3.

1 Demographic Characteristics

Table-1 Depicts the descriptive statistics. Out of 50 respondents, about two thirds of sample
is female. Almost sixty four percent of respondents are worker in designation category and
only eight percent of the respondents are top level management and mid-level
management.

Table-1

Sample Profile

Demographic Frequency Percentage

Characteristics

Gender(n=50)
Male 19 38.00

Female 31 62.00
Designation(n=50)
Operator 11 22.00

Cleaner 08 16.00

Assist. Operator 03 06.00

Helper 09 18.00

GM Finance 01 02.00

Assist. Admin Officer 01 02.00

HR Officer 02 04.00
 Nurse 01 02.00

Doctor 01 02.00

Senior Fare & Saftey 01 02.00

Officer
Production Manager 04 08.00
Welfare Officer 02 04.00
Line Manager 02 04.00
Assist. Manager HR & 01 02.00
Complince
GM Merchandiser 01 02.00
Fire Technician 01 02.00
Deputi Manager 01 02.00
Admin

3.1 Reliability Test

Table-02:Reliability Statistics

Factors Cronbach’s Alpha No. of Items

Factor-01: Extrinsic Factors .461 12
of Motivation
Factor-02: Intrinsic Factors .253 7
of Motivation
Factor-03: Employees .453 7
Performance

A reliability statistics (Cronbach’s Alpha) has been perfomed to test the reliability and
internal consistency of three factors. The coefficient range from 0.45(Factor 3) to
0.46(Factor 1), indicating that variables are considered to be internally consistent. All of the
final communalities are lower then 0.50, indicating week correlations between the
indicators and associated factors. The α value shows .461 for factor 1, .253 foe factor 2,
.453 for factor 3.

Hypothesis H1(1)

Table-03

One-Sample Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Extrinsic
50 3.9517 .32036 .04531
Factors

Table-04
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 3
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Lower Upper

Extrinsic
21.005 49 .000 .95167 .8606 1.0427
Factors
Source: Survey Result(2018)
H1 = The monetary compensation or salary structure has an impact on my level of
motivation

H0 = The monetary compensation or salary structure has not an impact on my level of

motivation.
The table 04 indicates that, for one sample t-test; at 5% significant level the p value [Sig. (2-
tailed)] for economic factors is smaller than 0.05(p<.05) which results that null hypothesis
H0(1) is rejected and alternative hypothesis H1(1) is accepted. The analysis depicts that,
economic factors affect employees turnover intention significantly.

Table-05

One-Sample Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Intrinsic
50 3.9714 .32268 .04563
Factors

Table-06

One-Sample Test
Test Value = 3
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Lower Upper

Intrinsic 21.28
49 .000 .97143 .8797 1.0631
Factors 7

Source: Survey Result(2018)

H1= The degree of trust exhibited at my work place is a determinant of my level of

motivation at work.

H0= Tee of trust exhibited at my work place is not determinant of my level of motivation at
work.

The table 06 indicates that, for one sample t-test; at 5% significant level the p value [Sig. (2-
tailed)] for economic factors is smaller than 0.05(p<.05) which results that null hypothesis
H0(1) is rejected and alternative hypothesis H1(1) is accepted. The analysis depicts that,
economic factors affect employees turnover intention significantly.

Table-07

One-Sample Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Employees
50 3.6714 .63839 .09028
Performance

Table-08
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 3
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Lower Upper

Employees 7.
4
Performance 49 .000 .67143 .4900 .8529
3
7

Source: Survey Result(2018)

H1= The rate at which employees learn new job tasks can be attributed to their levels of
motivation.

H0= The rate at which employees learn new job tasks can not be attributed to their levels of
motivation.
The table 08 indicates that, for one sample t-test; at 5% significant level the p value [Sig. (2-
tailed)] for economic factors is smaller than 0.05(p<.05) which results that null hypothesis
H0(1) is rejected and alternative hypothesis H1(1) is accepted. The analysis depicts that,
economic factors affect employees turnover intention significantly.

Table-09

Correlations

Extrinsic Factors Intrinsic Employees

Factors Performance

Extrinsic Factors Pearson Correlation 1 .308* .300*

Sig. (2-tailed) .029 .034

N 50 50 50
Intrinsic Factors Pearson Correlation .308* 1 .079
Sig. (2-tailed) .029 .586

N 50 50 50

Employees Pearson Correlation .300* .079 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .034 .586
Performance
N 50 50 50

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Personal product moment correlation coefficient (r) has been conducted to justify the
correlation between the dependent and independent variables. A correlation matrix of all
values of r fpr the independent variables along with the dependent variable is given the
Table 09. The result person product moment correlation exposses that there is a positive
correlation between economic factor and empoyees motivation which indicates the
economic factors have a great influence on the intention of employees motivaaaion. The
analysis also found that, the other factor i.e, working environment factor, performancr
appraisal factor and career development factor are also significantly correlated with the
employees motivation intention