.

Indian insurance industry can be featured by:

• Low market penetration.

• Ever growing middle class component in population.

• Growth of customer’s interest with an increasing demand for better

insurance products.

• Application of information technology for business.

• Rebate from government in the form of tax incentives to be insured.

Today, the Indian life insurance industry has a dozen private

players, each of which are making strides in raising awareness levels,

introducing innovative products and increasing the penetration of life insurance in

the vastly underinsured country. Several of private insurers have introduced

attractive products to meet the needs of their target customers and in line with

their business objectives. The success of their effort is that they have captured

over 28% of premium income in five years.

18
The biggest beneficiary of the competition among life insurers has

been the customer. A wide range of products, customer focused service and

professional advice has become the mainstay of the industry, and the Indian

customer’s forms the pivot of each company’s strategy. Penetration of life

insurance is beginning to cut across socio-economic classes and attract people

who have never purchased insurance before.

Life insurance is also now being regarded as a versatile financial

planning tool. Apart from the traditional term and saving insurance policies,

industry has seen the entry and growth of unit linked products. This provides

market linked returns and is among the most flexible policies available today for

investment. Now products are priced, flexible, and realistic and sustain so people

in better position to understand the risk and benefits of the product and they are

accepting these innovative products.

So it is clear that the face of life insurance in India is changing, but

with the changes come a host of challenges and it is only the credible players

with a long term vision and a robust business strategy that will survive. Whatever

the developments, the future and the opportunities in this industry will surely be

exciting.

There are 12 private players in Indian life insurance market.

6 bank owned insurers: - HDFC standard life, ICICI prudential, ING Vysya,

MetLife, OM Kotak, SBI life.

6 independent insurers: - Aviva, ANP sanmar, Birla sun life, Bajaj Allianz, Max

New York life, Tata AIG.

19
Major international insurers are- Prudential and

Standard life from UK, Sun life of Canada, AIG, MetLife and New York life of the

US.

Increasing growth since liberalization:

YEAR LIC (in bn rs.) PRIVATE PLAYER


FY03 110 10
FY04 120 20
FY05 130 40
FY06 140 60
FY07 240 160

Source: - Insurance Industry (ICFAI publication book)

Possibilities for insurance companies in India:

• Further deregulation of the market.

• Greater concern for the customers.

• Newer products and services.

• Competition and quality consciousness.

• Cost effective operations.

• Restructuring of the public sector.

• Consolidation of domestic insurance markets.

• Technology driven shift in product design.

20
• Actual operations and distribution.

• Convergence of financial services.

5. Global insurance industry

Globally, insurers increasingly are pressured by the demands of their clients. The

development of global insurance industry over the past few years was influenced

by booming stock markets which enabled considerable capital gains to be made

in non life business. Increase in insurers equity capital increased underwriting

capacity, while demand did not develop at the same pace, resulting in decrease

in insurance policies prices. The stock market boom of the past few years led to

demand for unit linked insurance products.

The global insurance industry is growing at rapid pace. Most of the markets

are undergoing globalization. Lot of mergers and acquisition are taking place in

the insurance world. The rapidity in the industry, technological improvement has

resulted in pressures on a few economic parameters. The world insurance

industry is at peak of its globalization process.

Global insurance market is increasing by an average of six percent per

year since 1990. Insurance companies have collected $2443.7 billion premium

21
world wide according to the global development of premium volume in 144

countries in 2005. $1521.3 has been generated as life insurance premium and

$922.7 as non life insurance premium. The US accounted for 35% of global life

and non life premium, Japan had global share of 21%, and UK was having 10%

of global share.

Influence on Indian insurance industry:

In this era of globalization, insurance companies face a dynamic global

environment. Dramatic changes are taking place owing to the internationalization

of activities, appearance of new risk, new types of covers to match with new risk

situations, and unconventional and innovative ideas on customer services. Low

growth rates in developed markets, changing customers needs, and the

uncertain economic conditions in the developing world are exerting pressure on

insurer’s resources and testing their ability to survive. Now the existing insurers

are facing difficulties from non-traditional competitors those are entering the retail

market with new approaches and through new channels.

India has a rapidly growing middle class and this section can afford to

buy insurance products. This shows the attraction that the Indian market holds

for foreign insurers who have been putting pressure on developing countries as

well as on India to open up its market.

Life insurance penetration as a % of GDP

United kingdom 8.9%


Japan 8.3%

22
Korea 7.3%
United states 4.1%
Malaysia 3.6%
India 3.0%
China 1.8%
Brazil 1.3%

CHAPTER – III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

The methodology followed for conducting the study includes the specification of

research design, sample design, questionnaire design, data collection and

statistical tools used for analyzing the collected data.

3.1 Research design:

23
The research design used for this study is of the descriptive type. Descriptive

research studies are those studies which are concerned with describing the

characteristics of a particular individual or a group.

3.2 Sample size:

The sample size consisting of 37 respondents were selected for the study.

3.3 Sampling design:

Since it is difficult to contact the entire population, sampling technique was

adopted. The employees were interviewed using convenience sampling

techniques.

3.4 Questionnaire design:

Questionnaire was designed in consultation with the experts of MAX-NEW YORK

LIFE Insurance Company in such a manner that it would facilitate the

respondents to reveal maximum information.

3.5 Data collection

24
The primary data was collected by using questionnaires. The questionnaire has

28 questions excluding marital status, age, factor prompted to join reliance. A five

point scale was used such as strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree and

strongly agree.

3.6 Statistical tools used for analysis

The collected data were analyzed by using following techniques:

Percentage analysis

One-way ANOVA

CHAPTER –IV

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

TABLE NO. 1

Frequency Percent
Male 80 80
Female 20 20

25
TotaL 100 100

Chart no: 1

100

80

60 Male
Female
40
TotaL
20

0
Frequency

Table no: 2 MONTHLY INCOME

Frequency Percent
Below rs.10000 2 2

10000-20000 15 15
20000-30000 10 10
ABOVE 30000 10 10
TOTAL

26
16
14
12
Below rs.10000
10
10000-20000
8
20000-30000
6
ABOVE 30000
4
TOTAL
2
0
Frequency

Table No: 3

Education qualification

Frequency Percent
P.G 90 90
U.G 10 10
TOTAL

Chart No: 3

27
100

80

60 P.G
U.G
40
TOTAL
20

0
Frequency

Tale No: 4

Frequency Percent
married 80 80
Unmarried 20 20
Total 100 100

28
Chart no: 4

100

80

60 married
Unmarried
40
Total
20

0
Frequency

Table No: 5

Years of Experience

Frequency Percent
Less than 1yr 8 8.0
1-2 yrs 26 26
2-3yrs 20 20
3-4yrs 26 26
Above 4yrs 20 20
Total 100 100

29
CHART
NO.5

100

80 Less than 1yr


60 1-2 yrs
2-3yrs
40 3-4yrs
Above 4yrs
20
Total
0
Frequency

Table No: 6
Working hours are convenient for me
Frequency Percent
strongly agree 34 34
agree 32 32
neither agree nor 18 18
disagree
disagree 13 13
strongly disagree 3 3
Total 100 100

30
Chart no. 6

100 strongly agree

80 agree

60 neither agree nor


disagree
40 disagree

20 strongly disagree

0 Total
Frequency

Interpretation:
From the above chart and table it is clearly evident that 34% of the
respondents strongly agree that working hours are convenient from them
and 32% agree with that and 18% neither agree nor disagree and 13%
disagree with the working hours and 3% are strongly against working
hours.

31
Table No: 7
I'm happy with my work place

Frequency Percent
Strongly agree 30 30

Agree 39 39
neither agree nor 18 18
disagree
Disagree 8 8
strongly disagree 5 5
Total 100 100

Chart No: 7

Strongly agree
100

80 Agree

60 neither agree nor


disagree
40 Disagree

20 strongly disagree

0
Frequency Total

Interpretation:
From the above table it is clear that 30% respondents strongly agree and
39% respondents agree that they are happy with their work place only
13% disagreed and 18% have no idea towards their work place.

32
Table No: 8

I feel i have too much work to do

Frequency Percent
strongly agree 7 7
Agree 9 9
neither agree nor 25 25
disagree
Disagree 37 37
strongly disagree 22 22
Total 100 100

Chart No: 8

strongly agree
100

80 Agree

60 neither agree nor


disagree
40 Disagree

20 strongly disagree

0
Total
Frequency

33
Interpretation:
From the above table it is quite clear that the work load is not
high, 37% of the respondents disagreed with the question” I feel I have
too much work” and another 22% strongly disagreed, 18% admits they
have too much work and 23% have no idea towards this question.

Table No: 9
safety measures provided by the company

Frequency Percent
strongly agree 28 28
Agree 31 31
neither agree nor 24 24
disagree
Disagree 11 11
strongly disagree 6 6
Total 100 100

34
Chart No: 9

100 strongly agree

80 Agree

60 neither agree nor


disagree
40 Disagree

20 strongly disagree

0 Total
Frequency

Interpretation:
From the above table it is evident that the safety measures
provided by the organizations are good as 28 and 31% of the respondents
agree with that and only 11& 6% disagreed and 24% neither agreed nor
disagreed.

35
TableNo: 10
My relationship with my supervisor is cordial

Frequency Percent
strongly agree 30 30
Agree 41 41
neither agree nor 16 16
disagree
Disagree 6 6
strongly disagree 7 7
Total 100 100

Chart No: 10

36
strongly agree
100

80 Agree

60 neither agree nor


disagree
40 Disagree

20 strongly disagree
0
Frequency Total

Interpretation:
From the above table it is clear that relationship between
employees and their supervisors are cordial because 30% of respondents
strongly agreed to it and 41% agreed to it and only 13% disagreed and
16% of respondents have neither agreed nor disagreed.

37
Table No: 11
My supervisor is not partial

Frequency Percent
18 18
Agree 30 30
neither agree nor 15 15
disagree
Disagree 19 19
strongly disagree 18 18
Total 100 100

Chart No: 11
My supervisor is not partial

3-D Column 1
100

80 Agree

60 neither agree nor


disagree
40 Disagree

20 strongly disagree

0
Frequency Total

38
Interpretation:
From the above table it is evident that the supervisors are not
partial to the employees as 18% strongly agreed and 30% agreed to the
question but 19% disagreed and 18% strongly disagreed this level is
quite high compared to other questions.

Table No: 12
My supervisor considers my idea too while taking decision

Frequency Percent
strongly agree 26 26
Agree 43 43
neither agree nor 26 26
disagree
Disagree 2 2
strongly disagree 3 3
Total 100 100

39
Chart No: 12

strongly agree
100

80 Agree

60 neither agree nor


disagree
40 Disagree

20 strongly disagree

0
Frequency Total

Interpretation:
From the above table it is clear that 26 and 42% of the
respondents agree that supervisors consider their employees ideas also
and only 5% disagreed and 26% neither agreed nor disagreed.

Table No: 13

I'm satisfied with the support from my co-workers

Frequency Percent
strongly agree 21 21
Agree 47 47
neither agree nor 16 16
disagree
Disagree 9 9
strongly disagree 7 7
Total 100 100

40
Chart No: 13
I'm satisfied with the support from my co-workers

strongly agree
100

80 Agree

60 neither agree nor


disagree
40 Disagree

20 strongly disagree

0
Total
Frequency

Interpretation:
From the above table it is clear that relation with co-workers is
quite good as nearly 68% of the respondents agree that they are satisfied
with support from co-workers and only 15% disagreed and 16% have no
answer to this

Table No: 14

41
People here have concern from one another and tend to help one another

Frequency Percent
strongly agree 26 26
Agree 41 41
neither agree nor 19 19
disagree
Disagree 9 9
strongly disagree 5 5
Total 100 100

Chart No: 14

42
People here have concern from one another and tend to help one another

strongly agree
100

80 Agree

60 neither agree nor


disagree
40 Disagree

20 strongly disagree

0
Total
Frequency

Interpretation:
From the above table it is clear that in this organization people
have concern over each other as 26% strongly agreed and 41% agreed
and only 14% disagreed and 19% neither agreed nor disagreed.

Table No: 15

43
I'm satisfied with the refreshment facilities

Frequency Percent
strongly agree 9 9
Agree 20 20
neither agree nor 30 30
disagree
Disagree 26 26
strongly disagree 15 15
Total 100 100

Chart No: 15
I'm satisfied with the refreshment facilities

strongly agree
100

80 Agree

60 neither agree nor


disagree
40 Disagree

20
strongly disagree
0
Frequency Total

44
Interpretation:
From the above table it is clear that the employees are not satisfied
with the refreshment facilities offered by the company as 26% of
respondents disagreed and 15% strongly disagreed and 30% neither
agreed nor disagreed and only 29% agreed.

Table No: 16

We are provided with the rest and lunch room and they are good

Frequency Percent
strongly agree 8 8
Agree 16 16
neither agree nor 22 22
disagree
Disagree 34 34
strongly disagree 20 20
Total 100 100

45
Chart No: 16
We are provided with the rest and lunch room and they are We are provided with
the good

strongly agree
100

80 Agree

60 neither agree nor


disagree
40 Disagree

20 strongly disagree

0
Frequency Total

Interpretation:
From the above table it is quite evident that 24% strongly
disagreed and 30% of the respondents disagreed and 22% neither agreed
nor disagreed and only 24% of the respondents are satisfied with the rest
and lunch room provided.

Table No: 17
The parking space for our vehicles are satisfactory

46
Frequency Percent
strongly agree 4 4
Agree 9 9
neither agree nor 24 24
disagree
Disagree 32 32
strongly disagree 31 31
Total 100 100

Chart No: 17
The parking space for our vehicles are satisfactory

strongly agree
100

80 Agree

60 neither agree nor


disagree
40 Disagree

20 strongly disagree

0
Total
Frequency

Interpretation:
From the above table it is clear that respondents are not satisfied

47
with the parking facilities provided by the company as 31% of
respondents strongly disagreed and 32% of respondents disagreed and
only 13% of respondents are satisfied with the parking facilities and 24%
have neither agreed nor disagreed.

Table No: 18
I fell I'm paid a fair amount for the work i do

Frequency Percent
strongly agree 15 15
Agree 39 39
neither agree nor 25 25
disagree
Disagree 13 13
strongly disagree 8 8
Total 100 100

Chart No: 18
I fell I'm paid a fair amount for the work i do

48
strongly agree
100

80 Agree

60 neither agree nor


disagree
40 Disagree

20
strongly disagree
0
Frequency Total

Interpretation:
From the above table it is evident that the respondents are
satisfied with their salary as 39% agree and 15% strongly agree. Only
`3% disagree and 8% strongly disagree, 25% neither agree nor disagree.

Table No: 19
I'm satisfied with the chances for my promotion

49
Frequency Percent
strongly agree 27 27
Agree 43 43
neither agree nor 13 13
disagree
Disagree 9 9
strongly disagree 8 8
Total 100 100

Chart No: 19
I'm satisfied with the chances for my promotion

100 strongly agree


90
80 Agree
70
60 neither agree nor
50 disagree
40 Disagree
30
20 strongly disagree
10
0 Total
Frequency

50
Interpretation:
From the above table it is quite clear that employees are satisfied
with their chances for promotion as 43% agree and 27% strongly agree.
Only 9% disagree and 8% strongly disagree, 13% neither agree nor
disagree.

Table No: 20

The salary we receive are good as other organizations offer pay to their
employees

Frequency Percent
strongly agree 27 27
Agree 37 37
neither agree nor 26 26
disagree
Disagree 6 6
strongly disagree 4 4
Total 100 100

51
Chart No: 20
The salary we receive are good as other organizations offer The salary we
receive are good as

100 strongly agree

80 Agree

60 neither agree nor


disagree
40 Disagree

20 strongly disagree

0 Total
Frequency

Interpretation:
From the above table it is quite clear that the salary in this
organization is at par to the industry as 37% agree and 27% strongly
agree. Only 6% disagree and 4% strongly disagree, 26% neither agree nor
disagree.

Table No: 21

I'm satisfied with the allownaces provided by the organization

52
Frequency Percent
strongly agree 19 19
Agree 42 42
neither agree nor 21 21
disagree
Disagree 11 11
strongly disagree 7 7
Total 100 100

Chart No: 21
I'm satisfied with the allownaces provided by the organization

100 strongly agree

80 Agree

60 neither agree nor


disagree
40 Disagree

20 strongly disagree

0 Total
Frequency

Interpretation:
From the above table it is clear that the employees are satisfied

53
with the allowances and other benefits provided by the organization as
42% agree and 19% strongly agree. Only 11% disagree and 7% strongly
disagree, 21% neither agree nor disagree.

Table No: 22

I feel my boss motivate me to achieve the organizational goals

Frequency Percent
strongly agree 11 11
Agree 33 33
neither agree nor 25 25
disagree
Disagree 22 22
strongly disagree 9 9
Total 100 100

Chart No: 22
I feel my boss motivate me to achieve the organizational goals

54
100
strongly agree
90
80 Agree
70
60 neither agree nor
50 disagree
40 Disagree
30
20 strongly disagree
10
0 Total
Frequency

Interpretation:
From the above table it is evident that employees boss are
motivating to achieve organizational goals as 33% agree and 11%
strongly agree. 22% disagree this is quite high compared to other factors
and 9% strongly disagree and 25% neither agree nor disagree.

Table No: 23

My supervisor motivates me to increase my efficiency at times when i'm not

55
Frequency Percent
strongly agree 18 18
Agree 44 44
neither agree nor 18 18
disagree
Disagree 13 13
strongly disagree 7 7

Total 100 100

Chart No: 23
My supervisor motivates me to increase my efficiency at My supervisor motivates
me to increase

100 strongly agree

80 Agree

60 neither agree nor


disagree
40 Disagree

20 strongly disagree

0 Total
Frequency

Interpretation:
From the above table it is evident that employees boss motivates
the employee when he is unproductive and help him to be productive as
44% agree and 18% strongly agree. Only 7% strongly disagree and 7%
disagree, 18% neither agree nor disagree.

56
.
.

Table No: 24

Overall I'm satisfied with my job

Frequency Percent
strongly agree 21 21
Agree 33 33
neither agree nor 25 25
disagree
Disagree 15 15
strongly disagree 6 6
Total 100 100

Chart No: 24
Overall I'm satisfied with my job

57
strongly agree
100

80 Agree

60 neither agree nor


disagree
40 Disagree

20 strongly disagree

0
Frequency Total

Interpretation:
From the above table it is evident that Overall satisfactions of the
respondents are good as 33% agree and 21% strongly agree. Only 6%
strongly disagree and 15% disagree and 25% neither agree nor disagree.

DATA ANALYSIS

58
o ONE WAY ANOVA
H0:

There is no significant difference among respondents of various

experience groups with regard to Environment and nature of work factor.

H1:

There is significant difference among respondents of various

experience groups with regard to Environment and nature of work factor

Table No: 34
Environment and Nature of work

Sum of Df Mean F Sig


Squares Square
Between 591 4 .148 .465 . .761
Groups
Within 30.168 95 . 318
Groups
Total 30.758 99

Interpretation:
Since the significant difference is greater than 0.05 accept null
hypothesis and reject alternate hypothesis which says, there is no
significant difference among respondents of various experience with

59
respect to environment and nature of work.

H0:

There is no significant difference among respondents of various


experience groups with regard to the factor Relationship with supervisors
and colleagues.

H1:
There is significant difference among respondents of various
experience groups with regard to the factor Relationship with supervisors
and colleagues.

Table No: 35
ANOVA
Relationship with supervisors and colleagues

Sum of df Mean F Sig.


Squares Square
Between 1.199 4 .300 1.273 .286
Groups
Within 22.376 95 236
Groups
Total 23.576 99

Interpretation:
Since the significant difference is greater than 0.05 accept null
hypothesis and reject alternate hypothesis which says, there is no
significant difference among respondents of various experience with

60
respect to Relationship with supervisors and colleagues.

H0:
There is no significant difference among respondents of various
experience groups with regard to the factor Welfare facilities

H1:
There is significant difference among respondents of various
experience groups with regard to the factor Welfare facilities

Table No: 36
ANOVA
Welfare facilities
Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
Between 1.741 4 435 1.441 .227
Groups
Within 28.699 95 .302
Groups
Total 30.440 99

Interpretation:
Since the significant difference is greater than 0.05 accept null
hypothesis and reject alternate hypothesis which says, there is no
significant difference among respondents of various experience with
respect to welfare facilities.

61
H0:
There is no significant difference among respondents of various
experience groups with regard to the factor Pay and Promotion

H1:
There is significant difference among respondents of various
experience groups with regard to the factor Pay and Promotion

Table No: 37
ANOVA
Pay and Promotion

Sum of df Mean F Sig.


Squares Square

62
Between 3.148 4 787 .369 .082
Groups
Within 35.017 95 .369
Groups
Total 38.165 99

Interpretation:
Since the significant difference is greater than 0.05 accept null
hypothesis and reject alternate hypothesis which says, there is no
significant difference among respondents of various experience with
respect to Pay and promotion.

H0:
There is no significant difference among respondents of various
experience groups with regard to the factor Communication and
Motivation.

H1:
There is significant difference among respondents of various
experience groups with regard to the factor Communication and
Motivation.
Table No: 38
ANOVA
Communication and Motivation

Sum of df Mean Sig.


Squares Square

63
Between .937 4 95 .652 .627
Groups
Within 34.100 95 95
Groups
Total 35.037 95

Interpretation:
Since the significant difference is greater than 0.05 accept null
hypothesis and reject alternate hypothesis which says, there is no
significant difference among respondents of various experience with
respect to communication and motivation.

H0:
There is no significant difference among respondents of various
experience groups with regard to Job Factors.

H1:
There is significant difference among respondents of various
experience groups with regard to Job Factors

Table No: 39
ANOVA
job factor

Sum of df Mean F Sig.


Squares Square

64
Between 1.437 4 .359 .867 .487
Groups
Within 39.360 95 .414
Groups
Total 40.798 99

.
Interpretation:
.
Since the significant difference is greater than 0.05 accept null
hypothesis and reject alternate hypothesis which says, there is no
significant difference among respondents of various experience with
respect to Job factors

H0:
There is no significant difference among respondents of various
Age groups with regard to Job Factors.

H1:
There is significant difference among respondents of various Age
groups with regard to Job Factors.
Table No: 40
ANOVA

Sum of df Mean F Sig.


Squares Square
Between .007 2 .004 .009 .991
Groups

Within 40.790 97 .421

65
Groups
Total 40.798 99

Interpretation:
Since the significant difference is greater than 0.05 accept null
hypothesis and reject alternate hypothesis which says, there is no
significant difference among respondents of various age groups with
respect to Job factors.

H0:
There is no significant difference among respondents of various
genders with regard to Job Factors.

H1:
There is significant difference among respondents of various
genders with regard to Job Factors.

Table No: 41

Sum of df Mean F Sig.


Squares Square
Between .036 1 .038 .086 .770
Groups
Within 40.782 98 .416
Groups
Total 40.798 99

.
Interpretation:

66
Since the significant difference is greater than 0.05 accept null
hypothesis and reject alternate hypothesis which says, there is no
significant difference among respondents of various genders with respect
to Job factors.

Chapter -V

Descriptive Statistics

N minimum Maximum Mean Std.Deviation


environment 100 1.40 4.20 2.4960 .55740
and
nature of
work
relationship 100 1.00 3.80 2.3620 .48799
with
supervisors
and

67
colleagues
welfare 100 2.00 4.60 3.4600 .55450
facilities
pay and 100 1.00 4.00 2.3900 .62089
promotion
communictio 100 1.25 4.00 2.5725 .59490
n and
motivation
job factors 100 1.20 4.40 2.5400 .56174
Valid N 100
(listwise)

5.1 Findings:
The descriptive statistics table helps us to derive satisfaction level of
employees on various factors:

The respondents are satisfied with the environment and nature of work
factors as their mean value is near to 2.50

The respondent’s relationship with the superiors and colleagues are quite
good as their mean value is 2.36 is an agreeable level.

The Respondents are not provided with proper welfare facilities that’s the
reason the mean value is quite high at 3.46 levels which is disagree level.

The communication and motivation of employees by their superiors in

68
this organization is reasonable as the mean value is 2.57.

The Pay and promotion activities in this organization is also good as their
mean value is 2.4

The Respondents are overall satisfied with their job as their mean value
is 2.54 which is an agreeable level.

The Parking facilities provided by the organization are not good that’s
why most respondents disagree with this question.

The refreshment facilities are also need to be improved because most of


the employees are dissatisfied on this factor.

The Rest room facilities in the company are not good and they are not
satisfied with the lunch facilities.

Suggestions:

Questionnaire

“A study on Job Satisfaction of Employees in


MAX-NEW YORK LIFE General Insurance Ltd”

69
1. Name: …………………………………………………………………………………

2. Age: ………………
3. Gender: Male Female
4. Monthly Income:
A) Below Rest. 10,000 B) 10,000- 20000 C) 20,000-30000 D) Above
30,000
5. Education Qualification:
A) Under graduation B) Post – graduation
6. Marital Status
A) Married B) Unmarried
7. Years of experience:
A) Less than 1yr B) 1-2 yrs C) 2-3 yrs D) 3-4 yrs E) Above 4yrs

Please indicate your level of agreement in connection with various


factors:
1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Disagree
5. Strongly Disagree
Work Environment and nature of work

S.NO Particulars 1 2 3 4 5
.
1 Working hours are convenient for
me
2 I’m happy with my work place
3 The lighting and other
arrangements in
the office are satisfactory
4 I feel I have too much work to do

70
5 I’m satisfied with the safety
measures
provided by my company

Relationship with supervisors and colleagues

S.NO Particulars 1 2 3 4 5
.
6 My relationship with my supervisor
is
Cordial
7 My supervisor is not partial
8 My supervisor considers my ideas
too
while making decision
9 I’m satisfied with the support from
my coworkers
10 People here have concern for one
another and tend to help one
another

Welfare Facilities

S.NO Particulars 1 2 3 4 5
11 I’m satisfied with the refreshment
facilities
12 We are provided with the rest and
lunch

71
room and they are good
13 The parking facilities provided for
our
vehicles are satisfactory
14 I’m satisfied with the first aid
facilities
15 I’m satisfied with the Loan facilities
and
other personal welfare benefits
offered by company

Pay and promotion


S.No Particulars 1 2 3 4 5
16 I feel I’m being paid a fair amount
for the work I do
17 I’m satisfied with my chances for
promotion
18 The salaries we receive are good as
other organizations pay to their
employees
19 I’m satisfied with the allowances
provided by my organization

Communication and motivation

S. Particulars 1 2 3 4 5
No
20 I feel that my Boss motivate me to
achieve the organization goal

72
21 My supervisor motivates me to
increase
my efficiency at times when I’m not
productive
22 Communication seem good within
this
Organization
23 Work assignments are explained
clearly to me

Job factors

S.NO Particulars 1 2 3 4 5
.
24 I love my job and to work in this
Organization
25 My work life is meaningful
26 I consider that my work is valuable

73
in
attaining my organizational goals
27 Have adequate opportunity to use
my
Ability
28 Overall, I’m satisfied with my job

SUGGESTION--------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

74