Top Banner
INTRODUCTION Job enrichment is an attempt to motivate employees by giving them the opportunity to use the range of their abilities. It is an idea that was developed by the American psychologist Frederick Herzberg in the 1950s. It can be contrasted to job enlargement which simply increases the number of tasks without changing the challenge. As such job enrichment has been described as 'vertical loading' of a job, while job enlargement is 'horizontal loading'. An enriched job should ideally contain: A range of tasks and challenges of varying difficulties (Physical or Mental) A complete unit of work - a meaningful task Feedback, encouragement and communication Job enrichment, as a managerial activity includes a three steps technique: 1. Turn employees' effort into performance: Ensuring that objectives are well-defined and understood by everyone. The overall corporate mission statement should be communicated to all. Individual's goals should also be clear. Each employee should know exactly how he/she fits into the overall process and be aware of how important their contributions are to the organization and its customers.
82
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Job Enrichment

INTRODUCTION

Job enrichment is an attempt to motivate employees by giving them the opportunity to use

the range of their abilities. It is an idea that was developed by the American psychologist

Frederick Herzberg in the 1950s. It can be contrasted to job enlargement which simply increases

the number of tasks without changing the challenge. As such job enrichment has been described

as 'vertical loading' of a job, while job enlargement is 'horizontal loading'. An enriched job

should ideally contain:

A range of tasks and challenges of varying difficulties (Physical or Mental)

A complete unit of work - a meaningful task

Feedback, encouragement and communication

Job enrichment, as a managerial activity includes a three steps technique:

1. Turn employees' effort into performance:

Ensuring that objectives are well-defined and understood by everyone. The overall

corporate mission statement should be communicated to all. Individual's goals should

also be clear. Each employee should know exactly how he/she fits into the overall

process and be aware of how important their contributions are to the organization and its

customers.

Providing adequate resources for each employee to perform well. This includes support

functions like information technology, communication technology, and personnel training

and development.

Creating a supportive corporate culture. This includes peer support networks, supportive

management, and removing elements that foster mistrust and politicking.

Free flow of information. Eliminate secrecy.

Provide enough freedom to facilitate job excellence. Encourage and reward employee

initiative. Flextime or compressed hours could be offered.

Provide adequate recognition, appreciation, and other motivators.

Provide skill improvement opportunities. This could include paid education at

universities or on the job training.

Page 2: Job Enrichment

Provide job variety. This can be done by job sharing or job rotation programmes.

It may be necessary to re-engineer the job process. This could involve redesigning the

physical facility, redesign processes, change technologies, simplification of procedures,

elimination of repetitiveness, redesigning authority structures.

2. Link employee’s performance directly to reward:

Clear definition of the reward is a must

Explanation of the link between performance and reward is important

Make sure the employee gets the right reward if performs well

If reward is not given, explanation is needed

3. Make sure the employee wants the reward. How to find out?

Ask them

Use surveys( checklist, listing, questions)

Job enrichment is a type of job redesign intended to reverse the effects of tasks that are

repetitive requiring little autonomy. Some of these effects are boredom, lack of flexibility, and

employee dissatisfaction (Leach & Wall, 2004). The underlying principle is to expand the scope

of the job with a greater variety of tasks, vertical in nature, that require self-sufficiency. Since the

goal is to give the individual exposure to tasks normally reserved for differently focused or

higher positions, merely adding more of the same responsibilities related to an employee's

current position is not considered job enrichment.

The basis for job enrichment practices is the work done by Frederick Herzberg in the 1950's

and 60's, which was further refined in 1975 by Hackman and Oldham using what they called the

Job Characteristics Model. This model assumes that if five core job characteristics are present,

three psychological states critical to motivation are produced, resulting in positive outcomes

(Kotila, 2001). Figure 1 illustrates this model.

Page 3: Job Enrichment

Job enrichment can only be truly successful if planning includes support for all phases of the

initiative. Ohio State University Extension began a job enrichment program in 1992 and

surveyed the participants five years later. The results, broken down into 3 sub-buckets of data

beyond the main grouping of advantages/disadvantages as shown in Table 1, indicate the

University had not fully considered the planning and administrative aspects of the program

(Fourman and Jones, 1997). While the benefits are seemingly obvious, programs fail not

because of a lack of benefits, but rather due to implementation problems. These problems can

include a perception of too great a cost, lack of long-term commitment of resources, and

potential job classification changes (Cunningham and Eberle, 1990).

Page 4: Job Enrichment

In order for a job enrichment program to produce positive results, worker needs and

organizational needs must be analyzed and acted upon. According to Cunningham and Eberle

(1990), before an enrichment program is begun, the following questions should be asked:

1. Do employees need jobs that involve responsibility, variety, feedback, challenge,

accountability, significance, and opportunities to learn?

2. What techniques can be implemented without changing the job classification plan?

3. What techniques would require changes in the job classification plan? (p.3)

When asked about the successes of a Training Generalist job enrichment program begun in 2002,

Karen Keenan, Learning Manager with Bank of America, stated the accomplishments were,

"greater than expected". The Training Generalist program has resulted in three successful

participants to date. According to Ms. Keenan, positive results can be directly tied to a program

that addressed the strategic goal of greater resource flexibility without adding to staff, as well as

to proper planning, guidance, and feedback for the participants. Having a voluntary program

contributed as well, attracting a high caliber of individuals eager to expand their skills and be

positioned for advancement. To date, all three Training Generalists have experienced promotions

and additional recognition while affording Ms. Keenan's team financial results and workload

flexibility it could not have otherwise achieved.

Page 5: Job Enrichment

A job enrichment program can be a very effective intervention in some situations where a

Performance Technician is faced with a request for motivational training. Ralph Brown (2004)

summed it up very nicely:

Job enrichment doesn't work for everyone. Some people are very resistant to more

responsibility or to opportunities for personal growth, but…researchers report that

some people they expected to resist, seized the opportunity. Enriching jobs is a

particularly effective way to develop employees provided the jobs are truly

enriched, not just more work for them to do.

INDUSTRY PROFILE

Page 6: Job Enrichment

COMPANY PROFILE

ROOTS INDUSTRIES LTD (RIL) is a leading manufacturer of horns in India and the

11th largest horn manufacturing company in the world, Head quartered in Coimbatore, India.

ROOTS have been a dominant player in the manufacture of Horns, Casting products, Industrial

cleaning machines, Precision products and other products like Electronic Horns, Brake Shoes,

Brake Pads, Halogen Lamps, Relays, Melody Makers, Roots Parking Guide System, Piston &

Rings, Flashes, etc.,

Since its establishment in 1970, ROOTS had a vision and commitment to produce

and deliver quality products adhering to International standards. With a strong innovative base

and commitment to quality ROOTS has occupied a key position in both International and

domestic market as suppliers to leading OEMS and aftermarket.

Now RIL is the first Indian and first manufacturing company in the world to get

ISO / TS 16949 Certification based on effective implementation of QS 9000 Certification and

VDA 6.1 Certification. Other certifications like E – Certification from Europe, ISO 14001

Certification, and Q1 Certification add crowns to it.

Their competitors includes Bosch, Lucas-TVS, Minda Industries, Harley & Co, Vibrant

Auto components, National Electric company, etc.,

Its customers include the massive automobile giants like Mercedes, Ford, Mitsubishi,

Mahindra & Mahindra, Toyota, Fiat, Tata Motors, Bajaj Tempo Ltd, Kinetic Honda, TVS,

Leyland, etc.,

ROOTS Industries Ltd. is a leading manufacturer of HORNS in India and the 11th

largest Horn Manufacturing Company in the world.

Headquartered in Coimbatore - India, ROOTS has been a dominant player in the

manufacture of Horns and other products like Castings and Industrial Cleaning Machines.

Page 7: Job Enrichment

Since its establishment in 1970, ROOTS has had a vision and commitment to produce and

deliver quality products adhering to International Standards.

With a strong innovative base and commitment to Quality, Roots Industries Limited has

occupied a key position in both international and domestic market as suppliers to leading OEMs

and after market. Similar to products, Roots has leading edge over competitors on strong quality

system base. Now, RIL is the first Indian Company and first horn manufacturing company in the

world to get ISO/TS 16949 certification based on effective implementation of QS 9000 and

VDA 6.1 system requirement earlier. Roots' vision is to become a world class company

manufacturing world class product, excelling in human relation.

Fact Sheet

Year of

Establishment

: 1970

Nature of Business : Manufacturer, Exporter, Trader

Major Markets : Australia/NZ, Indian Subcontinent, East Europe, Central America, North

Europe, Middle East, South America, South/West Europe and North

America

Aim / Vision / Mission

We will stand technologically ahead of others to deliver world-class innovative

products useful to our customers. We will rather lose our business than our customers'

satisfaction. It is our aim that the customer should get the best value for his money.

Every member of our company will have decent living standards. We care deeply for

our families, for our environment and our society. We promise to pay back in full measure to

the society by way of selfless and unstinted service.

Page 8: Job Enrichment

QUALITY                                                                                         

QUALITY - AN ALL PERVASIVE ENTITY

Roots is committed to manufacture customer-centric and technology-driven products on

par with international quality standards. For example, the horns manufactured undergo a rigorous

life-cycle test and are subjected to an endurance of over 200,000 cycles of performance while the

industry norm requires only 100,000.

Page 9: Job Enrichment

What's more, Roots believes in a quality culture that goes beyond just products. Equal

emphasis is given to quality in human relation and quality in service. Roots in its journey

towards Total Quality Management has reached important milestones: ISO 9001, QS 9000, VDA

6.1, ISO/TS 16949 and  ISO 14001 Certification, presently in the process of obtaining NABL

accreditation for our Metrology lab. The Group's TQM policy has a well-integrated Quality

Circle Movement with active employee participation at various levels.

QUALITY POLICY:

We are committed to provide world-class products and services with due concern

for the environment and safety of the society.

This will be achieved through total employee involvement,

technology upgradation, cost reduction and continual improvement

in

    *    Quality of the products and services

    *    Quality Management system

    *    Compliance to QMS requirements

Quality will reflect in everything we do and think

    *    Quality in behaviour

    *    Quality in governance

    *    Quality in human relation

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

With due concern towards maintaining and improving the Quality of Life, Roots is committed

for sustainable development by minimising pollution and conserving resources.

Page 10: Job Enrichment

This will be achieved through continual improvement in Environmental Awareness of all

employees & associates, Legal Compliance and Objective towards Environmental Protection.

K. Ramasamy

Chairman

Roots Group

Personal Culture

The management has been encouraging and promoting a very informal culture, "Personal

touch", sense of belonging, enabling employees to become involved and contribute to the success

of the company. The top management also conscientiously inculcates values in the people.

Work Environment

Special and conscious efforts are directed towards house keeping of the highest order.

Renovation and modernization of office premises and office support systems are carried out on

an ongoing basis.

Training

Roots believe in systematic training for employees at all levels. As a part of the

Organizational Development efforts, training programmes are being conducted in-house, for

employees at all levels. In addition, staffs are also sponsored for need based training programmes

at leading Management Development Institutes.

 

Page 11: Job Enrichment

Total Quality Management

Customer Focus is not merely a buzzword but it has become an important factor of every

day work and has got internalized into the work environment. There is an equal emphasis on

internal customer focus leading to greater team efforts and better cross-functional relationship.

Quality Circle Movement

To ensure worker participation and team work on the shop-floor, Roots Industries India

Ltd has a very effective Quality Circle Movement in the organization. As on today Roots

Industries India Ltd has 3 operating Quality Circles having 24 members and some of them have

won awards at different conventions and competitions.

Through interaction with workmen in these sessions, a process of 2-way communication has

been initiated and valuable feedback has been received on worker feelings, perception, problems

and attitudes. Simultaneously management has communicated the problems faced by them and

the plans to overcome these problems.

Good Morning Assembly

The management aims in operator's mental & physical fitness and it is ensured through

the GMA.

The operators and shift supervisor, assemble before the I shift beginning and do

occupation of fitness exercise, discuss  about the Quality Safety & Production aspects of the

Previous shifts and take Quality / Safety oath.

Through interaction with workmen in these sessions, a process of 2 way communication

has been initiated and valuable feedback has been received on worker feelings, perception,

problems and attitudes. Simultaneously management has communicated the problems faced by

them and the plans to overcome these problems.

Roots has a strong people-oriented work culture that can be seen and felt across all its

member concerns. Whether they work in group or in isolation, their effort is well appreciated and

achievements well rewarded. They have a sense of belonging and they revel in an environment

of openness and trust. Cross-functional teams function as one seamless whole and foster the true

spirit of teamwork.

Page 12: Job Enrichment

Roots as a learning organization systematically trains its employees at all levels.

Conducted in-house, the training programmes equip them to meet new challenges head on.

Employees are encouraged to voice their feelings, ideas and opinions. There is a successful

suggestion scheme in operation and best suggestions are rewarded.

Lasting relationship will evolve only when people know that their work is valued and that

they contribute meaningfully to the growth of the organization. At Roots, people across the

group companies, through interactions at workshops and seminars, get to know each other

individually, share their common experiences and learn something about life.

ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTRE                                      

The Engineering Research Centre (ERC) is involved in the continuous improvement and

enhancement of design to increase performance and reliability. The ERC functioning under three

distinct heads cater to the needs of Roots Industries, Roots Multiclean and Roots Auto Products.

Though there is a three-pronged operational ethos, the ERC is integrated and meshed

seamlessly with one single objective: that of design research and performance monitoring.

Through extensive product engineering, the ERC cell of ROOTS achieves the following:

Designing and developing new products with customer focus.

Conducting required tests to ensure product reliability.

Initiating necessary corrective and preventive action for ensuring peak performance

Fine-tuning products with available components to satisfy customer requirements

 

The ERC consists of the best talent that includes engineering graduates, ITI brains and design

engineers. The team works with top-notch tools like

Proe2000i2 - for solid modeling

AutoCAD 2000 - for Drafting

CorelDraw V 8.0 - for Graphical Applications

Page 13: Job Enrichment

MILESTONES                                                                                

   

  1970   Promotes American Auto Service for manufacture of Electric Horns.

  1972   First to manufacture Servo Brakes for Light Motor Vehicles.

  1984   Roots Auto Products Private Limited was established to manufacture Air Horns.

  Die Casting Unit commences commercial operations.

  1988   Polycraft, a unit for Plastic Injection Moulding was established.

  1990   Roots Industries India Ltd takes over Electric Horn business.

  1992   RMCL enters into Techno-Financial collaboration with M/s. Hako Werke GmbH, Germany.

  1992   Roots Industries India Ltd obtains the National Certification - ISI mark of quality.

  1994   Production of floor cleaning equipment commences.

  Roots Industries India Ltd wins American International Quality Award.

 

  1999   Becomes the first horn manufacturer in Asia to obtain QS 9000

  2000   Becomes the first horn manufacturer in Asia to obtain VDA 6.1 and the first in the world to win

ISO / TS 16949

  2000   The first to introduce digitally controlled air horns and low frequency, low decibel irritation free

Jumbo Air Horns.

  2003   Roots Industries India Ltd., Horn Division is accredited with ISO 14001 : 1996

  2003   Roots Industries India Ltd., upgraded its ISO / TS 16949 from 1999 version to 2002 version

  2004   Roots Industries India Ltd (RIL) opens its 100% exclusive Export Oriented Unit at their Horn

Division,

  Thoppampatti, Coimbatore to cater the needs of Ford North America.

Page 14: Job Enrichment

  2004   RIL's EOU commences its supplies to Ford, North America

  2004   Roots Multiclean Limited (RMCL) inaugurates its 100% EOU Plant at Kovilpalayam, Coimbatore

  2004   Roots Cast Private Limited (RCPL) inaugurates its Unit II at Arugampalayam, Coimbatore

  2004   Roots Auto Products Pvt Ltd (RAPPL) expands with its Machining Division at Arugampalayam,

Coimbatore

  2004   RIL successfully launches its Malaysian Plant

  2004   The group company American Auto Service is accredited with ISO 9001 : 2000

  2005   Roots Industries India Ltd., is certified with MS 9000, a pre-requisite for Q1 award for Ford

Automotive Operations

  Suppliers. Focus on Systems and Processes

  2005   Roots Metrology & Testing Laboratory has been accredited by National Accreditation Board for

  testing & calibration in the field of Mechanical – Linear & Angular

  2005   Roots Industries India Ltd., is awarded Q1 by Ford Motor Company

  2005   Roots Industries India Ltd., Horn Division upgraded its ISO : 14001 from 1996 version to 2004

version

Management:

Roots Industries India Ltd is managed by an excellent team of path-breakers, chief among

them being the Chairman, Mr. K. RAMASAMY, a Master's Degree Holder in Automobile

Engineering from Lincoln Technical Institute, USA.

The company credo is echoed in his own words,

"At ROOTS, we believe that if something is worth doing, it is worth doing well. And this

attitude is reflected in every realm of our activities. As a customer, you naturally expect the

best. We are fully geared, in spirit and method, to meet your requirements." 

Page 15: Job Enrichment

He is supported by technical and administrative people, experts in their own field, who

together strive to maintain the highest quality quotient in all of ROOTS' products.

Mr. Ramasamy, the driving force behind Roots' success

An obsessive hobby went into the making of this self-made industrialist. Born in an

agricultural family, young Ramasamy had a great interest in repairing automobiles. This led to

his getting the master's degree in Automobile Engineering from Lincoln Technical Institute,

USA in 1969 and developing a unique Radiator Coolant Recovery System, which is today a

standard equipment in almost all vehicles manufactured by the advanced countries.

In 1970, Mr. Ramasamy promoted M/s. American Auto Service, which was taken over in

1992 by Roots Industries Private Limited, a company promoted by Mr. Ramasamy. This

company entered into technical collaboration with Robert Bosch, the world leaders in auto

electrical to manufacture all the range of Bosch Horns. Mr. Ramasamy had a very inquisitive and

innovative temperament. This led to his having many firsts in his distinguished career.

Servo brakes were designed for the first time in India by Mr. Ramasamy.  He designed the

first high frequency Wind Tone type horn which was smaller and  lighter  than  conventional 

horns.  Besides  all  the  other firsts, Mr. Ramasamy introduced electronically controlled

Musical Air Horns for the first time in the World.

The thirst for innovation and drive to move forward, led to the establishment of a die

casting unit  to meet  the captive requirement of ROOTS. In 1987, Mr. Ramasamy set up a full-

fledged modern tool room equipped with the latest machines for the manufacture of precision

tools and dies. He promoted Roots Multiclean Ltd., a joint venture in Techno-financial

collaboration with M/s. Hako Werke GmbH, Germany  to manufacture world class Industrial

Floor Care and Floor Cleaning Equipments. RMCL is successfully spreading the concept of

Mechanized Cleaning in India and also exports its products  to  various  countries  like 

Australia,  Britain, Germany, Japan Singapore, etc.

Page 16: Job Enrichment

Mr. Ramasamy can very proudly claim that he is a self-made industrialist and in

recognition of the same,  he has been conferred the Udyog Shree Award in the year 1990. He

has also been awarded the Udyog Rattan Award by the Institute of Economic Studies in the

year 1991.

Mr. Ramasamy has been awarded Udyog Patra Award by the Institute of Trade and

Industrial Development Delhi in the year 1992 in recognition of being a self  made  industrialist 

and  also  his  contribution  to  the economic development of the country along  with Bharatiya

Udyog Jothi Award instituted by the Indian Institute of Entrepreneurship Development, Delhi.

Mr. Ramasamy has  been conferred the Vikas Rattan Award and the Gem of India

award. He has been awarded Udyog Gaurav Award by All India Organization of

Entrepreneurship Confederation.

Roots Industries has been awarded the American International Quality Award in 1994

by Fulham Geissler Associates, USA.

Mr. K. Ramasamy was Chairman of the Confederation of Indian Industry Coimbatore.

Besides this, he lends his leadership to a lot of other social organizations and his dynamic

presence is a driving force behind all the group companies of Roots.

Page 17: Job Enrichment

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

Primary Objective:

To study the skills and abilities of the employee so that new responsibilities and tasks are

added with existing job.

Secondary Objectives:

To recognize the skilled employee and to enrich their jobs.

To increase the level of skill flexibility in employee.

To give better freedom and autonomy in their work organization.

To vertically enlarge their jobs.

Page 18: Job Enrichment

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

A study on employee’s job enrichment is an attempt to motivate employees by giving

them the opportunity to use the wide range of their abilities.

The study helps to find the potential employee.

The study gives an idea to develop the skills in employees about various areas.

The study helps to find the skilled employee and to produce more output.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

Due to the long span of time allotted for project work most of the company not giving

permission.

The management was not ready to supply confidential information about the company in

general and employees in particular.

In many cases, the study does not give the expected results.

Some of the employees are not ready to provide the response for the questionnaire.

Employees not providing accurate information in the questionnaire which leads to wrong

analysis.

Page 19: Job Enrichment

QUESTIONNAIRE

A Study on Employees Job Enrichment

Personal Details (1-7):

1. Name:

2. Age: Below 20 21-30 31-40 Above 40

3. Gender: Male Female

4. Salary:Below 5000 5000-10000 10000-15000 Above 15000

5. Education Qualification: 10th 12th Diploma Degree Post Graduate

6. Mobile Number:

7. Experience:

Please indicate your level of Agreement or Disagreement with the following Statements by placing a tick mark in the relevant grid (Strongly Agree = SA, Agree = A, Neutral = N, Disagree = DA, Strongly Disagree = SDA).

S.NO Statements SA A N DA SDA

8. I have the skills and abilities to do more jobs

9. Motivation is important to do the vertically loaded jobs

10. The amount of the work I am expected to do on my job is reasonable for me and to the company

11. My department has good priorities and direction for employees

12. I have adequate information and knowledge which enables me to do my jobs well

13. Opportunity is given in the company to use my variety of skills

Page 20: Job Enrichment

14. Opportunity is given in the company to complete my entire task which I can do by own

15. I am confident of my ability to do my job and enriched job

16. I am self-assured about my capabilities to perform my work and enriched work

17. I have mastered in the skills which necessary for my job and also to do other jobs

18. I can decide on my own about how to do my work

19. I have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how to do my own job

20. I have significant autonomy in determining how to do my own job

21. If job enrichment is made, I can be more effective

22. I have more technical/ behavioral skills to contribute more to the company

23. Job enrichment increases level of skill flexibility

24. Considering everything, how far you satisfied with your job?

Highly Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Highly Dissatisfied

25. Do you think that job enrichment has a good effect on skill improvement of employees?

Yes, Majorly Yes, Quite a bit Not Really Not at all

26. Whether you can use your variety of skills to increase the production of the company?

Yes, Majorly Yes, Quite a bit Not Really Not at all

Page 21: Job Enrichment

27. Rank the department you would like to enrich your job

Production MarketingFinanceHuman ResourcePackingSelling

28. Rank the Techniques you need in job enrichment

Change in nature of workChange in department of workTo work with new teamMore work with less manpower

29. Rank the Monetary Rewards you need

SalaryWageIncentivesCommissionPaid leave

30. Rank the Non Monetary Rewards you need

RecognitionPraiseFeedbackFulfilling WorkAchievementsResponsibilityAutonomyInfluencePersonal Growth

31. If your enriched job takes extra time than working hours to complete your task will you like to do it?

Yes No

32. If yes how many hours you like to work?

One Hour Two Hours Three Hours Above Three Hours Not at all

Page 22: Job Enrichment

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Abstract

This study uses a survey of Canadian workers with rich, matched data on job

characteristics to examine whether “enriched” job design, with features like quality circles,

feedback, suggestion programs, and task teams, affects job satisfaction. We identify two

competing hypotheses on the relationship between enriched jobs and job satisfaction. The

“motivation hypothesis,” implies that enrichment will generally increase satisfaction and the

“intensification hypothesis,” implies that enrichment may decrease satisfaction by increasing the

intensity and scope of work. Our results show that several forms of enrichment, specifically

suggestion programs, information sharing, task teams, quality circles and training, raise

satisfaction. Therefore we argue that the data support the motivation hypothesis. Partitioning the

data by education level or union membership further supports this conclusion, while a direct test

of the intensification hypothesis does not support the competing hypothesis.

Job satisfaction has important economic impacts. Low job satisfaction is associated with

higher rates of quitting (Freeman 1978; Gordon and Denisi 1995; Clark, Georgellis and Sanfey

1998), higher rates of absenteeism (Clegg 1983; Drago and Wooden 1992) and lower levels of

work effort (Mangione and Quinn 1975). Dissatisfaction therefore results in higher labor costs

and lower productivity. While economists have made important strides in understanding the

demographic factors that influence job satisfaction, they have generally not focused on testing

the impacts of enriched job design on satisfaction.

Job enrichment includes a number of different workplace practices, such as quality

circles, self-directed teams, job rotation, information sharing and others. One possible motivation

for adopting such practices is to challenge and motivate workers, and to encourage them to

participate in improving productivity, safety, and the quality of their product. To the extent that

workers enjoy the challenge and the autonomy, this will raise job satisfaction and reduce hiring

and training costs and increase productivity. An alternative motivation for adopting job

enrichment is to enlarge the jobs by encouraging multi-tasking and to adopt peer monitoring.

These steps would also improve productivity, but without an accompanying increase in job

satisfaction.

Page 23: Job Enrichment

This study uses a survey of Canadian workers with rich data on job characteristics to

examine whether firms that choose enriched job design and workplace practices have more

satisfied workers. It extends the literature in several important ways. First, by focusing on job

design, it concentrates on factors that a firm’s management might easily control. Second, the data

allow us to distinguish between “Taylorist” jobs and “enriched” jobs and to evaluate these two

competing hypotheses about the influence of enrichment on satisfaction. Finally, the data allow

us to better control for several potential sources of bias that have been largely ignored in

previous work on job satisfaction.

Background

The literature on job design contrasts “Taylorist” jobs to “enriched” jobs. Fredrick Taylor

(1947) viewed job design as a scientific optimization problem, where industrial engineers study

the production process and devise the most efficient way to break that process into individual,

precisely defined tasks. Typically, a Taylorist job is highly specialized, and workers are not

encouraged to experiment, innovate, or otherwise vary the way that tasks are completed. In the

1970’s, academics such as Richard Hackman, Edward Lawler and Greg Oldham started to argue

that Taylorist job design is sub-optimal (Hackman and Lawler 1971; Lawler 1973; Porter,

Lawler and Hackman 1975; Hackman & Oldham 1976, 1980). Enriched jobs, by encouraging

workers to learn and innovate at work, increase the motivating potential of work. Motivated

workers perform tasks more accurately and are more likely to find productivity innovations that

engineers overlook. In the 1980’s, firms put the theory into practice by redesigning jobs,

adopting self-managed teams and work groups, and creating employee participation programs

like quality circles.1 While enriched jobs have proliferated, it is unclear whether this has

increased employee satisfaction. Here we focus on two competing hypotheses about the

relationship between enriched jobs and job satisfaction.

The idea that enriched job design motivates effort is central to Hackman, Lawler and

Oldham’s theory. Their underlying assumption is that Taylorist jobs cannot meet the employees’

psychological and social needs (Cappelli and Rogovsky 1994). Job enrichment meets these

1 Collectively, Ichniowski, Delaney and Lewin (1989), Delaney, Lewin and Ichniowski (1989),

Lawler, Mohrman, and Ledford (1992), and Osterman (1994) document (for US workplaces) that

Page 24: Job Enrichment

formal use of these new management practices was infrequent in the 1970’s and quite common

by the 1990’s. Needs and increases the motivating potential of work, which simultaneously

increases both worker satisfaction and effort. We refer to this hypothesis as the “motivation

hypothesis.” If the data support the hypothesis, we would expect enrichment to have a positive

and significant effect on job satisfaction. The degree that enrichment increases satisfaction may

vary, as workers differ in their desire for work that fulfills “higher order needs,” like autonomy,

intellectual challenge, or seeing projects through to completion. Since education, age, or

experience may be correlated to higher order needs, the effect of job design on job satisfaction

may vary with these individual characteristics.

Critics argue that workers may dislike enrichment for several reasons (Kelly 1982; Pollert

1991). Some employees may prefer Taylorist workplaces. The narrowly defined jobs in a

Taylorist workplace allow the employer to easily define performance standards and ensure that

an employee will not be asked to do tasks outside of the job’s definition. Job enrichment is often

accompanied by “intensification of work.” For example, most of the examples from a widely

cited Business Week (1983:100) report on flexibility involve enlarging jobs by adding additional

responsibilities (Thompson and McHugh 1990). Furthermore, because success in an enriched job

no longer depends on completion of narrowly defined tasks, “employment security is now

conditional on market success, rather than assured by [the worker’s] status as directly employed

personnel” (Whitaker 1991:252). Finally, as economic theorists have long understood, increasing

effort levels can also be accomplished by increased monitoring. Enrichment techniques like total

quality management, teams and quality circles create incentives for peer surveillance, which can

lead to lower job satisfaction (Delbridge, Turnbull and Wilkinson 1992; Sewell and Wilkinson

1992; Garrahan and Stewart 1992). We name these views the “intensification hypothesis.”2 For

support of this hypothesis, we would expect enrichment to be associated with increased job

intensity and lower levels of satisfaction.

By distilling a large and nuanced literature into two hypotheses, we obviously simplify.

For example, even the proponents of enrichment recognize that the benefits are not universal –

some workers may be less satisfied. Conversely, proponents of the intensification hypothesis

generally direct their criticisms at the more general move towards “flexibility,” which in addition

to enrichment also includes a move to a core-periphery model with increased use of temporary

workers and decreased job security. In other words, these critics agree that enrichment might

Page 25: Job Enrichment

benefit some workers but they argue that, as implemented, enrichment is generally detrimental to

the employee. Finally, Hamermesh (1977) points out that with perfect certainty, and a continuum

of different jobs (offering different combinations of wages and benefits) there should be no

difference in satisfaction beyond that due to randomly distributed tastes. Under this theory of

compensating differentials, if workers prefer modern job design, then in equilibrium employers

with enriched workplaces can offer relatively lower wages. In this case, satisfaction levels will

not vary with the degree of enrichment, although differences might be observed after controlling

for pay and other variables. Having made these caveats, we believe that our two hypotheses

capture the overall tenor of the different viewpoints on the likely links between job enrichment

and job satisfaction.

Empirical Strategy

In order to test the hypotheses on the effect of enrichment on job satisfaction, we follow

Clark and Oswald (1996) in treating job satisfaction, s, as a function that depends on pay,

benefits and a variety of other factors. We therefore define an individual’s job satisfaction:

(1) s = s (y, h, i, j)

where y represents a vector of variables describing pay and benefits, h is hours of work, and i and

j represent individual and job characteristics, respectively. Job characteristics include the

measures of enrichment. Positive coefficients on these variables would support the motivation

hypothesis, while negative oneswould suggest intensification. In order to estimate equation (1),

we must assume that measures of satisfaction are comparable across individuals; this assumption

is commonly made in the psychology literature but is uncommon among economists.

Correct estimation of equation (1) poses some specific econometric issues. For example,

in order to control adequately for y we estimate equation 1 not only by controlling for wages, but

also by controlling for a wide range of benefits, and several forms of incentive pay. Correct

estimation of the last two variables, i and j is particularly difficult in a cross section. Although

our estimations can control for many characteristics of both workers and workplaces,

unobservable characteristics of both might bias these results if correlated with both job

satisfaction and the regressors. One such example is management style. It may be that working

for an effective manager increases a worker’s job satisfaction and that effective managers

Page 26: Job Enrichment

employ enrichment techniques like job rotation and frequent feedback. Thus, some part of the

effect of these variables on job satisfaction might in fact be the effect of management style on

job satisfaction, biasing the result.

The unique design of the WES allows us to control for such unobserved workplace

characteristics in cross-sectional estimates. The WES consists of matched employee and

employer surveys. In one set of surveys, employees are asked about the characteristics of their

jobs, including whether they participate in enrichment practices such as suggestion programs,

flexible job design, information sharing, etc. Separate surveys ask employers if they use (on a

formal basis) these same enrichment practices. The employer responses diverge significantly

from employee responses on the same work practices. Even if an employer has a formal program

implementing some work organization practice, this does not mean that all surveyed workers will

hold jobs employing this practice. It is also possible for particular jobs to have features of

enrichment, even if the employer does not have a formal program advocating that feature. The

employer responses allow us to control for aspects of management style that might be correlated

with the enrichment variables. If the effect of a particular workplace feature erroneously captures

the unobserved management style, then we would expect the effect to disappear when controlling

for the organizational practices of the firm. The employer portion of the survey allows us to

control for six characteristics that describe how work is organized and an additional 12

characteristics describing how decisions are made. All 18 of these control variables are described

in the appendix, at the bottom of table A3.

After analyzing the effect of enrichment on job satisfaction in the full sample, we get

further insight into the intensification hypotheses by separately estimating job satisfaction for

enriched and unionized workers. In these subsets, intensification may be more evident. For

example, if workers find small amounts of enrichment desirable, but associate larger amounts of

enrichment with increased job intensity, then we would expect to see either smaller or negative

effects of enrichment on satisfaction in workplaces that apply several different forms of

enrichment. If workers who opt to join unions are particularly concerned about job intensity and

scope, then we may see strong evidence of the intensification in this sub-sample.

We also test the intensification hypothesis directly using two different measures. First, we

identify those workers who respond that they would like to reduce their workweek, and also

respond that one reason is work-related stress. If enrichment increases the likelihood of a

Page 27: Job Enrichment

respondent belonging to this group, then we view this as evidence consistent with the

intensification hypothesis. Second, some prior studies find a causal relationship between some

enrichment variables and workplace hazards or workplace injuries (Askenazy 2001; Brenner,

Fairris and Ruser 2004). Therefore, we also regress days of paid sick leave taken as a function of

the enrichment variables. A positive and significant relationship here would also support the

intensification hypothesis.

Our ability to better control for individual-specific and workplace-specific variables

makes an important contribution to the empirical literature on job satisfaction. Most large micro

data sets of workers do not contain rich information on workplace and job characteristics.

Therefore, the best current work has used data sets limited to a small number of workplaces,

which allows researchers to better identify job characteristics and also to observe several workers

at the same firm or jobsite. Drago, Estrin and Wooden (1992), Gordon and Denisi (1995), and

Brown and McIntosh (2003) show that controlling for workplace characteristics does

qualitatively change conclusions about job-satisfaction. This work, along with Clark (1999) and

Bauer (2004), is among the first to study the relationship between job characteristics and job

satisfaction in a broadly representative data set. Therefore, it reveals how well prior results

generalize, and allows for a much more precise identification of the effects of different types of

job characteristics. In particular, we are unaware of other papers that use matched data, which

allows us to effectively control for unobserved management characteristics.

Page 28: Job Enrichment

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

METHODOLOGY

Methodology is the science dealing with principles of procedure in research and study. It

is the backbone of project work. Methodology can be defined a: “the analysis of the principles of

the methods, rules, and postulates employed by a discipline”. It describes how the researcher

selects his sample, sample size, methods of data collection, various tools used for studying the

problem and objective in view. Methodology includes a collection of theories, concepts or ideas

as they relate to a particular discipline or field of inquiry.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES

Research methodology is the systematic way to solve the research problem. It is the

science of studying, how a researcher is done scientifically. Research refers to a search of

knowledge one can also define research for the pertinent information on a specific topic. The

research is a care full investigation or enquiry through research for new facts in any branch of

knowledge.

There are four main aspects of the research methodology: design, sampling, data

collection, the data analysis. If inappropriate methodology is used, or if appropriate,

methodology is used poorly, the results of a study could be misleading.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Research design refers to the conception structure within which research would be

conducted. A research design indicates a plan of action to be carried out in connection with a

proposed research work; it provides guideline for knowing whether the research is moving in the

right direction.

In this study the analytical wise research design is used. The study includes survey and

facts finding enquires of different kinds. Further it deals with demographic factors such as age,

Page 29: Job Enrichment

sex, education qualification etc.

RESEARCH PROCEDURE

Identification of research problem Literature review Specifying the purpose of research Determine specific research questions or hypotheses Data collection Analyzing and interpreting the data Reporting and evaluating research

SAMPLING

In statistics and survey methodology, sampling is concerned with the selection of a subset

of individuals from within a population to estimate characteristics of the whole population.

SAMPLE TECHNIQUES

a) Population

Population is a set of finite or infinite collection of individuals. Population of this study is

the employees of roots industry limited in Coimbatore.

b) Sample elements

Sample elements of this study are taken from the employees of roots industry limited.

c) Sample size

Sample size refers to the number of the respondent to be selected from the total

population to collect information. The sample size of this study is 100 employees.

d) Sample method

In this study the sample method used is the descriptive sampling. Here 100 employees

are taken on the basis of convenient sampling. No specific method is used in this. These methods

have no strict laws. It is done as per the convenient of the researcher.

Page 30: Job Enrichment

e) Sampling unit

This is that element or set of elements considered for selection in some stage of sampling

(same as the elements, in a simple single-stage sample). In a multi-stage sample, the sampling

unit could be blocks, households, and individuals within the households.

f) Sample Design

Sample design is definite plan determined before any data is actually for obtaining a

sample from a given population. This refers to a set of rules or procedures that specify how a

sample is to be selected. This can either be probability or non-probability.

g) Parameter of Interest

Employees of Roots Industry Limited is the parameter of interest.

Page 31: Job Enrichment

DATA COLLECTION

Survey method has been used to collect samples. It is the most commonly used method of

primary data collection, survey technique is a systematic gathering of data from respondent

through questionnaires. In this study questionnaire has been used for collecting primary data

through survey method.

SOURCE OF DATA

Both primary and secondary data have been used for data collection.

a. Primary data

The primary data are those data which are collected by the investigator or his agents for

the first time and have original in character. They are the actual information which is received by

the researcher for the study from the actual field of research.

Source of Primary data:

In this study the method used for collection of primary data is questionnaire survey

method. Questionnaire survey means planned effort to collect the desired information from a

representative sample of the relevant population. A questionnaire provides a concrete basis for

negative as well as positive evaluation of respondent. So, a questionnaire was prepared for the

conducting the survey.

b. Secondary data

Secondary data are those data which are already collected by someone for his own

purpose from old files, records, published or unpublished sources, annual reports of the

company. It can be also defined as those data that are collected from some other persons or from

some other persons or from the organization itself.

Sources of secondary data:

Company manuals

Company website

Annual report

Periodicals and publications

Page 32: Job Enrichment

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Frequencies:

Bar Chart

Age

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid 21-30 48 45.7 45.7 45.7

31-40 39 37.1 37.1 82.9

Above 40 18 17.1 17.1 100.0

Total 105 100.0 100.0

Page 33: Job Enrichment

Gender

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Male 88 83.8 83.8 83.8

Female 17 16.2 16.2 100.0

Total 105 100.0 100.0

Page 34: Job Enrichment
Page 35: Job Enrichment

Salary

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Below 5000 2 1.9 1.9 1.9

5000-10000 29 27.6 27.6 29.5

10000-15000 26 24.8 24.8 54.3

Above 15000 48 45.7 45.7 100.0

Total 105 100.0 100.0

Page 36: Job Enrichment

Education Qualification

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid 10th 10 9.5 9.5 9.5

12th 5 4.8 4.8 14.3

Diploma 28 26.7 26.7 41.0

Degree 44 41.9 41.9 82.9

Post Graduate 18 17.1 17.1 100.0

Total 105 100.0 100.0

Page 37: Job Enrichment

Experience

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid 0-5yrs 26 24.8 24.8 24.8

5-10yrs 30 28.6 28.6 53.3

10-15yrs 29 27.6 27.6 81.0

15-20yrs 16 15.2 15.2 96.2

Above 20yrs 4 3.8 3.8 100.0

Total 105 100.0 100.0

Page 38: Job Enrichment

i have the skills and abilities to do more jobs

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Strongly Agree 42 40.0 40.0 40.0

Agree 60 57.1 57.1 97.1

Neutral 3 2.9 2.9 100.0

Total 105 100.0 100.0

Page 39: Job Enrichment

motivation is important to do the vertically loaded jobs

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Strongly Agree 35 33.3 33.3 33.3

Agree 64 61.0 61.0 94.3

Neutral 6 5.7 5.7 100.0

Total 105 100.0 100.0

Page 40: Job Enrichment

the amount of the work i am expected to do on my job is reasonable for me and to the company

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Strongly Agree 19 18.1 18.1 18.1

Agree 76 72.4 72.4 90.5

Neutral 8 7.6 7.6 98.1

Disagree 2 1.9 1.9 100.0

Total 105 100.0 100.0

Page 41: Job Enrichment

my department has good priorities and direction for employees

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Strongly Agree 29 27.6 27.6 27.6

Agree 66 62.9 62.9 90.5

Neutral 8 7.6 7.6 98.1

Disagree 2 1.9 1.9 100.0

Total 105 100.0 100.0

Page 42: Job Enrichment

i have adequate information and knowledge which enables me to do my jobs well

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Strongly Agree 24 22.9 22.9 22.9

Agree 76 72.4 72.4 95.2

Neutral 5 4.8 4.8 100.0

Total 105 100.0 100.0

Page 43: Job Enrichment
Page 44: Job Enrichment

opportunity is given in the company to use my variety of skills

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Strongly Agree 18 17.1 17.1 17.1

Agree 78 74.3 74.3 91.4

Neutral 8 7.6 7.6 99.0

Disagree 1 1.0 1.0 100.0

Total 105 100.0 100.0

Page 45: Job Enrichment

opportunity is given in the company to complete my entire task which i can do by own

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Strongly Agree 21 20.0 20.0 20.0

Agree 76 72.4 72.4 92.4

Neutral 8 7.6 7.6 100.0

Total 105 100.0 100.0

Page 46: Job Enrichment

i am confident of my ability to do my job and enriched job

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Strongly Agree 34 32.4 32.4 32.4

Agree 68 64.8 64.8 97.1

Neutral 3 2.9 2.9 100.0

Total 105 100.0 100.0

Page 47: Job Enrichment

i am self-assured about my capabilities to perform my work and enriched work

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Strongly Agree 36 34.3 34.3 34.3

Agree 66 62.9 62.9 97.1

Neutral 3 2.9 2.9 100.0

Total 105 100.0 100.0

Page 48: Job Enrichment

i have mastered in the skills which is necessary for my job and also to do other jobs

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Strongly Agree 27 25.7 25.7 25.7

Agree 68 64.8 64.8 90.5

Neutral 10 9.5 9.5 100.0

Total 105 100.0 100.0

Page 49: Job Enrichment

i can decide on my own about how to do my own work

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Strongly Agree 20 19.0 19.0 19.0

Agree 73 69.5 69.5 88.6

Neutral 10 9.5 9.5 98.1

Disagree 2 1.9 1.9 100.0

Total 105 100.0 100.0

Page 50: Job Enrichment

i have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how to do my own job

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Strongly Agree 22 21.0 21.0 21.0

Agree 67 63.8 63.8 84.8

Neutral 15 14.3 14.3 99.0

Disagree 1 1.0 1.0 100.0

Total 105 100.0 100.0

Page 51: Job Enrichment

i have significant autonomy in determining how to do my own job

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Strongly Agree 14 13.3 13.3 13.3

Agree 76 72.4 72.4 85.7

Neutral 15 14.3 14.3 100.0

Total 105 100.0 100.0

Page 52: Job Enrichment

if job enrichment is made i can be more effective

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Strongly Agree 20 19.0 19.0 19.0

Agree 74 70.5 70.5 89.5

Neutral 10 9.5 9.5 99.0

Disagree 1 1.0 1.0 100.0

Total 105 100.0 100.0

Page 53: Job Enrichment

i have more technical/behavioral skills to contribute more to the company

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Strongly Agree 26 24.8 24.8 24.8

Agree 68 64.8 64.8 89.5

Neutral 10 9.5 9.5 99.0

Disagree 1 1.0 1.0 100.0

Total 105 100.0 100.0

Page 54: Job Enrichment

job enrichment increases level of skill flexibility

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Strongly Agree 20 19.0 19.0 19.0

Agree 72 68.6 68.6 87.6

Neutral 13 12.4 12.4 100.0

Total 105 100.0 100.0

Page 55: Job Enrichment

considering everything how far you satisfied with your job

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Highly Satisfied 19 18.1 18.1 18.1

Satisfied 74 70.5 70.5 88.6

Neutral 10 9.5 9.5 98.1

Dissatisfied 1 1.0 1.0 99.0

Highly Dissatisfied 1 1.0 1.0 100.0

Total 105 100.0 100.0

Page 56: Job Enrichment

do you think that job enrichment has a good effect on skill improvement of employees

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Yes Majorly 42 40.0 40.0 40.0

Yes Quite a Bit 60 57.1 57.1 97.1

Not Really 3 2.9 2.9 100.0

Total 105 100.0 100.0

Page 57: Job Enrichment

whether you can use your variety of skills to increase the production of the company

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Yes Majorly 51 48.6 48.6 48.6

Yes Quite a Bit 51 48.6 48.6 97.1

Not Really 3 2.9 2.9 100.0

Total 105 100.0 100.0

Page 58: Job Enrichment

rank the department you would like to enrich your job

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Production 57 54.3 54.3 54.3

Marketing 22 21.0 21.0 75.2

Finance 13 12.4 12.4 87.6

Human Resource 8 7.6 7.6 95.2

Selling 1 1.0 1.0 96.2

Design 1 1.0 1.0 97.1

Tool Design 2 1.9 1.9 99.0

IT 1 1.0 1.0 100.0

Total 105 100.0 100.0

Page 59: Job Enrichment

rank the techniques you need in job enrichment

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Change in Nature of Work 40 38.1 38.1 38.1

Change in Department of Work 19 18.1 18.1 56.2

To Work with New Team 25 23.8 23.8 80.0

More Work with Less Manpower 21 20.0 20.0 100.0

Total 105 100.0 100.0

Page 60: Job Enrichment

rank the monetary rewards you need

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Salary 85 81.0 81.0 81.0

Wage 6 5.7 5.7 86.7

Incentives 11 10.5 10.5 97.1

Commission 2 1.9 1.9 99.0

Paid Leave 1 1.0 1.0 100.0

Total 105 100.0 100.0

Page 61: Job Enrichment

rank the non monetary rewards you need

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Recognition 39 37.1 37.1 37.1

Praise 9 8.6 8.6 45.7

Feedback 8 7.6 7.6 53.3

Fulfilling Work 4 3.8 3.8 57.1

Achievements 8 7.6 7.6 64.8

Responsibility 15 14.3 14.3 79.0

Autonomy 1 1.0 1.0 80.0

Influence 2 1.9 1.9 81.9

Personal Growth 19 18.1 18.1 100.0

Total 105 100.0 100.0

Page 62: Job Enrichment

if your enriched job takes extra time than working hours to complete your task will you

like to do it

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Yes 87 82.9 82.9 82.9

No 18 17.1 17.1 100.0

Total 105 100.0 100.0

Page 63: Job Enrichment

if yes how many hours you like to work

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid One Hour 7 6.7 6.7 6.7

Two Hours 34 32.4 32.4 39.0

Three Hours 18 17.1 17.1 56.2

Above Three Hours 28 26.7 26.7 82.9

Not at All 18 17.1 17.1 100.0

Total 105 100.0 100.0

Page 64: Job Enrichment

ONEWAY EducationQualification BY IHaveTheSkillsAndAbilitiesToDoMoreJobs

Oneway

ANOVA

Education Qualification

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 1.488 2 .744 .581 .561

Within Groups 130.702 102 1.281

Total 132.190 104