Download Dissection of Herzberg's two Factor Theory to Predict Job Satisfication and more Lecture notes Industrial management in PDF only on Docsity!
The Lahore Journal of Business 8 : 2 (Spring 2020): pp. 85 – 128
Dissection of Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory to Predict
Job Satisfaction: Empirical Evidence from the
Telecommunication Industry of Pakistan
Seeham Yousaf*
Abstract Herzberg’s motivation theory is one of the most widely studied motivation theories. This theory is also known as the two-factor or dual-factor theory. The premise of Frederick Herzberg’s theory is that the concept of motivation is divided into two aspects: hygiene and motivators. There is no denying of the fact that the theory of Herzberg of employee motivation is very pertinent in explaining the work behaviors of organizational employees. Nevertheless, this theory attracts substantial criticism from its critics who strongly contended that there is no need to revive the original theory as it lacks substantial influence in explaining employee motivation. Taking this notion forward, this study aims to test the fundamental factors that are of six hygiene factors (extrinsic factors), and five motivators (intrinsic factors) that affect the job satisfaction of front line employees (FLEs). In doing so, this study moves beyond the dichotomy of these two factors and examine the pertinence of underlying factors that can directly influence the employee job satisfaction. The FLEs are the faces that represent organizations, as they directly interact with the customers at their business units. The study analyzes the data by applying a structured equation model on a survey sample of 284 employees, constituting of business managers and executives in both metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas in telecommunication industry of Pakistan. This research reveals positive and direct relationship of five of the underlying factors (money, relationship with peers, relationship with supervisors, work itself and recognition) with job satisfaction. Keywords: Herzberg’s theory, job satisfaction, telecommunication, front line employees JEL Classification : M12, J53, K23, K31.
- (^) Senior Teaching Fellow, Lahore School of Economics, Lahore, Pakistan.
86 Seeham Yousaf
1. Introduction A positive attitude of employees is essential for an organization’s success (Khan, Abbas, & Zaki, 2017), as they are the most valuable resource for any firm. They can build or destroy its corporate and business standing by affecting its overall profitability (Elnaga & Imran, 2013). Organizations in the service sector heavily rely on their frontline employees’ (FLE) services in order to maintain successful communication in terms of two- way information flow. Likewise, FLEs through service encounters are also a major source of transferring substantial external information to firms (Santos-Vijande, López-Sánchez, & Rudd, 2016). Frontline service employees are the most crucial employees as they are the representatives of service sector firms. The FLEs must follow standardized operating procedures at the service encounters in order to convey high service quality that is always reliable (Maria Stock, 2017). Therefore, they play an important role in customer satisfaction (Jauhari, Singh, & Kumar, 2017). In this regard, customers can only be loyal to organizations if they are completely satisfied with the services that are offered and promised to them. Such level of adequate service can only be possible through a team of satisfied workers who are committed to the organization (Sarfraz & Mahmood, 2017). FLEs need to interact effectively with their customers (Van Scheers & Botha, 2014) and this interaction is contingent on their level of job satisfaction and motivation towards their work (Sony & Mekoth, 2016). A satisfactory customer-employee relationship does not only retain customers, but also maintains a positive relationship between a customer and the organization as a whole (Premkumar & Rajan, 2017). Job satisfaction (dissatisfaction) refers to the balance of positive (negative) feelings that a worker has towards his/her work (Aziri & Brikend, 2011), which further develops a positive relationship between motivation and job satisfaction (Van Scheers & Botha, 2014). Motivation is the driving force that an organization uses to encourage employees towards its success (Akhtar, Hussain, Ali, & Salman, 2014). Consequently, keeping employees motivated is extremely important for any organization. Motivation caters to two perspectives: (i) general commitment towards an endeavor; and (ii) specific needs of a person. The former refers to ‘general work satisfaction or commitment’, while the latter means ‘specific satisfied
88 Seeham Yousaf motivators. Therefore, the study first dissects these two factors to identify the most relevant factors by going beyond of the two-factor categorization.
2. Research Rationale There is no denying of the fact that the theory of Herzberg of employee motivation is very pertinent in explaining the work behaviors organizational employees. Nevertheless, this theory attracts substantial criticism from its critics (Deci & Ryan, 2001; Steers, Mowday & Shapiro, 2004). It is strongly contended that there is no need to revive the original theory as it lacks substantial influence in explaining employee motivation (Bassett-Jones & Lloyd, 2005; Achie & Kurah, 2016). In the similar vein, Onen and Maicibi (2004) have differed with Maidani (1991). They argued that one of the hygiene factor was originally a motivator in the study and this misclassification was caused due to the differences in the sample and organizational culture of employees. Smerek and Peterson (2007) found that only work itself (one factor) showed a significant impact on job satisfaction which highlights the need of studying these underlying factors as separate constructs to better understand what actually motivates the employees. With respect to the reliability of the constructs, Manisera et al (2005) showed insignificant difference between the second order constructs of hygiene and motivation. Likewise, Yusoff et. al (2013) proposed to combine both of these factors into one factor after comparing the inconsistencies in the findings of the two-factor theory from various countries and industries. For instance, the tasks assigned to employees and the geographical regions play a crucial role in studying the relationship between motivation and job satisfaction (Islam and Saha, 2016). In the wake of this critique, this study aims to move beyond the dichotomy of two factor theory and examines the actual tenants of this theory for a better understanding of employee job satisfaction. Nonetheless, Herzberg’s two-factor theory has pushed ahead in relevance and continues to be one of the most important theories of motivation being studied as a determinant of job satisfaction. 3. Literature Review In 1959, Herzberg et al. suggested the two-dimensional paradigm of factors that affect motivation in employees, and from here on they developed the two-factor theory (Herzberg, 1966). This theory was
Dissection of Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory 89 elaborated by stating that a job’s content, nature, and the tasks it entails were crucial to motivate employees to do their respective jobs (Ruiz- Palomino, Saez-Martínez, & Martínez-Canas, 2013). A dynamic approach, as postulated by an idealistic philosophical lens, argues that a man has two needs, one to avoid pain and another to grow psychologically (Rao, 1972). Despite the perennial claims that Herzberg’s theory is being exhausted due to over application, recent research in the field of positive psychology has been found to show consistency with the core ideas of Herzberg’s two- factor theory of motivation (Sachau, 2007). Indeed, Herzberg’s work speaks volumes, but it is not put forth without its critics evaluating the possible weaknesses of the theory. The significance of motivation is crucial in all firms to enhance employee performance, which is the key to an organization’s growth. Therefore, multiple motivation practices have been adopted to meet the requirement of the workforce and its work environment (Ogbogu, 2017). Among the various theories, Herzberg’s theory of motivation is the most popular theory in studying job satisfaction (Dion, 2006). Moreover, Herzberg’s theory is applicable even after fifty years of examining employee behavior (Hoseyni et al., 2014), and is famously known as the, “motivation-hygiene theory”. According to the tenants of this theory, motivating factors increase job satisfaction and hygiene factors decrease job dissatisfaction (Band, Shah, & Sriram, 2016). The traditional Herzberg approach represented both job satisfaction and dissatisfaction on the same continuum, but at opposite ends. Later on, satisfaction and dissatisfaction were separated into different sets of categories, each accompanied by distinct set factors. Hygiene factors decreased dissatisfaction, whereas it was the motivators that increased satisfaction. Hence, the updated two-factor theory that claimed satisfaction and dissatisfaction to be determined by different set of factors was reinforced (Brenner, Carmack, & Weinstein, 1971). It must be noted that Herzberg’s theory of motivation derived inspiration from Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Dartey-Baah & Amoako, 2011). Hygiene factors, fulfilled “the need to avoid unpleasantness” while the motivation factors met “the need of the individual for self-growth and self- actualization” (Alshmemri, Maude, & Phillip, 2017).
Dissection of Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory 91 Whilst Herzberg’s model stands first among the motivational theories, some studies extend their models further by bringing employee’s emotional wellbeing into the equation (Noble, 2008). For understanding purposes, it is noted that job satisfaction refers to the degree to which people like their jobs (Muhammad, 2017). A study on a high school teacher’s group in Turkey suggested that both hygiene factors and motivation factors contribute to changes in job satisfaction (Atalic & Canturk, 2016). The theory was validated even in a different cultural setting like Taiwan (Chu & Kuo, 2015). Job dissatisfaction leads salespersons from both genders to leave their jobs, but their causes may vary (McNeilly & Goldsmith, 1991). Similarly, the satisfaction of a salesperson is a function of their supervisor’s consideration, participation, feedback and interaction (Teas & Horrell, 2015). Even though, “age, sex, education, occupation and income” were all important variables in the earlier studies, but it became evident in the studies conducted later on that there are other variables that explained the effect of motivation on job more effectively (Izvercian, Potra, & Ivascu, 2016). In developed nations, and in research-based developing nations, females reported a difference in job satisfaction levels. In the United States, women reported higher levels of satisfaction than their male counterparts (Wharton, 1993). A study based on Filipino workers revealed that there is a definitive gender disparity, as the male managers reported that they were trusted with more responsibilities than their female colleagues (Hechanova, Alampay, & Franco, 2006). The assignment of varying responsibilities is one of the core motivational factors which contribute to an increase in job satisfaction. It becomes evident that female workers are the victims of gender discriminations, thus in certain parts of the world they would report lower levels of satisfaction. A study conducted on the university graduates from Wisconsin showed that the female graduate population was quite dissatisfied due to the income disparity among genders (Hodson, 1983). Despite the critiques, recent studies have highlighted that the stated factors emphasized by Herzberg’s theory were essential in understanding job satisfaction. A study conducted on Ghanaian workers within the service industry found that multiple factors were of great importance to the workers themselves. Job security, their working conditions,
92 Seeham Yousaf relationship with subordinates and supervisors were all prerequisites for understanding whether or not they felt satisfied with their jobs (Sarwar & Abugre, 2013). Although Herzberg’s hygiene factors do play a role in the worker's satisfaction, employees would be more satisfied had they received more recognition for the work they did (Sarwar & Abugre, 2013). Despite the importance given to hygiene factors, it is concluded that motivational factors increase job satisfaction, and their absence leads to dissatisfaction among employees. But nonetheless, the hygiene factors should not be ignored (Pestonjee & Basu, 1972). Furthermore, much of Herzberg’s factors have been emphasized as determinants of job satisfaction thus providing further support for the two-factor theory of motivation (Joshi & Sharma, 1997). Studies have also revealed that much of the listed satisfiers and motivators were in line with the two-factor theory. A study done on Malaysian retail workers found that salespeople put a higher emphasis on hygiene factors (working conditions, money and company policy). When surveyed, however, motivational factors recognition in particular still proved important (Tan & Waheed, 2011). Several studies show that workers of the service industry have indicated a great importance for hygiene factors in studying job satisfaction. However, this does not mean that motivational factors are to be ignored. The combination of both intrinsic and extrinsic factors should be studied as it broadens the scope of understanding (Yusoff, Kian, & Idris, 2013) of job satisfaction. Service employees are the backbone of the product that service industries provide (Hechanova, Alampay, & Franco, 2006), thus the need to invest time in employee programmes would increase job satisfaction. To improve the job satisfaction of service workers, employers mostly focus on motivational factors. A study done on 954 Filipino service workers found that there was a positive relationship between job empowerment and job satisfaction (Hechanova, Alampay, & Franco, 2006). Much of the lower paid service workers were far more inclined to be satisfied with their jobs if their immediate concerns were being catered to. Whereas the managerial staff tended to have more focus on the long-term prospects (Brown & McIntosh , 2003). Similarly, in the service sector, employee satisfaction relies on making jobs more meaningful. Generally, service sector jobs that directly deal with the public are seen as emotionally exhausting (Wharton, 1993).
94 Seeham Yousaf employees feel more motivated when they are aware of organizational policies. In a similar study that was conducted about the faculty of various universities by Islam and Ali (2013), teachers were satisfied with their jobs because all the policies applicable on every faculty member were the same, and all the teachers were aware of it. Another study by Winer and Schiff (1980), and Lucas and Gresham (1985) stated in their findings that company policy was very crucial in motivating an employee, and ultimately achieving job satisfaction. Company policies that take care of their employees have shown reciprocity in terms of higher motivation and job satisfaction for more than sixty years (Gouldner, 1960). Therefore, human resources have to consider employee motivation when creating company policies to positively influence an employee’s job satisfaction (Memon, Panhwar, & Rohra, 2010). Chiang and Birtch (2011) stated that company policies that considered its employees’ working environment, provided organizational support, and offered non-financial rewards, effectively increased the job satisfaction of its work force. Wong and Heng (2009) found that the implementation of company policy and procedures is essential for maintaining employee job satisfaction. Based on the above discussion, the following hypothesis is presented to examine the link between company policy and job satisfaction. _Hypothesis 2 : Company policy has a positive and direct relationship with job satisfaction.
- 3 .3 Relationship with Supervisors_ Herzberg (1966) defines the relationship with supervisors as the relationship the employee has with his/her boss, supervisor, or manager. However, Griffin et al. (2001) stated that the support of the supervisor may not be of the utmost importance in some organizations, but it does have a positive relationship with job satisfaction. Employees often seek better career opportunities if their relationship with their supervisors is good. They are more likely to approach their supervisors for any work advice once an in-depth communication between the supervisor and the subordinate has been established (Chen & Tjosvold, 2006). This cordial relationship motivates the subordinates to produce better results, and execute the tasks as per the job requirements, in return increasing the job satisfaction of the employees (Cheung, Wu, Chan, & Wong, 2009). Other than this, mentorship between subordinate and a supervisor also
Dissection of Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory 95 positively affects job satisfaction. A healthy and motivating relationship of employees working in the public sector showed a positive impact on job satisfaction, when the supervisors were given autonomy in building healthy relationships with the junior employees (Kuvaas, 2009). Social relationships at a work place are essential for an employee’s satisfaction, especially when the relation is with the supervisor (Jiang, Lin, & Lin, 2011). However, “unethical treatment of employees” by managers at any level can lead to job dissatisfaction among employees, especially in the service sector organizations such as hotels (Wong & Li, 2015). Based on the above discussion, the following hypothesis is presented to investigate the direct link between relationship with supervisor and job satisfaction. _Hypothesis 3 : Relationship with supervisors has a positive and direct relationship with job satisfaction.
- 3 .4 Relationship with Peers_ Herzberg (1966) defines ‘relationship with peers’ as the relationship with colleagues at work for both genders. Khojasteh (1993) studied Herzberg’s motivation theory applied on the managers of private and public sector organizations. She concluded that having a good interpersonal relationship with colleagues motivated the public sector managers more than the private sector managers. This was primarily because there was a difference in maintaining relationships with the colleagues in both the sectors. In a study conducted by Volkwein and Parmley (2000) on the administrative staff of higher education commission, found a positive impact on the job satisfaction level of the employees due to cordial teamwork among the peers at work. Similarly, receiving co-workers’ appreciation was directly related to job satisfaction of the FLEs of different hotels (Alam, 2015). Understanding the relationship amongst the Japanese physicians also showed a positively significant impact on the job satisfaction levels of their colleagues (Wada et al., 2009). Another study by Islam and Ali (2013) applied Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory on the teachers in the private universities of Peshawar, and found that the relations among the co-workers was highly significant in achieving job satisfaction. This is only possible with teamwork and an effective support system. Based on the above discussion, the following hypothesis is presented to ascertain the link between relationship with peers and job satisfaction.
Dissection of Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory 97 among the various factors of motivation, salary and relationship with and between colleagues were considered the most important factors ensuring job satisfaction in employees (David, Gidwani, Birthare, & Singh, 2015; Islam & Saha, 2016). Based on the above discussion, the following hypothesis can be presented to investigate between salary and job satisfaction. Hypothesis 5 : Salary has a positive and direct relationship with job satisfaction. 3.3.6 Work Security Herzberg (1966) defined ‘work security’ as a phenomenon which includes all the dimensions of a job that protect the employees physically, mentally and personally, while retaining their jobs over the long term. Employees who had the security of retention over longer period showed higher job satisfaction in the private sector (Khojasteh, 1993). Moreover, aged employees were seen to be more motivated and satisfied with their jobs when offered job security as compared to higher monetary gains (Kovach, 1987). Moreover, Sledge, Miles and Coppage (2008) concluded in their study, based on the hotel industry, that the uncertainty of losing one’s job was a factor that was hampering employee motivation; therefore, work security has a positive relationship with job satisfaction. Hence, confidence regarding employment can increase job satisfaction in all employees when they have work security (Theodossiou & Vasileiou, 2007). Job security in terms of pre-defined contractual renewals to safeguard the employees from the risk of being unemployed has implications on the satisfaction levels of employees throughout the hierarchy (Danish & Usman, 2010; Saraswathi, 2011). Based on the above discussion, the following hypothesis is presented to determine the link between work security and job satisfaction. Hypothesis 6 : Work security has a direct and positive relationship with job satisfaction. 3.3. 7 Work Itself Herzberg (1966) defined the concept of ‘work itself’ as the tasks, activities and responsibilities required to execute a job. Ahmed et al. (2010) showed a positive impact of work itself on job satisfaction for the administrative employees of the University of Punjab. Islam and Ali (2013)
98 Seeham Yousaf placed the variable of work itself as the most important motivator for the teachers of private universities of Peshawar. Moreover, Norizan’s (2012) study suggested that offering adequately challenging tasks of the assigned work, and providing employees with the opportunity to use and enhance their skills lead to a positive impact on employees’ job satisfaction. Another study by Delaney and Royal (2017) showed a positive relationship between work itself and job satisfaction, especially when employees find their work to be interesting and challenging. Furthermore, a study by Sledge et al. (2008) showed that the hotel industry employees in Brazil were contented with their jobs when their tasks and responsibilities were of their interest. This finding shows that the feature of work itself is a factor that significantly influences the motivation level of employees (Smerek & Peterson, 2007). Substantial support in this regard, in multiple studies towards the importance of work itself has emerged as a dominant determinant of job satisfaction (Hossain & Hossain, 2012; Omolo, 2015; Tyilana, 2005). Based on the above discussion, the following hypothesis is presented, Hypothesis 7: Work itself has a positive and direct relationship with job satisfaction. 3.3.8 Recognition ‘Recognition’ is defined by Herzberg (1966) as public recognition by others, perhaps in the form of awards or evidence of a job well done. Employees who received recognition for their work by their supervisors showed higher satisfaction in those employees (Shore & Shore, 1995). Similar findings were found in a study by Buchanan (1974), stating that employees who were recognized for their contribution in the success of organizations were more motivated towards their work, ultimately leading to higher job satisfaction. Hinkin and Schriesheim (2004) also concluded that there happens to be a positive relationship between employee recognition and job satisfaction, which signifies that an organization recognizes that a particular employee is satisfied with the job, when he/she display an increase in productivity. Managers in private and public sectors showed increased levels of job satisfaction when the press for their work recognized and perhaps appreciated them (Khojasteh, 1993). According to Lester’s (2013) study, people possess a basic need of appreciation or recognition. Similarly, in another study by Desai (2015), employees who received recognition for their work were more likely to be
100 Seeham Yousaf team of medical staff that showed that achievement was the most important factor in motivating employees, ultimately leading towards job satisfaction. The objectives such as self-efficacy and successfully attaining organizational goals increased the level of job satisfaction among the health professionals. The feeling of achievement or accomplishment significantly affects the level of job satisfaction among employees (Knight & Westbrook, 1999). In a study by Sledge et al. (2008) that was conducted in Brazil, when assessing the job satisfaction of hotel industry, results revealed that most of the employees expressed a positive desire to achieve more objectives and goals, this showed a direct relationship with job satisfaction. Based on the above discussion, a direct and positive link between achievement and job satisfaction is proposed in the following hypothesis. Hypothesis 10: Achievement has a positive and direct relationship with job satisfaction. 3.3.11 Growth Herzberg (1966) defines growth as an employee’s preference for progress, and the initiatives he makes for substantial personal growth. Due to strict patterns of hierarchy in the public organizations, keeping employees motivated can be a great challenge. Organizations should be able to meet their employees’ expectations of career growth in order to keep them satisfied with their jobs (Rainey, 1989). According to Ramlall (2004) the managers should provide growth opportunities to their employees, if they aim to improve their job satisfaction. This would be useful because according to his studies, employees value growth as the most important motivator than others. Another study based in Taiwan by Chen, Chang and Yeh (2004) revealed that career development programs have a positive influence on the job satisfaction of employees. Based on the above discussion, the following hypothesis is presented to examine the direct and positive link between growth and job satisfaction. Hypothesis 11: Growth has a positive and direct relationship with job satisfaction.
4. Data and Methodology For the purpose of this study, the stratified random sampling technique (Naderi, 2012) was applied to collect the responses from front line
Dissection of Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory 101 employees working at various locations of the telecommunication business centers in Pakistan. The respondents included business center managers, senior executives and junior executives for the purpose of measuring job satisfaction of these front line employees only. A questionnaire was developed using Google forms, which was then emailed to the front line employees working at the business centers. The Email was sent to the all business unit employees located in all the metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas of different cities of Pakistan for capturing a realistic representation of the study population. From 370 possible responses, 284 responses were evaluated for statistical analysis. Only those questionnaires were considered for the study that were completely filled in by the respondents. 4 .1 Instruments To examine the variables of this research, the study used 30 items for measuring the independent variables (Tan & Waheed, 2011) and four items to measure job satisfaction of the front line employees (Klassen, Usher, & Bong, 2010; Stephanou, Gkavras, & Doulkeridou, 2013) as shown in Table 1. The employees then evaluated their level of motivation and job satisfaction on a 5 - point Likert scale ranging from 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree. Table 1: Constructs and Measures Variables Items Studies Job Satisfaction 4 Klassen, Usher, & Bong, (2010) Stephanou, Gkavras, & Doulkeridou (2013) Achievement 3 Tan & Waheed (2011) Advancement 2 Akter, Wali, Kamal, Mukul, & Mahmuda, (2017) Work itself 3 Dikmen, Yıldırım, Yıldırım, & Ozbash, (2017) Recognition 3 Growth 3 Company Policy 3 Relationship 3 Work Security 3 Relationship with supervisor 3 Money 2 Working conditions 2 4 .2 Data Analysis The Structural equation modelling (SEM) is run using Amos 18 for the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and the path analysis (Lam, Zhang,
Dissection of Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory 103 Table 2a: Correlation Coefficients Variables Ach Adv Wits Rec Gro Pol Peer Sup Mon WCn WSc J Achievement (Ach) 1 Advancement (Adv) .595^1 Work Itself (WIts) .650^ .627^1 Recognition (Rec) .638^ .565^ .669^1 Growth (Gro) .696^ .638^ .745^ .684^1 Company Policy (Pol) .634^ .594^ .644^ .638^ .672^1 Relationship with Peers (Peer) .461^ .398^ .425^ .500^ .488^ .524^1 Relationship with Supervisors (Sup) .470^ .446^ .492^ .696^ .540^ .547^ .535^1 Money (Mon) .240^ .309^ .269^ .264^ .306^ .299^ .263^ .306^1 Working Conditions (WCn) .565^ .464^ .575^ .557^ .594^ .647^ .561^ .593^ .475^1 Work Security (WSc) .464^ .404^ .473^ .496^ .519^ .574^ .528^ .498^ .455^ .595^1 Job Satisfaction (J) .680^ .558^ .680^ .709^ .700^ .728^ .595^ .667^ .511^ .767^ .637^1 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Table 2b: Variance Infation Factors (VIFs) Variables Collinearity Statistics VIF Achievement 2. Advancement 2. Work Itself 2. Growth 3. Company Policy 2. Relationship with Peers 1. Relationship with Supervisors
Money 1. Working Conditions 2. Work Security 1. Recognition 3. a. Dependent Variable: Job Satisfaction
104 Seeham Yousaf 5 .1 Descriptive Statistics The data contains 284 observations as the final observations. Work itself, has a value of 4.25 on average, and has a standard deviation of 0.88. Moreover, recognition has a mean value of 4.21, with 1.00 points deviation from this central value. The relationship with peers has a mean value of 4. and shows a 0.73 standard deviation. The relationship with supervisors is another variable controlled for in this study with a mean value of 4.16, which deviates from its mean by 0.96 points. Money has a mean of 3.62, and a standard deviation of 1.05 points. The dependent variable, job satisfaction is equal to 4.01 on average, and with a standard deviation of 0.80. All these variables have the minimum value of 1, and maximum value of 5. The maximum variance is in money and work itself as they both have the greatest mean value. Out of 284 respondents, 84 percent were males, 16 percent were females. In the category of employment, 71 percent respondents were outsourced and 29 percent were permanent. As per the location of the FLEs, 57 percent respondents were from a metro type city, and 43 percent were from a non-metropolitan city. From the hierarchy of these employees 15 percent workers were Business Center Managers, 9 percent were Senior Executives and 76 percent were Executives. 5 .2 Structural Equational Modelling The CFA results excuded the factor of ‘advancement’, a motivator due to a very low loading of 0.34. Factor loadings for all other variables range from 0.62 to 0.93, except for one item which was the ‘relationship with the peers’ showing a 0.54. Composite reliability (CR) and convergent validity (CV) holds for all the constructs, as the CR ranges from 0.75 to 0.90, and the AVE from 0.56 to 0.75 (see Table 3). The variable ‘work security’ is omitted from further analysis as its CR and AVE values, 0.60 and 0.43, do not conform with the construct’s reliability and validity. Table 3 below reports, the CR, AVE and DV of the constructs, and factor loadings of each item.
