ob satisfaction is one of the major outcomes of an organization which means positive, emotional and pleasurable response of employees towards their particular job or organization. Job satisfaction increases the efficiency and productivity of the business organization. When employees receive expected rewards and incentives from their job it helps to satisfy them (Poudyal & Pradhan, 2018). For example, paying workers high salaries can enhance satisfaction and reduce turnover, but it also may detract from bottom-line performance (Griffin & Moorhead, 2017). Therefore, job satisfaction is an essential dependent variable that companies always expect to make positive by making favorable changes in the organization's motivational factors for its employees with the view of achieving various organizational goals like; reduction in the organization's cost of training employees, increment in organization's productivity, reduction in workplace stress of employees, reduction in inter-personal, intrapersonal and inter-group conflict in organization, etc. Companies provide various motivational forces to their employees working in different managerial levels.

According to 'Herzberg's Two Factor Theory' of motivation, the job satisfaction of employees is determined by mainly two factors. He named the factors as hygiene factors and motivator factors. This study uses the hygiene (extrinsic) factors and motivator (intrinsic) factors of Herzberg to determine the level of job satisfaction of employees working in existing banks and insurance companies of Nepal. Intrinsic factors, such as achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility, advancement and growth seem to be related to job satisfaction (Aswathappa, 2017). On the other hand, when they are dissatisfied, they tended to extrinsic factors, such as company policy and administration, supervision, work conditions, salary, status, security, and interpersonal relations (Aswathappa, 2017). However, this research study has undertaken salary, bonus, vehicle facility, work environment, relation with colleagues, allowances, rules and regulations, loan facility, relation with superior, relation with subordinate and job security as hygiene factors of job satisfaction, whereas training, job promotion, awards and challenging job are considered as motivator factors of job satisfaction of employees working in bank and insurance companies of Nepal.

In summary, Nepal has witnessed a noticeable growth of banking and financial institutions after economic liberalization and intensified competition among the banks (Yukongdi & Shrestha, 2020). As a competitive tool, banks have restored to a strategy of attracting talented human resources from rival firms by offering lucrative compensation packages, training, and career development opportunities (Bista & Regmi, 2016). So, this research paper examines whether or not the hygiene factors and motivator factors of Herzberg's Two Factor Theory significantly impact the job satisfaction of human resources.

II. Literature Review Locke (1976) concluded that job satisfaction is a positive emotional feeling attributed to the appraisal of one's job or job experiences. Benefit, as a significant consideration in the reward and motivation system, conveys a message to employees about what the organizations believe to be essential and worth encouraging (Lawller, 1986). Job satisfaction is associated with increased output, efficiency of the organization, loyalty to the organization, and reduced absenteeism and earnings (Ellickson & Logsdon, 2001). Job satisfaction positively affects the ability, effort, and capability of the employees (Wright & Davis, 2003). Pension and profit-sharing plans are positively associated with job satisfaction (Bender & Heywood, 2006). Positive and favorable attitudes toward the job indicate job satisfaction similarly, negative and unfavorable attitudes towards the job indicate job dissatisfaction (Amstrong, 2006). Armstrong (2006) classified job satisfaction has multi-dimensional facets consisting of attitude toward salary, promotion, working experience, working environment, and nature of work.

Job satisfaction is the collection of feelings and beliefs that human resources have about their current job (George & Jones, 2008). A satisfied worker tends to be less absent from their job, contributes to the company's benefit, and would like to stay in the organization (Adhikari, 2009). An effective reward system with adequate performance recognition creates employee job satisfaction and enhances favorable working conditions, which serve as crucial motivators (Danish & Usman, 2010). At the time, the Imperial Bank of Kenya was experiencing low profitability due to dissatisfied employees and high turnover, still after investing in some of the precious resources like benefits, decision-making authority, training, and development, they began to enjoy the benefits of such policies (Newman et al., 2011). Salary and remuneration is the most essential factor ranked by employees of commercial banks (Gautam, 2011).Banks must demonstrate a satisfactory commitment to their employees through benefits, decision-making authority over how to accomplish the goal, and the use of employees' knowledge, skills, and competencies (Walia and Bajaj, 2012).

In previous years, factors such as a lack of physical stress on the job, a lack of tangible and intangible compensation, a lack of supervision, and so on were widely regarded as deterrents to job satisfaction (Iqbal et al., 2012). Keith (2013) explained the factors influencing job satisfaction depend upon the nature of the work and working environment. An increase in the level of financial benefit, performance appraisal system, promotional strategies, training, and development program improves the overall satisfaction of human resources (Sharma et al., 2014). Dissatisfied employees, on the other hand, are unwilling to accept any pressure for their work, in contrast satisfied employees are always willing to complete their job, even if it is difficult to perform (Simes et al., 2019). As a competitive tool, the banks have resorted to a policy of poaching talented human resources from the competing banks by offering better incentives (Bista & Regmi, 2016). Employee job satisfaction has a significant impact as it leads to increased productivity of the employees, a decreased employee turnover rate, and, consequently a profit margin (Santis et al., 2018).

Based on the literature review, this study has been conducted to test the following assumptions: H1: There is a statistically significant mean difference in the level of job satisfaction due to the difference in level of hygiene factors.

H2: There is a statistically significant mean difference in the level of job satisfaction due to the difference in the level of motivator factors. to process and analyze the collected primary data. In IBM SPSS software, at first, the variables are coded with specific code, and then after, as per the requirement of the research, to depict answers of the research questions, to meet the stated objectives and to test the setup hypothesis, the data are analyzed and evaluated with the help of statistical tool-i.e, independent sample ttest. To meet the assumptions of an independent sample t-test at first, the Likert scale data related to independent variables are categorized into two groupsi.e, motivational and de-motivational. The data included in the Excellent, Good, and Average options have been grouped as a motivational group, whereas the data related to the remaining two options-i.e., Fair and Poor have been grouped as a de-motivational group. The job satisfaction that arises from all motivational factors are also grouped into one dependent variable-i.e, job satisfaction. To test the normality of job satisfaction, the Shapiro Wilk test has been done for each case. Then after, an independent sample t-test was done to test the stated alternative hypothesis. Cronbach's Alpha value (?) has been calculated to measure the internal consistency of the questions that were asked to respondents at the time of the survey. George and Mallery (2003) provide the following rules of thumb: "_ > .9 -Excellent,_ > .8 -Good, _ > .7 -Acceptable, _ > .6 -Questionable, _ > .5 -Poor, and _ < .5 -Unacceptable".

No. of Items 0.700 15

The above table signifies that, by considering all the 15 constructs related to independent variables, the Cronbach's Alpha value (?) that the researcher has gotten is 0.7. Here, Cronbach's Alpha value is equal to '0.7'. This means, the internal consistency among the constructs related to independent variables is good, and the data that the researcher has collected to identify the impact of motivational factors to job satisfaction can be statistically trusted and accepted.

This research work has also met the core assumptions of independent sample t-tests which are as follows:

i. As one dependent variable should be measured in ratio scale here, job satisfaction has been measured in ratio scale.

ii. As independent variables should be measured in nominal scale here, each motivational factor has been classified in to two separate groups. One is motivational factor, and another is the demotivational factor. iii. To meet the assumption of independence, one respondent of the survey has only responded to one group of independent variables (all 15 motivational factors). iv. To meet the assumption of normal distribution, the Shapiro Wilk test has been done. The p-value (sign.) of the job satisfaction is greater than the alfa (?) value-i.e., 0.05 in each of the two groups of independent variables. The above table shows us that, out of 200 respondents in the field survey, 191 respondents have been receiving a salary that motivates them to do their job, whereas 9 respondents have been receiving a salary that demotivates them to do their job. Here, the mean score of job dis-satisfaction (M=46.5556) of human resources which have been receiving a salary at de-motivational level is higher than the mean score of job satisfaction (M=40.4293) of human resources which have been receiving salary at the motivational level. In the above table, F-test (Levene's test) has been done to evaluate the equality of variance. It can be seen that the p-value is 0.322(which is greater than 0.05). It indicates that the variances are significantly equal. Hence, the case of "Equal Variances Assumed" has been considered. The values under the "t-test for Equality of Means" has been examined. So, the p-value for the equal variances t-test is p=0.006. Since this p-value is lesser than 0.05, it is concluded that there is a statistically significant mean difference in the level of job satisfaction due to the difference in the payment of salary.

The above table shows us the p-value of the job satisfaction (p=0.435) is greater than the alfa value (?=0.05) in motivational bonuses. Therefore, job satisfaction is normally distributed within the sample size of human resources receiving motivational bonuses. Similarly, the p-value of job satisfaction (p=0.501) is greater than the alfa value (?=0.05) in de-motivational bonus. Therefore, the job satisfaction is normally distributed within the sample size of human resources receiving de-motivational bonuses.

The above table shows us that, out of 200 respondents in the field survey, 167 respondents have been receiving a bonus that motivates them to do their job, whereas 33 respondents have been receiving a bonus that demotivate them to do their job. Here, the mean score of job dis-satisfaction (M=44.5455) of human resources which been receiving a bonus at the de-motivational level is higher than the mean score of job satisfaction (M=39.9461) of human resources which have been receiving a bonus at the motivational level. In the above table, F-test (Levene's test) has been done to evaluate the equality of variance. It can be seen that the p-value is 0.665 (which is greater than 0.05). It indicates that the variances are significantly equal. Hence, the case of "Equal Variances Assumed" has been considered. The values under the "t-test for Equality of Means" has been examined. So, the p-value for the equal variances t-test is p=0.000. Since this p-value is lesser than 0.05, it is concluded that there is a statistically significant mean difference in the level of job satisfaction due to the difference in the payment of bonuses. The above table shows us that, out of 200 respondents in the field survey, 134 respondents have been receiving vehicle facility that motivates them to do their job, whereas 66 respondents have been receiving vehicle facility that demotivates them to do their job. Here, the mean score of job dis-satisfaction (M=44.1364) of human resources which have been receiving vehicle facility at the de-motivational level is higher than the mean score of job satisfaction (M=39.0149) of human resources which have been receiving vehicle facility at the motivational level.

In the above table, F-test (Levene's test) has been done to evaluate the equality of variance. It can be seen that the p-value is 0.978(which is greater than 0.05). It indicates that the variances are significantly equal. Hence, the case of "Equal Variances Assumed" has been considered. The values under the "t-test for Equality of Means" has been examined. So, the p-value for the equal variances t-test is p=0.000. Since this p-value is lesser than 0.05, it is concluded that there is a statistically significant mean difference in the level of job satisfaction due to the difference in providing vehicle facilities to human resources.

The above table shows us the p-value of the job satisfaction (p=0.216) is greater than the alfa value (?=0.05) in motivational training. Therefore, the job satisfaction is normally distributed within the sample size of human resources receiving motivational training. Similarly, the p-value of the job satisfaction (p=0.250) is greater than the alfa value (?=0.05) in de-motivational trainings. Therefore, job satisfaction is normally distributed within the sample size of human resources receiving de-motivational training.

The above table shows us that, out of 200 respondents in the field survey, 158 respondents have been receiving proper training that motivates them to do their job, whereas 42 respondents have not been receiving appropriate training. As a result, that demotivates them to do their job. Here, the mean score of job dis-satisfaction (M=44.7143) of human resources who have not been receiving proper training at the motivational level is higher than the mean score of job satisfaction (M=39.6392) of human resources which have been receiving appropriate training at the motivational level. In the above table, F-test (Levene's test) has been done to evaluate the equality of variance. It can be seen that the p-value is 0.339(which is greater than 0.05). It indicates that the variances are significantly equal. Hence, the case of "Equal Variances Assumed" has been considered. The values under the "t-test for Equality of Means" has been examined. So, the p-value for the equal variances t-test is p=0.000. Since this p-value is lesser than 0.05, it is concluded that there is a statistically significant mean difference in the level of job satisfaction due to the difference in providing training to the human resources.

The above table shows us the p-value of job satisfaction (p=0.725) is greater than the alfa value (?=0.05) in motivational job promotion. Therefore, job satisfaction is normally distributed within the sample size of human resources receiving motivational job promotions. Similarly, the p-value of the job satisfaction (p=0.059) is greater than the alfa value (?=0.05) in de-motivational job promotion. Therefore, the job satisfaction is normally distributed within the sample size of human resources receiving de-motivational job promotion.

The above table shows us that, out of 200 respondents in the field survey, 135 respondents have been receiving job promotion that motivates them to do their job, whereas 65 respondents have not been receiving job promotion. As a result, that demotivates them to do their job. Here, the mean score of job dis-satisfaction (M=44.5846) of human resources who have not been receiving job promotion is higher than the mean score of job satisfaction (M=38.8370) of human resources who have been receiving job promotion.

In the above table, F-test (Levene's test) has been done to evaluate the equality of variance. It can be seen that the p-value is 0.522(which is greater than 0.05). It indicates that the variances are significantly equal. Hence, the case of "Equal Variances Assumed" has been considered. The values under the "t-test for Equality of Means" has been examined. So, the p-value for the equal variances t-test is p=0.000. Since this p-value is lesser than 0.05, it is concluded that there is a statistically significant mean difference in the level of job satisfaction due to the difference in providing job promotion to human resources. The above table shows us the p-value of the job satisfaction (p=0.668) is greater than the alfa value (?=0.05) in the motivational work environment. Therefore, job satisfaction is normally distributed within the sample size of human resources enjoying a motivational work environment. Similarly, the p-value of job satisfaction (p=0.697) is greater than the alfa value (?=0.05) in de-motivational work environment. Therefore, job satisfaction is normally distributed within the sample size of human resources getting de-motivational work environment.

The above table shows us that, out of 200 respondents in the field survey, 172 respondents have been enjoying the work environment that motivates them to do their job, whereas 28 respondents have been receiving the work environment that demotivates them to do their job. Here, the mean score of job dis-satisfaction (M=45.6786) of human resources who have been receiving de-motivational work environment is higher than the mean score of job satisfaction (M=39.8953) of human resources who have been enjoying motivational work environment.

In the above table, F-test (Levene's test) has been done to evaluate the equality of variance. It can be seen that the p-value is 0.016(which is lesser than 0.05). It indicates that the variances are significantly unequal. Hence, the case of "Equal Variances Not Assumed" has been considered. The values under the "t-test for Equality of Means" has been examined. So, the p-value for the unequal variances t-test is p=0.000. Since this p-value is lesser than 0.05, it is concluded that there is a statistically significant mean difference in the level of job satisfaction due to the difference in providing a work environment to the human resources.

The above table shows us the p-value of the job satisfaction (p=0.587) is greater than the alfa value (?=0.05) in motivational relation with colleagues. Therefore, job satisfaction is normally distributed within the sample size of human resources who have motivational relations with their colleagues. Similarly, the p-value of job satisfaction (p=0.407) is greater than the alfa value (?=0.05) in de-motivational relation with colleagues. Therefore, job satisfaction is normally distributed with in the sample size of human resources who have de-motivational relationswith their colleagues. The above table shows us out of 200 respondents in the field survey, 193 respondents have been enjoying the relationship with colleagues that motivates them to do their job, whereas 7 respondents have been placed in the relationship with colleagues that demotivates them to do their job. Here, the mean score of job dis-satisfaction (M=42.7143) of human resources who have been placed in a relation with colleagues that de-motivates them to do their job is higher than the mean score of job satisfaction (M=40.6321) of human resources who have motivational relation with their colleagues.

In the above table, F-test (Levene's test) has been done to evaluate the equality of variance. It can be seen that the p-value is 0.537(which is greater than 0.05). It indicates that the variances are significantly equal. Hence, the case of "Equal Variances Assumed" has been considered. The values under the "t-test for Equality of Means" has been examined. So, the p-value for the equal variances t-test is p=0.410. Since this p-value is greater than 0.05, it is concluded that there is no statistically significant mean difference in the level of job satisfaction due to the difference in providing relations with colleagues.

The above table shows us the p-value of the job satisfaction (p=0.153) is greater than the alfa value (?=0.05) in motivational allowances. Therefore, job satisfaction is normally distributed within the sample size of human resources who have been receiving allowances at the motivational level. Similarly, p-value of job satisfaction (p=0.088) is greater than the alfa value (?=0.05) in de-motivational allowances. Therefore, the job satisfaction is normally distributed within the sample size of human resources who have been receiving allowances at demotivational level.

The above table shows us that, out of 200 respondents in the field survey, 180 respondents have been receiving allowances that motivate them to do their job, whereas 7 respondents do not have been receiving allowances that motivates them to do their job. Here, the mean score of job satisfaction (M=40.7222) of human resources who have been receiving allowances that motivates them to do their job is slightly higher than the mean score of job dis-satisfaction (M=40.5500) of human resources who do not have been receiving allowances that motivates them to do their job. In the above table, F-test (Levene's test) has been done to evaluate the equality of variance. It can be seen that the p-value is 0.737(which is greater than 0.05). It indicates that the variances are significantly equal. Hence, the case of "Equal Variances Assumed" has been considered. The values under the "t-test for Equality of Means" has been examined. So, the p-value for the equal variances t-test is p=0.912. Since this p-value is greater than 0.05, it is concluded that there is no statistically significant mean difference in the level of job satisfaction due to the difference in providing allowances to human resources. The above table shows us the p-value of the job satisfaction (p=0.283) is greater than the alfa value (?=0.05) in motivational rules and regulations. Therefore, job satisfaction is normally distributed within the sample size of human resources who say that organizational rules and regulations motivate them to do their job. Similarly, the p-value of the job satisfaction (p=0.894) is greater than the alfa value (?=0.05) in de-motivational rules and regulations. Therefore, job satisfaction is normally distributed within the sample size of human resources who say that organizational rules and regulations demotivate them to do their job. The above table shows us that, out of 200 respondents in the field survey, 170 respondents say that organizational rules and regulations have motivated them to do their jobs, whereas 30 respondents say that organizational rules and regulations have demotivated them to do their job. Here, the mean score of job dissatisfaction (M=46.0000) of human resources who say that organizational rules and regulations have demotivated them to do their job is higher than the mean score of job satisfaction (M=39.7706) of human resources who say that organizational rules and regulations have motivated them to do their job. The above table shows us that p-value of the job satisfaction (p=0.205) is greater than the alfa value (?=0.05) in the motivational loan facility. Therefore, the job satisfaction is normally distributed within the sample size of human resources who have been receiving loan facility that motivates them to do their job. Similarly, the p-value of the job satisfaction (p=0.708) is greater than the alfa value (?=0.05) in the de-motivational loan facility. Therefore, job satisfaction is normally distributed within the sample size of human resources who say that the loan facility they have been receiving demotivates them to do their job. The above table shows us that, out of 200 respondents in the field survey, 177 respondents say that loan facility has motivated them to do their job, whereas 23 respondents say that loan facility has demotivated them to do their job. Here, the mean score of job dissatisfaction (M=48.1739) of human resources who say that available loan facility has demotivated them to do their job is higher than the mean score of job satisfaction (M=39.7345) of human resources who say that loan facility has motivated them to do their job. In the above table, F-test (Levene's test) has been done to evaluate the equality of variance. It can be seen that the p-value is 0.170(which is greater than 0.05). It indicates that the variances are significantly equal. Hence, the case of "Equal Variances Assumed" has been considered. The values under the "t-test for Equality of Means" has been examined. So, the p-value for the equal variances t-test is p=0.000. Since this p-value is lesser than 0.05, it is concluded that there is a statistically significant mean difference in the level of job satisfaction due to the difference in providing loan facilities. The above table shows us the p-value of the job satisfaction (p=0.329) is greater than the alfa value (?=0.05) in motivational relation with superior. Therefore, job satisfaction is normally distributed within the sample size of human resources who say that their relation with superiors has motivated them to do their job. Similarly, the p-value of the job satisfaction (p=0.279) is greater than the alfa value (?=0.05) in de-motivational relation with The above table shows us out of 200 respondents in the field survey, 188 respondents say that their relationship with superior has motivated them to do their job whereas 12 respondents say that relationship with their superior has demotivated them to do their job. Here, the mean score of job dissatisfaction (M=47.0833) of human resources who say that relationship with their superior has demotivated them to do their job is higher than the mean score of job satisfaction (M=40.2979) of human resources who say that relation with superior has motivated them to do their job. In the above table, F-test (Levene's test) has been done to evaluate the equality of variance. It can be seen that the p-value is 0.300(which is greater than 0.05). It indicates that the variances are significantly equal. Hence, the case of "Equal Variances Assumed" has been considered. The values under the "t-test for Equality of Means" has been examined. So, the p-value for the equal variances t-test is p=0.000. Since this p-value is lesser than 0.05, it is concluded that there is a statistically significant mean difference in the level of job satisfaction due to the difference in maintaining the relation between superior and subordinate. The above table shows us the p-value of job satisfaction (p=0.401) is greater than the alfa value (?=0.05) in motivational awards. Therefore, the job satisfaction is normally distributed within the sample size of human resources who say that awards have motivated them to do their job. Similarly, the p-value of the job satisfaction (p=0.260) is greater than the alfa value (?=0.05) in de-motivational awards. Therefore, job satisfaction is normally distributed within the sample size of human resources who say that awards have demotivated them to do their job. The above table shows us out of 200 respondents in the field survey, 139 respondents say that awards have motivated them to do their job, whereas 61 respondents believe that awards have demotivated them to do their job.

Here, the mean score of job dissatisfaction (M=45.0492) of human resources who say that awards have demotivated them to do their job is higher than the mean score of job satisfaction (M=38.7986) of human resources who say that awards have motivated them to do their job. In the above table, F-test (Levene's test) has been done to evaluate the equality of variance. It can be seen that the p-value is 0.816 (which is greater than 0.05). It indicates that the variances are significantly equal. Hence, the case of "Equal Variances Assumed" has been considered. The values under the "t-test for Equality of Means" has been examined. So, the p-value for the equal variances t-test is p=0.000. Since this p-value is lesser than 0.05, it is concluded that there is a statistically significant mean difference in the level of job satisfaction due to the difference in providing awards to employees as recognition of their work. The above table shows us that p-value of the job satisfaction (p=0.531) is greater than the alfa value (?=0.05) in motivational challenging jobs. Therefore, job satisfaction is normally distributed within the sample size of human resources who say that delegation of challenging job has motivated them to do their job. Similarly, the pvalue of job satisfaction (p=0.782) is greater than the alfa value (?=0.05) in a de-motivational challenging job. Therefore, job satisfaction is normally distributed within the sample size of human resources who say that the delegation of challenging job has demotivated them to do their job. The above table shows us out of 200 respondents in the field survey, 181 respondents say that delegation of challenging job has motivated them to do their job, whereas 19 respondents say that delegation of challenging job has demotivated them to do their job. Here, the mean score of job dissatisfaction (M=46.6316) of human resources who say that challenging job has demotivated them to do their job is higher than the mean score of job satisfaction (M=40.0829) of human resources who say that challenging job has motivated them to do their job The above table shows us the p-value of job satisfaction (p=0.074) is greater than the alfa value (?=0.05) in motivational relation with subordinate. Therefore, the job satisfaction is normally distributed within the sample size of human resources who say that their relation with subordinate has motivated them to do their job. Similarly, the pvalue of the job satisfaction (p=0.910) is greater than the alfa value (?=0.05) in the de-motivational relation with subordinate. Therefore, the job satisfaction is normally distributed within the sample size of human resources who say that their relation with subordinate has demotivated them to do their job. The above table shows us out of 200 respondents in the field survey, 188 respondents say that their relation with subordinate has motivated them to do their jobs whereas 12 respondents believe that their relation with subordinate has demotivated them to do their job. Here, the mean score of job dissatisfaction (M=47.5000) of human resources who say that their relation with subordinate has demotivated them to do their job is higher than the mean score of job satisfaction (M=40.2713) of human resources who say that their relation with subordinate has motivated them to do their jobs. In the above table, F-test (Levene's test) has been done to evaluate the equality of variance. It can be seen that the p-value is 0.335(which is greater than 0.05). It indicates that the variances are significantly equal. Hence, the case of "Equal Variances Assumed" has been considered. The values under the "t-test for Equality of Means" has been examined. So, the p-value for the equal variances t-test is p=0.000. Since this p-value is lesser than 0.05, it is concluded that there is a statistically significant mean difference in the level of job satisfaction due to the difference in relation with subordinate. The above table shows us the p-value of the job satisfaction (p=0.583) is greater than the alfa value (?=0.05) in motivational job security. Therefore, the job satisfaction is normally distributed with in the sample size of human resources who believe that job security has motivated them to do their job. Similarly, p-value of the job satisfaction (p=0.911) is greater than the alfa value (?=0.05) in de-motivational job security. Therefore, the job satisfaction is normally distributed with in the sample size of human resources who believe that job security has demotivated them to do their job. The above table shows us out of 200 respondents of field survey, 164 respondents say that job security has motivated them to do their job, whereas 36 respondents say that job security has demotivated them to do their job.

Here, the mean score of job dissatisfaction (M=44.0278) of human resources who say that job security has demotivated them to do their job is higher than the mean score of job satisfaction (M=39.9756) of human resources who say that job security has motivated them to do their job. In the above table, F-test (Levene's test) has been done to evaluate the equality of variance. It can be seen that the p-value is 0.476(which is greater than 0.05). It indicates that the variances are significantly equal. Hence, the case of "Equal Variances Assumed" has been considered. The values under the "t-test for Equality of Means" has been examined. So, the p-value for the equal variances t-test is p=0.001. Since this pvalue is lesser than 0.05, it is concluded that there is a statistically significant mean difference in the level of job satisfaction due to the difference in providing job security to employees.

The result of each independent sample t-test concluded that except for the two hygiene factors-i.e, relation with colleagues and allowance, all the motivational factors significantly do affect on job satisfaction of human resource working in bank and insurance companies of Nepal. This meansan increase or decrease in the level of the remaining 13 factors of motivation significantly do change the level of job satisfaction of human resource working in bank and insurance companies of Nepal. Oppositely, an increase or decrease in the level of 2 motivational factors do not significantly change the level of job satisfaction of human resource working in bank and insurance companies of Nepal. The conclusion of the research work partially supports the conclusion of Herzberg's theory of motivation. The result of the independent sample t-test has concluded that there is a significant mean difference in the level of job satisfaction due to changes in the level of 11 hygiene factors-i.e, salary, bonus, vehicle facility, work environment, relation with colleague, allowances, rules & regulations, loan facility, relation with superior, relation with subordinate and job security. This means when all these hygiene factors increase or decrease, then job satisfaction also increase or decrease but according to Herzberg, when these hygiene factors get increase then the level of job satisfaction does not increase. Whereas other conclusions of Herzberg's theory, like; the absence or decrease in the level of hygiene factors creates dissatisfaction among employees, an increase in the level of motivator factors increase the level of job satisfaction, and a decrease the level of motivator factors decrease the level of job satisfaction has been matched with the conclusion of this research work.

The results of the independent sample t-test suggest that there is no significant mean difference in the level of job satisfaction due to changes in the level of allowance and relation with colleagues. This conclusion indicates that the bank and insurance companies of Nepal should not invest their vast amount of finance, time, and effort to increase the amount of allowance and assist in maintaining reasonable and friendlier relations with colleagues of the human resource because at the end that will not play vital role to increase the level of job satisfaction rather than, bank and insurance companies can invest their time, effort and finance in the remaining 13 factors of motivation to increase the level of job satisfaction of human resource.