Professional Documents
Culture Documents
employees in Islamabad
By
Muhammad Shafique Khan
Master of Science (MS) in Management Sciences
Submitted to
Muhammad Ashfaq Khan
Table of Contents
1
CHAPTER 1................................................................................................................. 3
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Background of the Study................................................................................ 3
1.2 Problem Identification.................................................................................... 5
1.3 Rationale of the Study....................................................................................7
1.4 Significance of the Study................................................................................ 8
1.5 Problem Statement Research Questions......................................................10
1.6 Objectives of the Study................................................................................10
1.7 Definition of Terms:...................................................................................... 11
CHAPTER 2............................................................................................................... 13
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK.........................................13
2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW..................................................................................... 13
2.2 Theoretical Framework.................................................................................24
2.3 Development of Hypothesis:........................................................................35
CHAPTER 3............................................................................................................... 36
METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................... 36
3.1 Sample & Respondents:...............................................................................36
3.2 Instrument & Measure:................................................................................. 36
3.3 Procedure:.................................................................................................... 37
3.4 Extent of Researchers Interference:.............................................................37
3.5 Data Analysis:.............................................................................................. 38
CHAPTER 4............................................................................................................... 39
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.................................................................................... 39
4.1 Results......................................................................................................... 39
4.2 DISCUSSION.................................................................................................... 95
CHAPTER 5............................................................................................................... 95
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................95
5.1 Conclusion.................................................................................................... 96
5.2 Recommendations........................................................................................ 97
5.3 Limitations of the Study.............................................................................100
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
the common problems. There are few factors which have strong impact on
the output of training. Therefore it is necessary to address those critical
issues before managing training programs and investing huge sum on the
employees development. Employee training persistently contributes to the
increase in capital stock which is available in the economy (Baldwin &
Johnson, 1995).
Bo Hansson (2009) is of the view there are only two options to continue
with high profits and higher wages in the developed nations: escalating the
skill levels of individuals or developing superior skills for managing those
skills and human capital more broadly. This point is highly taken by the
employers as they replied to these new phenomena by enhancing the wages
for workers with more skills, capabilities and by increasing their utilization of
downsizing and other techniques intended to down the labor costs.
Trend of training and development receives more attention of NonGovernment Organizations (NGOs) sector than any other sector because
most of the practitioners belong to society where they have not received any
6
The reason for undertaking this study was that a little research has
addressed this field particularly in NGO sector. Thus, along with generating a
body of knowledge for practitioners, the study will also be a great
contribution to the management research.
Training and development has been the area of interest of the scholars
for long time. Researcher has investigated much in this context. However
there is still enough room for the researchers to investigate about. Employee
training persistently contributes to the increase in capital stock which is
available in the economy (Baldwin & Johnson, 1995). The designing of the
modules of training, quality of trainer and learners potential and preferences
in learning styles are important factors which affect the output of the training
process. Thus it is necessary to handle the overall training program with care
and scientifically design the courses, select the best trainer among the
available and opt the learners favorite learning style. This study investigates
the factors effecting the training session i.e. course design, quality of trainer
and learners experience. Thus, it addresses the key elements which affect
the output of the investment on employees training.
The focus of the study is to find solution of the problems been faced by
trainees during training session. It is endeavored to assess the factors which
affects the training process. The importance of training determinants is
studied to measure the affect on outcome of training programs. Valuable
assessment is intended to make for seeking solution for providing the best
possible environment to the trainees by identifying the factors of hindrance.
It may provide base for conduction of effective training programs. The
findings of the study shows that there is positive relationship between
training and development and employee job satisfaction while trainer quality
, course design and learning experience have positive association with
training and development. Thus the training and development of the
employees should be imparted with having special consideration on its
determinants so that employee job satisfaction can be achieved.
The study was mainly designed to test its variables. However, the
following objectives were envisaged for this study:
10
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW
Baldwin & Johnson (1995) stated that companies conduct training for
three purposes which are to carry the company strategy, bringing innovation
and advancement in technology. That is done to improve the quality of the
product and for the provision of quality services. He further added that
training also depends on the importance firms give to its labors skills.
11
Training is also linked with the innovation thus labor needs to be train to cope
with the latest developments and technological changes. Pischke (2000)
observed during his study that if training is of general nature and is provided
by the employer at no direct cost to the workers then workers typically
reports larger productivity gains from the training during work hours. Beside
this fact, he elaborated that workers with greater earnings are always willing
to participate in the training.
entering the labor force, however, as a result of job training the hourly wage
rates of female worker in wage (private) and non wage employment sectors
does not increase. Several possible explanations for this finding are in line.
Once is that, since women tend to expect to work outside the home
very less years as compare to men, this has an incentive to develop for
occupations which requires lower investments in human capital as compare
to that by men. Another factor is lack of standards for determining and
assessing the value of the training as well as developing in proprietary
institutes where most female workers are trained. Last but not least,
discrimination against women can also make them avoid those from entering
the most successful training and development programs and also the jobs
which permits more wage. Blan (2007) came with the results of the
experience in controlling the quality of the training and development
programs arranged for the students, based on mutually cooperation
concluded with the business environment. That training programs was
developed by ASE in cooperation with the well known organizations.
It has been realized that the returns to work experience in the recent
occupation with post employers are same to those to work experience with
the present employer, and that tenure has not any independent impact. The
same way it has been found that the distinction between training for current
and previous job gives better results than a distinction among training for
current and previous company. It is observed that work experience,
classroom training and institute for vocational training for the present
occupation have highly significant impact on earnings, with work experience.
13
Parent (1995) discussed the issue of training and its impact on wage and
employers seem to reward skills gained through training with ex employers
as much as skills they gained themselves.
Baliga & Pulin (1973) discussed the trainers role in the team building
process. He presented the trainer Interventions and their efficacy in building
up a Group Climate specifically when the Reactive Processes of the Group
reached a dangerous point that was affecting the working of the Group.
Observers were appointed to observe these interventions which were made
This study reveals in regard to the manner in which the empathy processes
may be generated in the group thus it also indicated the efficacy of
Modeling as a trainer-intervention. Scahill (2006) studied the program that
trained the employees to provide services similar to those offered by centers
for economic education affiliated with universities and colleges in the United
States.
15
Research studies have suggested that these efforts can translate into
better leadership behavior, strong team relations and a positive
organizational climate (Holton, 2005). On the other hand, other training
programs teach managers how to develop new skills and competencies such
as managing financial resources or information, and technology, essential to
producing performance effects. The use of advances in performance
technology, their involvement with the newer information technology, and
the efficient allocating of resources are some of the consequences of
participation in these technical programs (Gray et al., 1997).
the process of determining training needs, job analysis aims to identify needs
at the level of individual performance and personnel demographic analysis
helps to produce a training programs tailored to the particular needs of
individuals, and organization analysis focuses on linking strategic planning
considerations with the results of training needs assessment (Gray et al.,
1997).
17
Rautalinko & Lisper (2004) stated that few training programs are
designed for specific reasons while others apply sophisticated assessments
of employees strengths and weaknesses before training. If training programs
are designed to enhance the communication skills of the coworkers and they
are being trained in a team than it increases corporate profit and positive
working relationship. Those employees who have good communication skills
gather new information about new work procedures and advance
technologies. For this chain establishes relationships between factors
18
effecting training program and its impact on the training. This further leads
to the satisfaction from the training.
20
Research Model:
Trainer
Quality
Learning
Experience
Training Design
Job Satisfaction
Job Satisfaction
Low Absenteeism
Low Quit Intentions
Job satisfaction has become a matter of great interest in social as well
as management sciences. It has been argued in the literature that answers
to questions about how people feel toward their jobs are not meaningless but
rather convey useful information on individual behavior such as job quits
(Shields and Price, 2002), and absenteeism as well as productivity (Clegg,
1983). Moreover, job satisfaction is considered a strong predictor of overall
individual well-being (Judge and Watanabe, 1993). As a consequence, several
21
to capture the full effects. For all these reasons our estimates of the effects
of training on performance are likely to be lower bound estimates. Our job
satisfaction measures are however less likely to suffer from problems of
endogeneity as training is much more likely to influence levels of job
satisfaction than the reverse. Further, levels of job satisfaction seem more
likely to influence levels of performance than the reverse, particularly since
performance is measured relative to competitors. We also have a large
number of controls to pick up factors such as labor quality, tenure and
establishment characteristics.
This relationship was confirmed by Akerlof (1982) using data from the
NLS Older Men Survey. More recently, Clark et al. (1998) using data from ten
waves of the German Socio Economic Panel (1984-93) found that workers
who reported dissatisfaction with their jobs were statistically more likely to
quit than those with higher levels of satisfaction. Using data from the Danish
section of the ECHP, Kristensen & Westergrd-Nielsen (2004) found that the
inclusion of a subjective measure of job satisfaction improved the predictive
ability of a job quit model. Dissatisfaction with the type of work was found to
25
be the aspect most likely to lead to a worker leaving their job, whilst
satisfaction with job security was found to have an insignificant effect on quit
propensity. The authors contrast this finding with results from the UK, where
dissatisfaction with job security is usually found to be one of the most
important predictors of quit behavior. They attribute this discrepancy to the
differing generosities of the benefit systems in the two countries.
26
H3. Employee training leads to decreased job quit intentions of NGO sector
employees.
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
This is an exploratory study which was undertaken for ascertaining the
effects of employee training on their job satisfaction. Data was collected from the
non contrived settings. Time horizon of the study was cross sectional, and the unit
of analysis was individual.
27
3.4 Procedure:
The survey instrument was self-administered and was distributed personally
among the targeted respondents. Only one questionnaire was given to each
respondent and the filled questionnaires were collected personally. Sufficient
support was provided to the respondents to understand and answer the asked
questions accurately. Questionnaire comprises questions related to all independent
and dependent variables. Demographic section covers questions related to age,
gender, education and experience etc. Respondents were facilitated during
questionnaire filling process for correct data acquisition. Few filled questionnaire
were rejected because of double entry, keeping questions blank and other
problems.
28
Researcher ensured it to the best possible that the data collected is unbiased
and reliable data. However, researcher had to interfere during the collection of data.
As few respondents employees remained careless in filling the mentioned fields
therefore researcher helped them in filling the questionnaire. Few respondents
employees did not fill the questionnaire completely. Thus for getting the
questionnaire refilled by the employees. Generally employees committed mistakes
because of not concentrating on the questions and double entry or no entry for any
question in the questionnaire.
29
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Results
Our sample for the study was 400 Employees. Out of the target sample only
217 employees responded back. Thus, the response rate is 54.25 % of the total
contacted sample. While answering to the question regarding age, 65 respondents
(30 %) reported their age between 20-30. While 59 (27.188 %) of the respondents
reported their age between 31 to 40 age group. 55 (25.34%) of the employees
reported to be between 41to 50 and only 38 (17.51%) were above at the age of
above 50. All age groups participated in the study almost equally as per their ratio
is concerned.
Table 4.2.1(a) ANOVA of age group - relationship of trainer quality with job
satisfactions
Trainer
quality
Sum of
squares
Df
Mean
Square
Betwee
n
groups
2.510
.837
Within
groups
157.407
213
.739
Total
159.917
216
Significance
1.132
.337
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
20-30
65
3.5692
.90085
.11174
30
31-40
59
3.4576
.72687
.09463
41-50
55
3.6909
.85792
.11568
Above 50
38
3.3947
.97369
.15795
Total
217
3.5392
.86044
.05841
The above tables show the perceived difference with respect to trainer
quality in terms of age groups of respondents of NGO sector organizations
employees. The model is categorizes into four age groups with the proposition that
there is no significant mean difference in the perceptions of employees at the age
groups with the significance level of 0.05.
The table 4.2.1 (b) reveals that first age group between 20-30 has mean
value of 3.5692 with standard deviation of .90085 whereas the mean value of
3.4576with standard deviation is .72687 of 31-40 years of age group, like wise age
group of 41-50 has mean value of 3.6909 and the standard deviation of .85792and
the last bracket of age group above 50 years has mean value 3.3947 with standard
deviation .86044. It is found that there is no significant mean difference for all age
groups.
Table 4.2.1 (a) depicts analyses of variance for trainer quality Age Group.
The (F= 1.132, P<0.05) indicate that independent variable (age group) better
explain the variation in the dependent variable (trainer quality). The table further
reveals that in all age group there is no significant difference in employees
perceptions regarding trainer quality in NGO sector organization as the probability
value is greater than 0.05.
Table 4.2.2 (a) ANOVA of course design with respect to age group
Trainer
quality
Sum of
squares
Df
Mean
Square
Significance
Between
groups
.448
.149
.209
.890
Within
groups
152.391
213
.715
31
Total
152.839
216
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
20-30
65
3.5692
.82858
.10277
31-40
59
3.5593
.77172
.10047
41-50
55
3.6545
.84367
.11376
Above 50
38
3.5263
.97916
.15884
Total
217
3.5806
.84118
.05710
The above tables show the perceived difference with respect to course design in
terms of age groups of respondents of NGO sector organizations employees. The
model is categorizes into four age groups with the proposition that there is no
significant mean difference in the perceptions of employees at the age groups with the
significance level of 0.05.
The table 4.2.2 (b) reveals that first age group between 20-30 has mean value of
3.5692 with standard deviation of .82858 whereas the mean value of 3.5593 with
standard deviation is .77172 of 31-40 years of age group, like wise age group of 41-50
has mean value of 3.6545 and the standard deviation of .84367 and the last bracket of
age group above 50 years has mean value 3.5263 with standard deviation .97916.
Table 4.2.2 (a) depicts analyses of variance for Employee Selection Age Group. The
(F= .209, P>0.05) indicate that independent variable (age group) better explain the
variation in the dependent variable (employee selection). The table further reveals that
in all age group there is insignificant difference in employees perceptions regarding
course design in NGO sector organization as the probability value is greater than 0.05.
Table 4.2.3 (a) ANOVA of learning experience with respect to age group
Trainer
Sum of
Df
Mean
Significance
32
quality
Between
groups
squares
Square
1.568
.523
Within
groups
104.653
213
.491
Total
106.221
216
1.064
.365
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
20-30
65
3.6154
.65413
.08113
31-40
59
3.4068
.61919
.08061
41-50
55
3.5455
.76541
.10321
Above 50
38
3.4474
.79517
.12899
217
3.5115
.70126
.04760
Total
The above tables show the perceived difference with respect to learning
experience in terms of age groups of respondents of NGO sector employees. The
model is categorized into four age groups with the proposition that there is no
significant mean difference in the perceptions of employees at the age groups with
the significance level of 0.05.
The table 4.2.3 (b) reveals that first age group between 20-30 has mean
value of 3.6154 with standard deviation of .65413 whereas the mean value of
3.4068 with standard deviation is . .61919 of 31-40 years of age group, like wise
age group of 41-50 has mean value of 3.5455 and the standard deviation of .76541
and the last bracket of age group above 50 years have mean value 3.4474 with
standard deviation .79517.
Table 4.2.3 (a) depicts analyses of variance for Employee Selection Age Group.
33
The (F= 1.064, P>0.05) indicate that independent variable (age group) better
explain the variation in the dependent variable (employee selection). The table
further reveals that in all age group there is insignificant difference in employees
perceptions regarding learning experience in NGO sector organizations as the
probability value is greater than 0.05.
Table 4.2.4 (a) ANOVA of training and development with respect to age group
Trainer
quality
Between
groups
Sum of
squares
Df
Mean
Square
1.603
.534
Within
groups
170.894
213
.802
Total
172.498
216
Significance
.666
.574
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
20-30
65
3.6769
.96998
.12031
31-40
59
3.6102
.78821
.10262
41-50
55
3.5818
.83202
.11219
Above 50
38
3.4211
1.00355
.16280
217
3.5899
.89364
.06066
Total
The above tables show the perceived difference with respect to training and
development in terms of age groups of respondents of NGO sector organizations
employees. The model is categorizes into four age groups with the proposition that
there is no significant mean difference in the perceptions of employees at the age
groups with the significance level of 0.05.
The table 4.2.4 (b) reveals that first age group between 20-30 has mean
value of 3.6769 with standard deviation of .96998 whereas the mean value of
3.6102 with standard deviation is .78821 of 31-40 years of age group, like wise age
34
group of 41-50 has mean value of 3.5818 and the standard deviation of .83202 and
the last bracket of age group above 50 years has mean value 3.4211 with standard
deviation 1.00355. Table 4.2.4 (a) depicts analyses of variance for Employee
Selection Age Group.
The (F= .666, P>0.05) indicate that independent variable (age group) better
explain the variation in the dependent variable (employee selection). The table
further reveals that in all age group there is insignificant difference in employees
perceptions regarding training and development in NGO sector organization as the
probability value is greater than 0.05.
Table 4.2.5 (a) ANOVA of employee job satisfaction with respect to age group
Trainer
quality
Sum of
squares
Between
groups
Df
Mean
Square
1.724
.575
Within
groups
125.041
213
.587
Total
126.765
216
Significance
.979
.404
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
20-30
65
3.6308
.69752
.08652
31-40
59
3.5254
.75100
.09777
41-50
55
3.7636
.76893
.10368
Above 50
38
3.5789
.88932
.14427
217
3.6267
.76608
.05200
Total
The above tables show the perceived difference with respect to employee job
satisfaction in terms of age groups of respondents of NGO sector organizations
employees. The model is categorizes into four age groups with the proposition that
35
The table 4.2.5 (b) reveals that first age group between 20-30 has mean
value of 3.6308 with standard deviation of .69752whereas the mean value of
3.5254with standard deviation is .75100 of 31-40 years of age group, like wise age
group of 41-50 has mean value of 3.7636 and the standard deviation of .76893 and
the last bracket of age group above 50 years has mean value 3.5789 with standard
deviation .88932.
Table 4.2.5 (a) depicts analyses of variance for Employee Selection Age
Group. The (F= .979, P>0.05) indicate that independent variable (age group) better
explain the variation in the dependent variable (employee selection). The table
further reveals that in all age group there is significant difference in employees
perceptions regarding employee job satisfaction as the probability value is greater
than 0.05.
Group
Trainer
quality
Male
Female
Mean
157
3.5287
60
3.5667
SD
T- stat
.78086 -.290
P- Value
.772
1.04746
Table shows the mean values of male and female respondents with respect to
perceived trainer quality variable, standard deviation, t- stat and p value.
36
The trainer quality has a great impact on the overall success of training
session. This leads towards the output of training program. The more the trainer is
skilled with knowledge, experience, energetic and motivated the greater are
chances of training session successful completion. Therefore, thoughtful design of
jobs can help both the organizations and its employees achieve their objectives.
Group
Course
design
Male
Female
Mean
SD
157
3.5796
.84069
60
3.5833
.84956
T- stat
P- Value
-.029 .977
Table shows the mean values of male and female respondents with respect to
perceived course design variable, standard deviation, t- stat and p value.
The way training course is designed has always great impact on the overall
training program output. Training program is believed to be conducted for
empowering employee with skills, knowledge and enlighten about new tactics to do
the job in better style. If course is designed having enough new material to share
than it proves fruitful for the trainees
Group
Learning
experien
ce
Male
Female
Mean
SD
157
3.4395
.71913
60
3.7000
.57833
T- stat
P- Value
-2.477 .014
37
Table shows the mean values of male and female respondents with respect to
perceive learning experience variable, standard deviation, t- stat and p value.
The views of trainee about training session are of high worth. The main
theme of conducting training for the employees is to bring permanent and modified
changes in the behavior of the employees which could help them to perform their
duties in better way. As the main concerned are employees during training thus it is
important to understand the employees views about learning experience.
Thus it is assumed that all those training programs where employees are
given preference while designing training contents and they are properly asked
about the teaching or training style culminate in success. Trainees feedback is
considered before the conduction of training program.
Table 4.2.9 Independent T-Test of training and development with respect to Gender
Variable
Group
training
and
developme
nt
Male
Female
Mean
SD
157
3.5732
.83362
60
3.6333
1.04097
T- stat
P- Value
-.442 .659
Table shows the mean values of male and female respondents with respect to
perceived training and development variable, standard deviation, t- stat and p
value.
38
Training and development is the one among the function of the human
resource management functions. It is practiced in huge organizations not only to
equip employees with skills and potential but also to help them keep motivated. It
also improves employees job satisfaction. They feel there selves being valued. So
in return they try to produce and perform efficiently.
Table 4.2.10 Independent T-Test of employee job satisfaction with respect to Gender
Variable
Group
Employee
job
satisfactio
n
Male
Female
Mean
SD
157
3.6242
.75459
60
3.6333
.80183
T- stat
P- Value
-.078 .938
Table shows the mean values of male and female respondents with respect to
perceived employee job satisfaction variable, standard deviation, t- stat and p
value.
39
Training plays a role in satisfying employee from its job. As training improves
individuals capacity to perform his/her job with efficiency and bright the individuals
professional future by enhancing his skills. It can further help him to grow in his
career.
While satisfaction from the training vary with the gender. As per the
assumptions from the study it is believed that female staff gets more satisfaction
from training sessions compared to the male. Although both the gender show
confidence on training programs and supports the arguments but female are more
likely to get satisfied then male.
Table 4.2.11 (a) ANOVA of Trainer quality with respect to educational qualification
Trainer
quality
Between
groups
Sum of
squares
Df
Mean
Square
.950
.475
Within
groups
158.967
214
.743
Total
159.917
216
Significance
.640
.528
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
100
3.6100
.87496
.08750
Master
37
3.4595
.73009
.12003
Professional
qualification
80
3.4875
.89998
.10062
217
3.5392
.86044
.05841
Total
40
The above tables shows perceived difference with respect to trainer quality
in terms of educational qualification of respondents of NGO sector organizations
employees of Pakistan. The model is categorizes into three age groups with the
proposition that there is no significant mean difference in the perceptions of
employees at the age groups with the significance level of 0.05.
The table 4.2.11 (b) reveals that first educational qualification group is of
graduate which has mean value of 3.6100 with standard deviation of .87496
whereas the mean value of 3.4595 with standard deviation is .73009 of masters
group, like wise educational qualification group of professional qualification has
mean value of 3.4875 and the standard deviation of . .89998.
The table 4.2.11 (b) further shows the mean variation standard deviation and
standard error of the different categories .The table further shows that trainer
quality mean is closed at almost all categories of educational qualification. The total
mean of the all three categories is above 3.5 which indicate that is close to agree.
Table 4.2.11 (a) depicts analyses of variance for trainer quality educational
qualification group. The (F= .640, P>0.05) indicate that independent variable
(educational qualification) better explain the variation in the dependent variable
(trainer qualify). The table further reveals that in all educational qualification there
is insignificant difference in employees perceptions regarding learning experience
in NGO sector organizations as the probability value is greater than 0.05.
Table 4.2.12 (a) ANOVA of Course design with respect to educational qualification
Course
design
Between
groups
Sum of
squares
1.210
Df
Mean
Square
2
.605
Significance
.854
.427
41
Within
groups
151.629
214
Total
152.839
216
.709
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
100
3.6600
.86713
.08671
Master
37
3.5405
.76720
.12613
Professional
Education
80
3.5000
.84194
.09413
217
3.5806
.84118
.05710
Total
The above tables shows perceived difference with respect to course design in
terms of different qualification background groups of respondents of NGO sector
organizations employees of Pakistan. The model is categorizes into four age groups
with the proposition that there is no significant mean difference in the perceptions
of employees at the age groups with the significance level of 0.05.
The table 4.2.12 (b) reveals that first educational qualification group is of
graduate which has mean value of 3.6600 with standard deviation of .86713
whereas the mean value of 3.5405 with standard deviation is .76720 of masters
group, like wise educational qualification group of professional qualification has
mean value of 3.5000 and the standard deviation of .84194.
The table 4.2.12 (b) further shows the mean variation standard deviation and
standard error of the educational qualification categories .The table further shows
that course design mean increases for the professional qualification while it is
lowest for the master and in the middle for the graduate. This table also reveals
that mean is almost closer mean value for all categories.
42
Course
design
Between
groups
Sum of
squares
Df
Mean
Square
.793
.396
Within
groups
105.429
214
.493
Total
106.221
216
Significance
.804
.449
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
100
3.4800
.68873
.06887
Master
37
3.4324
.68882
.11324
Professional
Education
80
3.5875
.72380
.08092
217
3.5115
.70126
.04760
Total
The table 4.2.13 (b) reveals that first educational qualification group is of
graduate which has mean value of 3.4800 with standard deviation of.68873
whereas the mean value of 3.4324 with standard deviation is .68882 of masters
group, like wise educational qualification group of professional qualification has
mean value of 3.5875 and the standard deviation of .72380.
The table 4.2.13 (b) further shows the mean variation standard deviation and
standard error of the educational qualification categories. The table further shows
that learning experience mean is greater for the professional qualification then for
the graduates and finally for the master employees.
43
Table 4.2.14 (a) ANOVA of training and development with respect to educational
qualification
Course
design
Sum of
squares
Df
Mean
Square
Betwee
n
groups
.101
.051
Within
groups
172.396
214
.806
Total
172.498
216
Significance
.063
.939
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
100
3.6100
.86334
.08633
Master
37
3.5946
.72493
.11918
Professional
Education
80
3.5625
1.00434
.11229
217
3.5899
.89364
.06066
Total
The above tables shows perceived difference with respect to training and
development in terms of educational level of the of respondents of NGO sector
organizations employees of Pakistan. The model is categorizes into four age groups
with the proposition that there is no significant mean difference in the perceptions
of employees at the age groups with the significance level of 0.05.
44
The table 4.2.14 (b) reveals that first educational qualification level group is
of graduate which has mean value of 3.6100 with standard deviation of .86334
whereas the mean value of 3.5946 with standard deviation is .72493 of masters
group, like wise educational qualification group of professional qualification has
mean value of 3.5625 and the standard deviation of 1.00434.
The table 4.2.14 (b) further shows the mean variation standard deviation and
standard error of the educational qualification categories. The table further shows
that learning experience mean is greater for the professional qualification then for
the graduates and finally for the master employees.
Table 4.2.15 (a) ANOVA of employee job satisfaction with respect to educational
qualification
Course
design
Between
groups
Sum of
squares
Df
Mean
Square
.386
.193
Within
groups
126.379
214
.591
Total
126.765
216
Significance
.327
.722
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
100
3.6600
.69949
.06995
Master
37
3.5405
.80259
.13194
Professional
Education
80
3.6250
.83249
.09308
217
3.6267
.76608
.05200
Total
The above tables shows perceived difference with respect to employee job
satisfaction in terms of age groups of respondents of NGO sector organizations
employees of Pakistan. The model is categorizes into four age groups with the
45
The table 4.2.15 (b) reveals that first educational qualification group is of
graduate which has mean value of 3.6600 with standard deviation of .69949
whereas the mean value of 3.5405 with standard deviation is .80259 of masters
group, like wise educational qualification group of professional qualification has
mean value of 3.6250 and the standard deviation of .83249.
The table 4.2.15 (b) further shows the mean variation standard deviation and
standard error of the educational qualification categories. The table further shows
that learning experience mean is greater for the master degree holder employees
then for the professional qualification holders and lowest for the graduates
employees.
Table 4.2.16 (a) ANOVA of trainer quality with respect to working experience
Course
design
Sum of
squares
Between
groups
Df
Mean
Square
.453
.151
Within
groups
159.464
213
.749
Total
159.917
216
Significance
.202
.895
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Less than 4
82
3.5488
.83374
.09207
5-10
32
3.5000
.95038
.16801
11-15
50
3.4800
.67733
.09579
16 and above
53
3.6038
1.00651
.13825
46
Total
217
3.5392
.86044
.05841
The above tables shows perceived difference with respect to trainer quality
in terms of work experience of respondents of NGO sector organizations employees
of Pakistan. The model is categorizes into four work experience group with the
proposition that there is no significant mean difference in the perceptions of
employees at the age groups with the significance level of 0.05.
The table 4.2.16 (b) reveals that first work experience group constitute work
experience of less than 4 years which has mean value of 3.5488 with standard
deviation of .83374 whereas the mean value of 3.5000 with standard deviation is .
95038 of 5-10 experience holder group, like wise experience holder group of 11-15
has mean value of 3.4800 and the standard deviation of .67733. While final
experience holder group of having 16 and above years experience has mean value
of 3.6038 and standard deviation of 1.00651.
Table 4.2.17 (a) ANOVA of Course design with respect to working experience
Course
design
Sum of
squares
Between
groups
Df
Mean
Square
1.833
.611
Within
groups
151.006
213
.709
Total
152.839
216
Significance
.862
.462
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Less than 4
82
3.6220
.82612
.09123
5-10
32
3.7500
.95038
.16801
11-15
50
3.4800
.76238
.10782
16 and above
53
3.5094
.86874
.11933
217
3.5806
.84118
.05710
Total
47
The above tables shows perceived difference with respect to course design in
terms of work experience of respondents of NGO sector organizations employees of
Pakistan. The model is categorizes into four age groups with the proposition that
there is no significant mean difference in the perceptions of employees at the age
groups with the significance level of 0.05.
The table 4.2.17 (b) reveals that first work experience group constitute work
experience of less than 4 years which has mean value of 3.6220 with standard
deviation of.82612 whereas the mean value of 3.7500 with standard deviation is .
95038 of 5-10 experience holder group, like wise experience holder group of 11-15
has mean value of 3.4800 and the standard deviation of .76238. While final
experience holder group of having 16 and above years experience has mean value
of 3.5094 and standard deviation of .86874.
Table 4.2.17 (a) depicts analyses of variance for course design educational
qualification group. The (F= .462, P>0.05) indicate that independent variable (work
experience) better explain the variation in the dependent variable (course design).
The table further reveals that in all educational qualification there is no significant
difference in employees perceptions regarding learning experience in NGO sector
organizations as the probability value is greater than 0.05.
Table 4.2.18 (a) ANOVA of learning experience with respect to working experience
Course
design
Between
groups
Sum of
squares
Df
Mean
Square
.260
.087
Within
groups
105.961
213
.497
Total
106.221
216
Significance
.174
.914
Mean
Std.
Std. Error
48
Deviation
Less than 4
82
3.5488
.70540
.07790
5-10
32
3.4688
.71772
.12688
11-15
50
3.5200
.76238
.10782
16 and above
53
3.4717
.63862
.08772
217
3.5115
.70126
.04760
Total
The table 4.2.18 (b) reveals that first work experience group constitute work
experience of less than 4 years which has mean value of 3.5488 with standard
deviation of .70540 whereas the mean value of 3.4688 with standard deviation is .
71772 of 5-10 experience holder group, like wise experience holder group of 11-15
has mean value of 3.5200 and the standard deviation of .76238. While final
experience holder group of having 16 and above years experience has mean value
of 3.4717and standard deviation of .63862
Table 4.2.17 (a) depicts analyses of variance for learning experience age
group. The (F= .174, P>0.05) indicate that independent variable better explain the
variation in the dependent variable. The table further reveals that in all educational
qualification there is no significant difference in employees perceptions regarding
learning experience in NGO sector organizations as the probability value is greater
than 0.05.
Table 4.2.19 (a) ANOVA of training and development with respect to working
experience
Course
design
Between
groups
Sum of
squares
.483
Df
Mean
Square
3
.161
Significance
.199
.897
49
Within
groups
172.015
213
Total
172.498
216
.808
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Less than 4
82
3.6463
.92124
.10173
5-10
32
3.5938
.83702
.14797
11-15
50
3.5400
.78792
.11143
16 and above
53
3.5472
.99162
.13621
217
3.5899
.89364
.06066
Total
The above tables shows perceived difference with respect to training and
development in terms of work experience of respondents of NGO sector
organizations employees of Pakistan. The model is categorizes into four age groups
with the proposition that there is no significant mean difference in the perceptions
of employees at the age groups with the significance level of 0.05.
The table 4.2.19 (b) reveals that first work experience group constitute work
experience of less than 4 years which has mean value of 3.6463 with standard
deviation of .92124 whereas the mean value of 3.5938 with standard deviation is .
83702 of 5-10 experience holder group, like wise experience holder group of 11-15
has mean value of 3.5400 and the standard deviation of .78792. While final
experience holder group of having 16 and above years experience has mean value
of 3.5472 and standard deviation of .99162.
Table 4.2.19 (a) depicts analyses of variance for training and development
educational qualification group. The (F= .199, P>0.05) indicate that independent
variable better explain the variation in the dependent variable The table further
reveals that in all educational qualification there is no significant difference in
employees perceptions regarding learning experience in NGO sector organizations
as the probability value is greater than 0.05.
50
Table 4.2.20 (a) ANOVA of employee job satisfaction with respect to working
experience
Course
design
Sum of
squares
Df
Mean
Square
Betwee
n
groups
.653
.218
Within
groups
126.112
213
.592
Total
126.765
216
Significance
.367
.777
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Less than 4
82
3.6951
.73180
.08081
5-10
32
3.5625
.87759
.15514
11-15
50
3.5800
.67279
.09515
16 and above
53
3.6038
.83986
.11536
217
3.6267
.76608
.05200
Total
The above tables shows perceived difference with respect to employee job
satisfaction in terms of work experience of respondents of NGO sector
organizations employees of Pakistan. The model is categorizes into four age groups
with the proposition that there is no significant mean difference in the perceptions
of employees at the age groups with the significance level of 0.05.
The table 4.2.20 (b) reveals that first work experience group constitute work
experience of less than 4 years which has mean value of 3.6951 with standard
deviation of .73180 whereas the mean value of 3.5625 with standard deviation is .
87759 of 5-10 experience holder group, like wise experience holder group of 11-15
has mean value of 3.5800 and the standard deviation of .67279 While final
51
experience holder group of having 16 and above years experience has mean value
of 3.6038 and standard deviation of .83986.
Table 4.2.19 (a) depicts analyses of variance for employee job satisfaction
educational qualification group. The (F= .367, P>0.05) indicate that independent
variable (educational qualification) better explain the variation in the dependent
variable (employee job satisfaction). The table further reveals that in all educational
qualification there is no significant difference in employees perceptions regarding
learning experience in NGO sector organizations as the probability value is greater
than 0.05.
Regression Analysis
Variable
t- value
R-Square
Constant
.779
4.688
.585
Trainer
quality
.794
17.393
F-Stat
3.2.533
Sig
.000
The table 4.3.1 shows regression analysis for training and development with
trainer quality executed with the proposition that trainer quality has no relationship
with training and development.
The table further illustrates that the regression of trainer quality has positive
effect on training and development and this relationship is statistically significant as
the probability value for this model is less than the level of significance which is
0.05 %. The analysis further show that trainer quality is perceived as an important
factor in training and development (t = 4.688).
52
The analyses show that there is positive relationship between trainer quality
and training and development (= .794) which reveals that training and
development level is sensitive to trainer quality and brings/contributes 79.4%
change in training and development supported by the positive sign of trainer quality
co-efficient.
Case wise Regression analyses were used in order to check the Significance
of independent variables with Respect different demographics on dependent
variables for the research work.
Variabl
e
20-30
Constan
t
.313
.241
1.296
Trainer
quality
.943
.066
14.371
1.633
.431
3.788
Trainer
quality
.572
.122
4.678
Constan
t
.713
.302
2.363
Trainer
quality
.777
.645
31-40
41-50
51 and
above
Constan
t
Constan
t
S.E
t- value
RSquare
F-Stat
Sig
.766
206.532
.000
.278
21.964
.000
.642
95.154
.000
.080
9.755
.369
1.749 .629
61.152
.000
53
Trainer
quality
.818
.105
7.820
In the above Table, the results of regression analysis for training and
development on trainer quality were executed with different age group that is 2030 years, 31 - 40 years, 41 50 years and ultimately 51 and above years. it is to
check that the training and development from each age group have a significant
relationship with the trainer quality.
In the above Output of regression analysis showing that for the first age
group that is 20-30 the value of R-Square is .766 which mean the variation in
dependent variable which is training and development is explained by the
independent variable which in trainer quality which is infects low variation
explanation and then the regression coefficient for training and development is .943
which reveals that trainer quality level is sensitive to training and development. We
can say that training and development brings/contributes 94.3 % change in trainer
quality supported by the positive sign of training and development co-efficient.
54
Female
S.E
tvalue
Constan
t
.998
.226
4.413
Trainer
quality
.730
.063
11.662
Constan
t
.467
.218
2.143
.888
.059
15.135
RSquare
F-Stat
Sig
.467
135.99
5
.000
.798
229.06
0
.000
In the Table 4.3.2.2 the results of regression analysis for Training and
development with respect to trainer quality with the selection variable gender are
executed with the proposition that trainer quality have a significant relationship
with Training and development for both Genders. The group is categorizes into
male and female. The analyses show that model is significant for male and female
category. The analysis further shows that the value of R-Square is .467 for male
and .798 for female.
The analyses further reveal that regression coefficient for trainer quality
shows that training and development level is sensitive to trainer quality. Trainer
quality brings/contributes change in training and development in male and female
55
Variabl
e
Graduation
Constan
t
.857
.235
3.650
Trainer
quality
.763
.063
12.053
1.090
.406
2.686
Trainer
quality
.724
.115
6.302
Constan
t
.561
.290
1.938
Trainer
quality
.861
.080
10.696
Master
Professional
Qualificatio
n
S.E
tvalue
Constan
t
RSquare
F-Stat
.597
145.277
7
.532
39.720
.595
114.404
Sig
.000
.000
56
The above Table 4.3.2.3 shows the results of regression analysis between
training and development and trainer quality with respect to educational level of the
respondents. The regression analyses are executed with the proposition that trainer
quality has no relationship with training and development in all three group of
educational level. The group is categorizes into educational level of graduate,
master and professional qualification.
The table further reveals that regression model of graduate level employees
is insignificant .the value of R-Square (.597) indicate that trainer quality accounts
59.7 % of variation in training and development for graduate employee category.
The coefficient ( =.763) for trainer quality is negatively effecting the training and
development for graduate level.
The table further reveals that regression model of master level employees is
insignificant .the value of R-Square (.532) indicate that trainer quality accounts 53.2
% of variation in training and development for master employee category. The
coefficient ( =.724) for trainer quality is positively effecting the training and
development for master level.
Variabl
e
S.E
Less than
4
Constan
t
.942
.326
2.889
Trainer
quality
.762
.089
8.521
tvalue
RSquar
e
F-Stat
Sig
.476
72.615
.000
57
5-10
11-15
16 and
above
Constan
t
1.156
.357
3.242
Trainer
quality
.696
.098
7.075
Constan
t
.593
.408
1.453
Trainer
quality
.847
.115
7.359
Constan
t
.435
.248
1.752
Trainer
quality
.864
.066
13.003
.625
50.060
.000
.530
54.155
.000
.768
169.07
7
.000
The above Table 4.3.2.4 shows the regression analysis between trainer
quality and training and development with respect to work experience. In the
above the regression model between training and development and trainer quality
with the with respect to work experience are executed to check the proposition that
trainer quality has no relationship with training and development at any work
experience group. The group is categorized into four work experience groups that
are less than 4 years, 5 - 10 years, and 11 15 years and ultimately 16 and above
years.
The table reveals that the regression model is significant with R 2 = .476
which depicts that trainer quality accounts variation in training and development at
the work experience group between 4 years. The analysis further shows that there
is positive relationship between trainer quality and training and development
reveals that training and development level is sensitive to trainer quality at this
work experience group and brings/contributes change in training and development
supported by the positive sign of trainer quality co-efficient and this relationship is
statistically significant. The analysis further explain that trainer quality is perceived
as an important factor in training and development (t = 8.521).
The table reveals that the regression model is significant with R 2 = .625
which depicts that trainer quality accounts variation in training and development at
the work experience group between 5-10 years. The analysis further shows that
58
there is positive relationship between trainer quality and training and development
reveals that training and development level is sensitive to trainer quality at this
work experience group and brings/contributes change in training and development
supported by the positive sign of trainer quality co-efficient and this relationship is
statistically significant. The analysis further explain that trainer quality is perceived
as an important factor in training and development (t = 7.075).
The table reveals that the regression model is significant with R 2 = .530
which depicts that trainer quality accounts variation in training and development at
the work experience group between 11-15 years. The analysis further shows that
there is positive relationship between trainer quality and training and development
reveals that training and development level is sensitive to trainer quality at this
work experience group and brings/contributes change in training and development
supported by the positive sign of trainer quality co-efficient and this relationship is
statistically significant. The analysis further explain that trainer quality is perceived
as an important factor in training and development (t = 7.359).
The table reveals that the regression model is significant with R 2 = .768
which depicts that trainer quality accounts variation in training and development at
the work experience group between 16 and above years. The analysis further shows
that there is positive relationship between trainer quality and training and
development reveals that training and development level is sensitive to trainer
quality at this work experience group and brings/contributes change in training and
development supported by the negative sign of trainer quality co-efficient and this
relationship is statistically significant. The analysis further explain that trainer
quality is perceived as an important factor in training and development (t =
13.003).
t- value
1.864
.482
R-Square
7.849 .206
F-Stat
55.746
Sig
.000
7.466
In the above Table 4.3.3, regression analyses of course design with training
and development are executed with the proposition that training and development
have no relationship with course design.
59
The table reveals that the regression model is significant (F, 55.746),
(P<.012) with R2 = .206 depicts that training and development accounts 20.6%
variation in course design. The analysis further depicts that there is positive
relationship between course design and training and development (= .482) shows
that course design level is sensitive to training and development and training and
development contributes 48.2% change in course design and the relationship is
statistically significant as the probability value for this work experience group is less
than level of significance that is 0.05 %.
Age
group
Variabl
e
20-30
Constant
CD
31-40
Constant
CD
41-50
Constant
CD
50 and
above
Constant
CD
S.E
t- value
RSquare
1.406
.453
3.101 .295
.636
.124
5.139
2.285
.459
4.982 .133
.372
.126
2.956
1.865
.447
4.177 .227
.470
.119
3.944
1.972
.572
3.446 .161
.411
.156
2.626
F-Stat
Sig
26.406
0.000
8.741
.005
15.552
.000
6.898
.013
In the above Table, the results of regression analysis for training and
development on course design were executed with different age group that is 2030 years, 31 - 40 years, 41 50 years and ultimately 51 and above years. It is to
check that the training and development from each age group have a significant
relationship with the trainer quality.
In the above Output of regression analysis showing that for the first age
group that is 20-30 the value of R-Square is .295 which mean that the 29.5 % of
variation in dependent variable which is training and development is explained by
60
the independent variable in course design which is infects low variation explanation
and then the regression coefficient for training and development is .636 which
reveals that course design level is sensitive to training and development. We can
say that training and development brings/contributes 63.6 % change in course
design supported by the positive sign of training and development co-efficient.
61
Gender
Male
Female
Variabl
e
Constan
t
S.E
t- value
2.247
.272
8.274
Course
design
.370
.074
5.013
Constan
t
.870
.460
1.891
Course
design
.771
.125
6.166
RSquare
F-Stat
Sig
.140
25.129
.000
.396
38.022
.000
In the Table 4.3.3.2 the results of regression analysis for Training and
development with respect to course design with the selection variable gender are
executed with the proposition that course design have a significant relationship
with training and development for both Genders. The group is categorizes into
male and female. The analyses show that model is significant for male and female
category. The analysis further shows that the value of R-Square is .140 for male
and .396 for female.
The analyses further reveal that regression coefficient for course design
shows that training and development level is sensitive to course design. Course
design brings/contributes change in training and development in male and female
employees supported by the positive sign of trainer quality co-efficient.
62
output the t- value for course design the P value of for the model is .000 and with
.771 which shows that the course design has positive and significance effect on
training and development of male employees.
Variabl
e
Graduate
Constan
t
Constan
t
Course
design
Professional
qualification
S.E
tvalue
Course
design
Master
Constan
t
Course
design
2.246
.351
6.405
.373
.093
3.996
1.739
.481
3.614
.524
.133
3.945
1.406
.416
3.379
.616
.116
5.327
RSquare
F-Stat
Sig
.140
15.965
.000
.308
15.563
.000
.267
28.372
.000
The above Table 4.3.3.4 shows the results of regression analysis between
training and development and course design with respect to educational level of the
respondents. The regression analyses are executed with the proposition that course
design has no relationship with training and development in all three group of
educational level. The group is categorizes into educational level of graduate,
master and professional qualification.
The table further reveals that regression model of graduate level employees
is insignificant .the value of R-Square (.140) indicate that trainer quality accounts
14.0 % of variation in training and development for graduate employee category.
The coefficient (= .373) for trainer quality is positively effecting the training and
development for graduate level.
63
The table further reveals that regression model of master level employees is
insignificant .the value of R-Square (.308) indicate that trainer quality accounts 30.8
% of variation in training and development for master employee category. The
coefficient ( =-.082) for trainer quality is positively effecting the training and
development for master level.
Variabl
e
Less than
4
Constan
t
2.465
.443
5.566
.326
.119
2.737
2.154
.559
3.851
.384
.145
2.653
1.947
.476
4.088
Course
design
.458
.134
3.424
Constan
t
.755
.414
1.823
Course
design
.796
.115
6.943
Constan
t
Course
design
11-15
16 and
above
S.E
t- value
Course
design
5-10
Constan
t
RSquare
F-Stat
Sig
.086
7.490
.008
.190
7.038
.013
.196
11.722
.001
.486
48.206
.000
64
The above Table 4.3.3.5 shows the regression analysis between course design
and training and development with respect to work experience. In the above the
regression model between training and development and course design with the
with respect to work experience are executed to check the proposition that course
design has no relationship with training and development at any work experience
group. The group is categorized into four work experience groups that are less than
4 years, 5 - 10 years, and 11 15 years and ultimately 16 and above years.
The table reveals that the regression model is not significant with R 2 = .086
which depicts that trainer quality accounts variation in training and development at
the work experience group between 4 years. The analysis further shows that there
is negative relationship between trainer quality and training and development
reveals that training and development level is sensitive to trainer quality at this
work experience group and brings/contributes change in training and development
supported by the positive sign of trainer quality co-efficient and this relationship is
statistically significant. The analysis further explain that trainer quality is perceived
as an important factor in training and development (t = 2.737).
The table reveals that the regression model is not significant with R 2 =.196
which depicts that trainer quality accounts variation in training and development at
the work experience group between 11-15 years. The analysis further shows that
there is positive relationship between trainer quality and training and development
reveals that training and development level is sensitive to trainer quality at this
work experience group and brings/contributes change in training and development
supported by the positive sign of trainer quality co-efficient and this relationship is
statistically significant. The analysis further explain that trainer quality is perceived
as an important factor in training and development (t = 3.424).
65
The table reveals that the regression model is not significant with R 2 = .486
which depicts that trainer quality accounts variation in training and development at
the work experience group between 16 and above years. The analysis further shows
that there is positive relationship between trainer quality and training and
development reveals that training and development level is sensitive to trainer
quality at this work experience group and brings/contributes change in training and
development supported by the positive sign of trainer quality co-efficient and this
relationship is statistically not significant. The analysis further explain that trainer
quality is perceived as an important factor in training and development (t = 6.943).
Table 4.3.4 Regression Analyses of Training and development on learning experience
Variable
Constant
Learning
experience
t- value
3.374
R-Square
10.856 .002
.061
F-Stat
.501
Sig
.480
.087
Variable
20-30
Constant
3.29
.684
Learning
experien
ce
.107
.186
Constant
4.168
.579
31-40
S.E
t- value
RSquare
4.808 .005
F-Stat
Sig
.328
.569
.961
.331
.573
7.202 .017
66
41-50
50 and
above
Learning
experien
ce
-.164
.167
-.980
Constant
3.409
.541
6.303 .002
Learning
experien
ce
.049
.149
Constant
2.708
.734
Learning
experien
ce
.207
.207
.107
.745
.995
.325
.327
3.691 .027
.997
In the above Table, the results of regression analysis for training and
development on learning experience were executed with different age group that is
20- 30 years, 31 - 40 years, 41 50 years and ultimately 51 and above years. It is to
check that the training and development from each age group have a significant
relationship with the learning experience.
In the above Output of regression analysis showing that for the first age
group that is 20-30 the value of R-Square is .005 which mean that the .5% of
variation in dependent variable which is training and development is explained by
the independent variable which in learning experience which is infects low variation
explanation and then the regression coefficient for training and development is .107
which reveals that learning experience level is sensitive to training and
development. We can say that training and development brings/contributes 10.7 %
change in learning experience supported by the positive sign of training and
development co-efficient.
67
Female
Variable
S.E
tvalue
RSquar
e
Constant
3.597
.327
10.995 .000
Learning
experien
ce
-.007
.093
-.074
Constant
2.586
.816
3.167 .028
Learning
experien
ce
.283
.218
1.301
F-Stat
Sig
.005
.941
1.692
.198
68
In the Table 4.3.4.2 the results of regression analysis for Training and
development with respect to learning experience with the selection variable gender
are executed with the proposition that learning experience have a significant
relationship with employee job satisfaction for both Genders. The group is
categorizes into male and female. The analyses show that model is significant for
male and female category. The analysis further shows that the value of R-Square is
0.000 for male and .028 for female.
Variable
Graduate
Constant
3.334
.448
Learning
experien
ce
.079
.126
Constant
2.894
.611
4.739 .038
Learning
experien
ce
.204
.175
1.170
Master
S.E
tvalue
RSquar
e
7.439 .004
FStat
Sig
.393
.532
1.368
.250
.627
69
Professional
qualification
Constant
3.600
.575
6.263 .000
Learning
experien
ce
-.011
.157
-.067
.005
.947
The above Table 4.3.4.3 shows the results of regression analysis between
training and development and learning experience with respect to educational level
of the respondents. The regression analyses are executed with the proposition that
trainer quality has no relationship with training and development in all three group
of educational level. The group is categorizes into educational level of graduate,
master and professional qualification.
The table further reveals that regression model of graduate level employees
is insignificant .the value of R-Square (.004) indicate that trainer quality accounts .4
% of variation in training and development for graduate employee category. The
coefficient (= .079) for trainer quality is positively effecting the training and
development for graduate level.
The table further reveals that regression model of master level employees is
insignificant .the value of R-Square (.038) indicate that trainer quality accounts 3.8
% of variation in training and development for master employee category. The
coefficient ( =.204) for trainer quality is positively effecting the training and
development for master level.
Variable
S.E
tvalue
RSquar
e
FStat
Sig
70
Less than
4
5-10
11-15
16 and
above
Constant
3.742
.528
7.086 .000
Learning
experien
ce
-.027
.146
-.184
Constant
3.356
.752
4.462 .003
Learning
experien
ce
.068
.213
Constant
3.174
.534
Learning
experien
ce
.104
.148
Constant
3.004
.763
Learning
experien
ce
.157
.216
.034
.854
.104
.750
.490
.487
.524
.472
.322
5.941 .010
.700
3.935 .010
.724
The above Table 4.3.4.3 shows the regression analysis between learning
experience and training and development with respect to work experience. In the
above the regression model between training and development and learning
experience with the with respect to work experience are executed to check the
proposition that learning experience has no relationship with training and
development at any work experience group. The group is categorized into four work
experience groups that are less than 4 years, 5 - 10 years, and 11 15 years and
ultimately 16 and above years.
The table reveals that the regression model is not significant with R 2 = .000
which depicts that learning experience accounts variation in training and
development at the work experience group between 4 years. The analysis further
shows that there is negative relationship between learning experience and training
and development reveals that training and development level is sensitive to
learning experience at this work experience group and brings/contributes change in
training and development supported by the positive sign of learning experience coefficient and this relationship is statistically not significant. The analysis further
explain that learning experience is perceived as an important factor in training and
development (t = -.184).
71
The table reveals that the regression model is not significant with R 2 = .
003which depicts that learning experience accounts variation in training and
development at the work experience group between 5-10 years. The analysis
further shows that there is positive relationship between learning experience and
training and development reveals that training and development level is sensitive to
trainer quality at this work experience group and brings/contributes change in
training and development supported by the negative sign of learning experience coefficient and this relationship is statistically not significant. The analysis further
explain that learning experience is perceived as an important factor in training and
development (t = .322).
The table reveals that the regression model is not significant with R 2 = .010
which depicts that learning experience accounts variation in training and
development at the work experience group between 11-15 years. The analysis
further shows that there is negative relationship between learning experience and
training and development reveals that training and development level is sensitive to
learning experience at this work experience group and brings/contributes change in
training and development supported by the negative sign of learning experience coefficient and this relationship is statistically not significant. The analysis further
explain that learning experience is perceived as an important factor in training and
development (t = 1.710).
The table reveals that the regression model is not significant with R 2 = .001
which depicts that learning experience accounts variation in training and
development at the work experience group between 16 and above years. The
analysis further shows that there is negative relationship between learning
experience and training and development reveals that training and development
level is sensitive to learning experience at this work experience group and
brings/contributes change in training and development supported by the negative
sign of learning experience co-efficient and this relationship is statistically not
significant. The analysis further explain that learning experience is perceived as an
important factor in training and development (t = .700).
t- value
1.155
R-Square
8.965 .645
F-Stat
390.978
Sig
.000
72
Training
and
developme
nt
.689
.035
The table reveals that the regression model is significant (F, 390.978),
(P<.000) with R2 = .645 depicts that employee job satisfaction accounts 64.5%
variation in training and development. The analysis further depicts that there is
negative relationship between training and development and employee job
satisfaction (= .689) shows that training and development level is sensitive to
employee job satisfaction and employee job satisfaction contributes 68.9% change
in training and development and the relationship is statistically significant as the
probability value for this work experience group is less than level of significance
that is 0.05 %
Table 4.3.5.1 Case wise regression analysis of employee job satisfaction on training
and development with respect to age
Age
group
Variable
20-30
Constant
41-50
S.E
tvalue
RSquare
1.356
.176
.619
.046
1.413
.368
3.841 .377
Training
and
developme
nt
.585
.100
5.875
Constant
.835
.218
3.840 .783
Training
and
.818
.059
Training
and
developme
nt
31-40
Constant
7.723 .740
F-Stat
Sig
179.191
.000
34.516
.000
190.887
.000
13.386
13.816
73
developme
nt
50 and
above
Constant
.849
.229
Training
and
developme
nt
.798
.064
3.711 .811
154.416
.000
12.426
In the above Table, the results of regression analysis for employee job
satisfaction and training and development were executed with different age group
that is 20- 30 years, 31 - 40 years, 41 50 years and ultimately 51 and above years.
it is to check that the employee job satisfaction from each age group have a
significant relationship with the training and development.
In the above Output of regression analysis showing that for the first age
group that is 20-30 the value of R-Square is .740 which mean that the 74.0 % of
variation in dependent variable which is employee job satisfaction is explained by
the independent variable which in training and development which is infects low
variation explanation and then the regression coefficient for employee job
satisfaction is .619 which reveals that training and development level is sensitive to
employee job Satisfaction. We can say that employee job satisfaction
brings/contributes 61.9% change in training and development supported by the
positive sign of employee job satisfaction co-efficient.
74
Variable
Male
Constant
S.E
tvalue
Training
and
developme
nt
Female
Constant
Training
and
developme
nt
1.125
.169
6.644
.699
.046
15.153
1.193
.187
6.377
.672
.050
13.554
RSquar
e
F-Stat
Sig
.597
229.61
8
.000
.760
183.71
5
.000
75
In the Table 4.3.5.2 the results of regression analysis for employee job
satisfaction and Training and development with respect to gender with the selection
variable gender are executed with the proposition that training and development
have a significant relationship with employee job satisfaction for both Genders. The
group is categorizes into male and female. The analyses show that model is
insignificant for male and female category. The analysis further shows that the
value of R-Square is .597 for male and .760 for female.
Table 4.3.5.3 Case wise regression analysis of employee job satisfaction on training
and development with respect to educational qualification
Education
al
qualificati
on
Variable
Graduation
Constant
S.E
tvalue
Training
and
developme
nt
Master
Constant
1.080
.143
.715
.039
1.240
.560
RSquare
7.594 .788
F-Stat
Sig
343.794
.000
17.566
.000
18.542
2.216 .334
76
Training
and
developme
nt
Professional
Qualificatio
n
Constant
Training
and
developme
nt
.640
.153
4.191
1.216
.201
6.055 .665
.676
.054
155.026
.000
12.451
The above Table 4.3.5.2 shows the results of regression analysis between
employee job satisfaction and training and development with respect to educational
level of the respondents. The regression analyses are executed with the proposition
that trainer quality has no relationship with training and development in all three
group of educational level. The group is categorizes into educational level of
graduate, master and professional qualification.
The table further reveals that regression model of graduate level employees
is significant .the value of R-Square (.788) indicate that trainer quality accounts
78.8 % of variation in training and development for graduate employee category.
The coefficient (= .715) for trainer quality is negatively effecting the training and
development for graduate level.
The table further reveals that regression model of master level employees is
significant .the value of R-Square (.334) indicate that trainer quality accounts 33.4
% of variation in training and development for master employee category. The
coefficient ( =..640) for trainer quality is positively affecting the training and
development for master level.
77
Table 4.3.5.3 Case wise regression analysis of employee job satisfaction on training
and development with respect to work experience
Work
experien
ce
Variable
Less than
4
Constant
5-10
11-15
16 and
above
S.E
tvalue
RSquare
F-Stat
Sig
.596
118.034
.000
.395
19.591
.000
.807
201.202
.000
.790
191.789
.000
1.459
.212
6.875
.613
.056
10.864
1.194
.549
2.176
Training and
development
.659
.149
4.426
Constant
.864
.196
4.406
Training and
development
.767
.054
14.185
Constant
.934
.200
4.666
Training and
development
.753
.054
13.849
Training and
development
Constant
The above Table 4.3.5.3 shows the regression analysis between training and
development and employee job satisfaction with respect to work experience. In the
above the regression model between employee job satisfaction and training and
development with the with respect to work experience are executed to check the
proposition that training and development has no relationship with employee job
satisfaction at any work experience group. The group is categorized into four work
experience groups that are less than 4 years, 5 - 10 years, and 11 15 years and
ultimately 16 and above years.
The table reveals that the regression model is not significant with R 2 = .596
which depicts that training and development accounts variation in employee job
satisfaction at the work experience group between 4 years. The analysis further
shows that there is positive relationship between training and development and
employee job satisfaction reveals that employee job satisfaction level is sensitive to
training and development at this work experience group and brings/contributes
change in employee job satisfaction supported by the positive sign of training and
development co-efficient and this relationship is statistically significant. The analysis
78
The table reveals that the regression model is not significant with R 2 = .395
which depicts that training and development accounts variation in employee job
satisfaction at the work experience group between 5-10 years. The analysis further
shows that there is positive relationship between training and development and
employee job satisfaction reveals that employee job satisfaction level is sensitive to
training and development at this work experience group and brings/contributes
change in employee job satisfaction supported by the negative sign of training and
development co-efficient and this relationship is statistically significant. The analysis
further explain that training and development is perceived as an important factor in
employee job satisfaction (t = 4.426).
The table reveals that the regression model is not significant with R 2 = .807
which depicts that training and development accounts variation in employee job
satisfaction at the work experience group between 11-15 years. The analysis further
shows that there is positive relationship between training and development and
employee job satisfaction reveals that employee job satisfaction level is sensitive to
training and development at this work experience group and brings/contributes
change in employee job satisfaction supported by the negative sign of training and
development co-efficient and this relationship is statistically
significant. The
analysis further explain that training and development is perceived as an important
factor in employee job satisfaction (t = 14.185).
The table reveals that the regression model is not significant with R 2 = . .790
which depicts that training and development accounts variation in employee job
satisfaction at the work experience group 16 and above years. The analysis further
shows that there is positive relationship between training and development and
employee job satisfaction reveals that employee job satisfaction level is sensitive to
training and development at this work experience group and brings/contributes
change in employee job satisfaction supported by the positive sign of training and
development co-efficient and this relationship is statistically significant. The analysis
further explain that training and development is perceived as an important factor in
employee job satisfaction (t = 13.849).
Validity
79
Validity is concerned with the whether the findings are really about what they
likely to be (Sanuders et al, 2000). If question can be misunderstood, the
information is said to be of low validity. In order to avoid low validity, we tried to
design Questionnaire simple as possible and where necessary interview were
conducted face to face while filling out questionnaire so that the haziness should be
explained. The following the reliability statistics facets wise. Alpha denoted the
degree of strengthens.
RELIABILITY STATISTICS
4.5.1. Item Wise reliability statistics
Item Description
Alph
a
1.Trainer Quality
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
0.92
3
2. COURSE DESIGN:
1 The objectives of the program were relevant to my job.
2. I was well informed of the requirements for the Program.
3. I was very confident that I had the knowledge and skills required to
successfully complete the program.
4. I was well informed of how to complete each module of the program.
5. The assessments used in the program were fair.
6. I accomplished all the objectives of the course.
7. Training was designed to be conducted inside the organization..
80
.852
9. Performance of the learner was tested against the training being given.
10. Training was designed to address specific issues being faced by the
learners.
11. Training was conducted beyond the boundaries of organization.
3. LEARNING EXPERIENCE:
1 The learning style of the learners was considered for training.
2. I am satisfied with the learning from that training.
3. It would help me to improve my performance in my current job
4. I am feeling valued after that training.
5. That training has increased my skills
6. I would be able to apply what I had learned on a regular basis in my job.
7. I had plenty of time to complete all the modules of the program.
8. The activities in the program gave me sufficient practice and feedback.
9. I found the program overall to be very challenging.
.842
10. The activities in the program gave me sufficient practice and feedback.
11. The program exceeded my expectations.
4. TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT
1 I have access to relevant training programmers and skill development
activities.
2. The training and development offered by my company is relevant for my
daily work.
3. The training and development offered by my company is aligned with my
expectations and my personal development needs related to work.
4. My employer organizes continuous follow-up, feedback-sessions,
knowledge sharing activities after the training.
5. I feel satisfied with the way completed training activities are being
81
.875
.756
Correlation Analysis
Based on the sound reliability statistics of the variables, which is discussed
above .The mean value of each variable is calculated, thats trainer quality, course
design, learner experience, training and development and employee job
satisfaction. Based on the mean value of these variable bivariate Pearson product
correlations is executed in Statistical software. Below is the correlation matrix
among variables.
82
CD
LE
TQ
TD
EJS
CD
.519
LE
.063
.059
TD
.765
.454
.048
EJS
.749
.438
.107
1
1
.803
Hypotheses are tested by using statistical tools. The main statistical used in
the management sciences studies are correlation, regression, and statistical tests
i.e. T-test, F-test and ANOVA etc. Every statistical tool has its own area of
measurement. Generally correlation is used for measuring the degree of strength
among the variables. Researcher intends to investigate the degree of strength
among the different variables used in this study. Thus correlation has been used for
the same purpose.
.
T.Q = Trainer quality
C.D =Course design
L.E= Learning experience
T.D = Training and development
E.J.S= Employee job satisfaction.
In this study the trainer quality, learner experience and course design are
independent variable for Training and development while training and development
itself is independent variable for employee job satisfaction.
83
Variables
Mean
Std. Deviation
Trainer quality
3.539
.860
Course design
3.580
.8411
Learner experience
3.511
.7012
3.5899
.8936
3.6267
.76608
Hypothesis
Table Regression Analyses of Training and development on Trainer quality,
Course design and learning experience.
Variable
t- value
Sig
RSquare
F-Stat
Sig
(Constant)
.608
2.398
.017
.589
101.790
.000
trainer
quality
.752
14.093
course
design
.083
1.513
learning
experience
.007
.139
.000
.132
.890
Variable
Constant
Training
and
t- value
1.155
.689
R-Square
8.965 .645
F-Stat
390.978
Sig
.000
.035
84
developme
nt
Hypothesis 1: The quality of the trainer is positively associated with the employee
training and development.
Although training and development has been the area largely discussed by
the researcher in their empirical research. Very less work has been done in this
regard keeping trainer quality and training and development in content in Pakistan.
There is a quite gap in the study for the researcher to cover that area. While
understanding these attitudes is important because they have important
consequences on employee job satisfaction and these approaches can be influenced
by human resource policies and practices. In this study from the above correlation
matrix it is depicted that trainer quality (T.Q) is positively associated with the
training and development (T & D) that is .765 or 76.5 % with the mean 3.539 and
standard deviation of 0.860. However this correlation is positive but the significant
relationship among trainer quality and training and development will be checked
through regression analysis in proceeding discussion. This finding is matching the
findings of (Choo & Bowley, 2007).
In Our Study the Correlation between course design and training and
development is positive and the correlation coefficient is .454 which is 45.4% with
the mean of 3.580 and standard deviation of .8411. This finding is matching the
findings of Stephen Choo & Bowley (2007).
85
Creating a work environment in which employees are satisfied from there job
is essential to increased profits for organization. Principles of management that
dictate how, exactly, to maximize employee satisfaction center on major areas of
focus: personal motivation and the skills development of the employee.
From our discussion and analysis, there are positive associations between training
and development and employee job satisfaction. The correlation coefficient for this
variable is .803 which is 80.3 % with the mean of 3.6267 and standard deviation of .
76608 magnifying strong correlation. This finding is matching the findings of Ashraf
et al., (2008). However, significance will be check in the proceeding discussion with
the Help of regression analysis.
Regression Analysis
86
In the study we have used liner regression model by taking trainer quality,
course design, learning experience as independent variable for training and
development while then training and development acts as dependent variable for
employee job satisfaction.
The Rational behind using Regression analysis in our study is to check the
significance of independent variables, which have been discussed in correlation
concept.
The Level of Significance for our Study is 0.05 % and confidence interval is
95%. By Executing Ordinary Least Square Regression, we got the following Out Put.
Trainer quality has a positive association with the training and development
with the beta value .752 which reveal that trainer quality is contributing 75.2 % to
change in training and development with the t value of 14.093 and R 2 =.589 while
as P is smaller than level of significance and the relationship is statistically
significant.
87
Likewise course design has a positive association with the training and
development
with the beta value .083 which reveal that trainer quality is
contributing 8.3 % to change in training and development with the t value of 1.513
and R2 =.206 as the P is smaller than level of significance and the relationship is
statistically significant.
Regression analyses
development
of
Employee
job
satisfaction
on
Training
and
As for as the relation between training and development and employee job
satisfaction is concerned, this study analysis and results reveal that there is positive
relation between both independent variable (training and development) and
dependent variable (employee job satisfaction). This association/relationship is
statistically significant, because the level of significance is less the P value (P< 0.05
=0.000). Beta value is .689
4.2 DISCUSSION
In the modern age, the competition in the NGO sector have led them to
emphasize on the skills and working efficiency of their employees. The skillful,
knowledgeable and educated labor force of any organization work as a mean to
achieve the competitive edge over its rival companies in the market. Most of the
NGO sector organizations in Pakistan have realized that fact and adopting
employee-oriented approach by focusing on the improving skills and working
potential of its labor force. This approach not only helps the employees in bringing
88
improvement in the performance but also keeps them motivated and satisfied from
their job.
The intensive study had been conducted considering factors affecting training
i.e. trainer quality, course design and learning experience and its impact on
employee job satisfaction in the NGO sector of Pakistan especially in twin cities,
Rawalpindi and Islamabad.
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusion
With the passage of time the demand for extensive research of training for
employees increases. This study has been conducted with the aim to contribute
further in the measuring of training need for the employees in NGO sector
organizations by applying the tools measuring the factors affecting training i.e.
trainer quality, course design and learning experience. It has been also endeavored
to evaluate the role of training and development process on improving the
commitment of employees for the organizations as companies usually invest much
of its capital on improving the skills of its employees through training and
development programs.
The findings of this study shows that it is quite effective and feasible to
capture the characteristics of training and development by applying set of quality
dimensions tools. This study of linking employee job satisfaction with training and
development is not only important but also a challenging in a competitive era.
89
Nevertheless, when designing this study an attempt was made to reduce its
limitations. However, the external validity (generality) beyond the specific
investigated scope is limited, since this study was particular to implement training
practices in the in the chosen context. Given that the sort of service settings that
could be examined is probably unlimited, future studies should consider other
internal training factors than the elements examined here. For instance, perceived
trainer quality might play a bigger role in situations with personnel involvement, as
those where the needed interactions with trainees are of greater concern. Giving
the importance of the concept of trainer quality, course design and learning
experience on the training and development and employee job satisfaction in the
company, the issues of quality consideration justify attention in further theoretical
and pragmatic research.
5.2 Recommendations
After a detailed and exclusive research work, it becomes understandable to
discuss the points of the deficiency of the business processes understudy and point
out the possible steps as remedies to the imperfection of the structure/systems.
These suggested steps are denoted as Recommendations. Regarding the study
under processes, following strategies are recommended for further improvements:-
1.
90
2.
Beside other factors and elements for success of NGO sector, which is
dependent on the HR practices, procedures, applications and implementation
towards their employees development? We know that trainer quality, course design
and learning experience are considered one of the most important drivers of
successful job satisfaction, but unfortunately we are least considering this
relationship in its real essence. Therefore it is, necessary for higher management
that they must satisfy employees, who will become ultimately highly motivated with
good work morale, and work more effectively and efficiently.
3.
4.
The findings supporting hypothesis one suggest that there are positive links
between trainer quality and outcome of training and development program. The
good trainer having excellent communication skills, knowledgeable and experience
capabilities can influence his trainee better than any other trainer having
comparatively low skills. Therefore it is recommended that organizations should
select best possible trainer and assign task to professional trainer. This practice will
bring positive result of training and development practice.
5.
The findings supporting hypothesis number 3 suggest that course design has
strong link with the outcome of training program. The enriched course contents
having relevant and practical information with examples can help the trainees to
understand. Therefore it is recommended that before going for conduction of any
training program, proper information must be acquired regarding the course design.
Course should be made enrich with all essential ingredients.
6.
7.
91
Monetary benefit programmes are most highly valued by the employees. The
research study shows that employees basic motivational factor that leads to
enhance in employee job satisfaction. Thus to keep the employees motivated for
training and enhancement of their skills there should be promotion or increment
linkage with the successful completion of training and development program.
9.
The present study did not go without limitations. It was impeded by some
undesirable limitations that hampered the researcher from utilizing a variety of
options instead of conducting this study in confined settings. The study limitations
are as under:
50:50 ratios for male and female respondents were set. However, due to
unavailability of female respondents, this ratio was not achieved. Perhaps the
results may be different if we could have access to involve female participants in
this study.
Sample size of the respondents was not sufficient as all 400 questionnaires were
not returned with useable data. Perhaps the findings of the may be different if
we could have received all questionnaires properly filled.
Findings revealed from NGO sector may be the same as findings of the
government, corporate or telecom sector etc.
92
REFERENCES
Akerlof, G.A., A.K. Rose, and J.L. Yellen,. (1988). Job switching and job satisfaction in
the labor market. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 2, 495-582.
Alberto Chong & Jos Galdo (2006), Does the Quality of Training Programs
Matter? Evidence from Bidding Processes Data
Annemarie Nelen & Andries de Grip (2009), Why Do Part-time Workers Invest
Less in Human Capital than Full-timers?
93
Barmby, T.A., Orme, C.D. and Treble, J.G. (1991), Worker absenteeism: An
analysis using micro data, Economic Journal 101: 214-229.
Clark, A.E. (2001). What really matters in a job? Hedonic measurement using quit
data. Labour Economics 8, 223-242.
Clark, A., Georgellis, Y and Sanfey, P. (1998), Job satisfaction, wage changes
and quits: evidence from Germany, Research in Labor Economics, 17:
95-121.
Clark, A. E., Oswald, A. J., Warr, P,. (1996). Is Job Satisfaction U-shaped in Age?
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 69, 57-81.
94
C Dougherty (2000), Impact of Work Experience and Training in the Current and
Previous Occupations on Earnings: Micro Evidence from the National Lon
Ford, G., Smith, D., & Swasy, J. (1990). Consumer scepticism of advertising
claims: Testing hypotheses from economics of information. Journal of
Consumer Research, 16(4), 433441.
Gray, A., Phillips, V. (1992). Explaining NHS staff Turnover: A Local Labour Market
Approach, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Final Report from
Department of Health, London.
Greenhalgh, Christine & Stewart, Mark (1982), The effects and Determinants of
Training
96
Judge, T. and Watanabe, S. (1993), Another look at the job satisfaction life
satisfaction relationship, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 6, pp.
939-48.
Kevin Hollenbeck (1996), A Framework for Assessing the Economic Benefits and
Costs of Workplace Literacy Training
Kimberly, A., Smith, J., Salar, E. and Baker, D. P. (1996), Training Team
Performance-related Assertiveness, Personnel Psychology, 49, 4, 909
36.
97
Locke, E.A. (1976), The nature and causes of job satisfaction, in Dunnette,
M.D. (Ed.) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand
McNally College Publishing Company, Chicago.
Martyn Sloman and John Philpott (2006), Training and learning in the
knowledge and service economy.
Melanie K. Jones, David Rosas and Yuri Soares (2008) Training, Job
Satisfaction and Workplace Performance in Britain: Evidence from
WERS 2004.
98
People In Aid. (2007): Motivating Staff and Volunteers Working in NGOs in the
South
Rowden, R. W., & Conine Jr., C. T. (2003). The relationship between workplace
learning and job satisfaction in U.S. small commercial banks. In S. A.
Lynham & T. M. Egan (Eds.), AHRD 2003 Conference Proceedings 1 (pp.
459466).
Shields, M. and Price, S. (2002), Racial harassment, job satisfaction and intentions
to quit: evidence from the Bristish nursing profession, Economica, Vol. 69
No.274, pp. 295-362.
Shields, M. A., & Ward, M. (2001). Improving nurse retention in the national
health service in England: The impact of job satisfaction on intentions
to quit. Journal of Health Economics,20(5), 677701.
99
Smith, R., & Bush, A. J. (2002). Using the incomplete information framework
to develop service.
Tai, T., Bame, S., Robinson, C., 1998. Review of Nursing Turnover Research, 19771996. Social Science and Medicine 12, 1905-24.
Tsang, M., Rumbereger, R., Levin, H., 1991. The Impact of Surplus Schooling on Work
Productivity. Industrial Relations 30, 209-28.
100
Wegge, J., Schmidt, K-H., van Dick, R. and Parkes, C. (2004), Taking a sickie:
job satisfaction and job involvement as interactive predictors of
absenteeism, Aston Business School Research Paper RP 0427.
101
ANNEXURE
QUESTIONNAIRE
Demographic Information
Total years of Experience with this Organization (Please Tick your Experience
Group)
(1). 1-3 (2). 4-6 (3). 7-9 (4).10-12 (5).13-15 (6)16-19 (7)20 or (8) above
Date____________ Designation_____________________
Department_____________________________________
102
1. TRAINERS QUALITY
2. COURSE DESIGN:
103
were fair.
6
1
0
1
1
3. LEARNING EXPERIENCE:
104
challenging.
1
0
1
1
JOB SATISFACTION
My supervisor/franchisee regularly
acknowledges when I do a good job
105
Absenteeism
106
107