\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter

\IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}%
  {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}%
  {\RequirePackage{color}}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{ifxetex}
\ifxetex
  \usepackage{fontspec}
  \usepackage{xunicode}
  \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash}
  \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{}
  \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}}
  \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}}
  \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}}
  \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}}
  \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono}
  
\else
  \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}%
   {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
      \PrerenderUnicode{–}
    }%
   {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}}
  \usepackage[english]{babel}
  \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
  \usepackage{float}
  \usepackage[]{ucs}
  \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash }
  \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{}
  \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}}
  \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}}
  \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,}
  \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ }
  \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>}
  \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}}
  \def\textJapanese{}
  \def\textChinese{}
  \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{}
\fi
\def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small}
\DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25}
\usepackage{relsize}
\RequirePackage{array}
\def\@testpach{\@chclass
 \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else
  \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else
   \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else
    \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@
   \else \z@
   \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else
   \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}%
   \@chnum
   \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else
    \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else
     \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else
   \z@ \@chclass
   \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else
    \if \@nextchar !6 \else
     \if \@nextchar @7 \else
      \if \@nextchar (8 \else
       \if \@nextchar )9 \else
  10
  \@chnum
  \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else
   \if \@nextchar p4 \else
    \if \@nextchar b5 \else
   \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi
   \fi \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi}
\gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr}
\def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}}
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\def\abbr{}
\def\corr{}
\def\expan{}
\def\gap{}
\def\orig{}
\def\reg{}
\def\ref{}
\def\sic{}
\def\persName{}\def\name{}
\def\placeName{}
\def\orgName{}
\def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}}
\def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}}
\def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}}
\def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}}
\def\textquoted#1{‘#1’}
\def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}}
\def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}}
\def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}}
\def\titlem{\itshape}
\newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{bibl}{}{}
\newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{rubric}{}{}
\newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par }

\newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}}
\newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
\definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75}
\def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}}
\DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@}
\def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}}
\begingroup
\catcode`\_=\active
\gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}}
\endgroup
\mathcode`\_=\string"8000
\catcode`\_=12\relax

\usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry}
\usepackage{framed}

\definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{fancyvrb}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{marginnote}

\renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1}


\renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize}

\def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif}

  \pagestyle{fancy}

\usepackage[pdftitle={An Empirical Study on Factors Influencing Job Satisfaction of Human Resource in Banks and Insurance Companies of Nepal},
 pdfauthor={}]{hyperref}
\hyperbaseurl{}

	 \paperwidth210mm
	 \paperheight297mm
              
\def\@pnumwidth{1.55em}
\def\@tocrmarg {2.55em}
\def\@dotsep{4.5}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
\clubpenalty=8000
\emergencystretch 3em
\hbadness=4000
\hyphenpenalty=400
\pretolerance=750
\tolerance=2000
\vbadness=4000
\widowpenalty=10000

\renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large}}
\renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}%
     {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\large}}
\renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}%
     {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize}}
\renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}%
     {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}%
     {-1em}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}}


\def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt}
 \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup
 \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth 
 \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth 
 \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par
 \endgroup}
\def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}}
\def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}}
\def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}}
\def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}}
\@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{}
\@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{}
\newif\if@mainmatter 
\@mainmattertrue
\def\chaptername{Chapter}
\def\frontmatter{%
  \pagenumbering{roman}
  \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\roman{section}}
  \def\@chapapp{}%
}
\def\mainmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter}
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \pagenumbering{arabic}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6}
  \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}%
  \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}}
}
\def\backmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2}
  \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}%
  \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}}
  \appendix
}
\newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{%
   \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
       {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}%
        \leftmargin\labelwidth
        \advance\leftmargin\labelsep
        \@openbib@code
        \usecounter{enumiv}%
        \let\p@enumiv\@empty
        \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}%
	}%
  \sloppy
  \clubpenalty4000
  \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty
  \widowpenalty4000%
  \sfcode`\.\@m}%
  {\def\@noitemerr
    {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}%
    \endlist}

\def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}}
\parskip0pt
\parindent1em
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\newenvironment{reflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{sansreflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{specHead}[2]%
 {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}%
  \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}%

  \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}%
  \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}%
  }{}
      \def\TheFullDate{1970-01-01 (revised: 01 January 1970)}
\def\TheID{\makeatother }
\def\TheDate{1970-01-01}
\title{An Empirical Study on Factors Influencing Job Satisfaction of Human Resource in Banks and Insurance Companies of Nepal}
\author{}\makeatletter 
\makeatletter
\newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{%
  \clearpage
    \if@twoside
    \ifodd\c@page
      \hbox{}\newpage
      \if@twocolumn
        \hbox{}\newpage
      \fi
    \fi
  \fi
}
\makeatother
\makeatletter
\thispagestyle{empty}
\markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author}
\renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@
\belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip
\abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@
\belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@
\def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini
               \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@
               \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@
               \itemsep 1pt}
}
\makeatother
\fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm}
\fancyhf{} 
\setlength{\headheight}{14pt}
\fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} 
\fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} 
\fancyfoot[RO]{}
\fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID}
\fancyfoot[LE]{}
\fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID}
\hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true}
\fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}}

\date{}
\usepackage{authblk}

\providecommand{\keywords}[1]
{
\footnotesize
  \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1
}

\usepackage{graphicx,xcolor}
\definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81}
\definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9}
\definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70}
\definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} 

\renewenvironment{abstract}{%
   \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
   \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space}
}{%   
   \vskip8pt
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
}

\usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos}

\makeatother 
      \usepackage{lineno}
      \linenumbers
      
\begin{document}

             \author[1]{Biplav  Poudel}

\renewcommand\Authands{ and }

\date{\small \em Received: 1 January 1970 Accepted: 1 January 1970 Published: 1 January 1970}

\maketitle


\begin{abstract}
        


Job satisfaction is the positive emotional feeling of an employee towards their job. It is one of the most important outcomes of an organization depends on the various motivational factors. Out of different motivational theories, this research work has used Herzberg?s Two Factor Theory of motivation to understand the impact of motivational factors on job satisfaction of human resource working in bank and insurance companies of Nepal. Due to the use of the theory, the assumed 15 motivational factors are classified into two groups- i.e, hygiene factor and motivator factor, and later on, each of the motivational factors are further grouped into motivational and de-motivation factors to meet the assumption of independent sample t-test through IBM SPSS 25 version. To test the internal consistency reliability of questions related to 15 constructs, the Cronbach Alfa (?) coefficient has been calculated. To create consistency with the sample size assumed in Herzberg?s theory of motivation, this research paper has collected primary data from 200 respondents through a face-to-face interview method with a structured questionnaire. Results of this research work have partially accepted the conclusion of Herzberg?s theory of motivation. The development of the independent sample t-test, it has been found that relation with colleagues and allowances do not significantly affect on the level of job satisfaction of human resources, whereas the remaining 13 motivational factors- i.e, salary, bonus, vehicle facility, training, job promotion, work environment, rules & regulations, loan facility, relation with superior, awards, challenging job, relation with subordinate and job security do significantly effect on job satisfaction of human resources. The research paper concludes that to improve the job satisfaction of human resource, the bank and insurance companies of Nepal should increase their time, effort and finance on the remaining 13 motivational factors rather than on the two motivational factors.

\end{abstract}


\keywords{job satisfaction, herzberg?s two factor theory, bank, insurance companies, human resources, motivational factors, Nepal.}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark}
\end{textblock*}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}}
\end{textblock*}


\begin{textblock*}{10cm}(1.05cm,3cm)
{{\textit{CrossRef DOI of original article:}} \underline{}}
\end{textblock*}\let\tabcellsep& 	 	 		 
\section[{I. Introduction}]{I. Introduction}\par
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 \hyperref[b16]{(Poudyal \& Pradhan, 2018)}. For example, paying workers high salaries can enhance satisfaction and reduce turnover, but it also may detract from bottom-line performance \hyperref[b10]{(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.\par
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 \hyperref[b2]{(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 \hyperref[b2]{(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.\par
In summary, Nepal has witnessed a noticeable growth of banking and financial institutions after economic liberalization and intensified competition among the banks \hyperref[b21]{(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 \hyperref[b4]{(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.\par
II. Literature Review \hyperref[b14]{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 \hyperref[b13]{(Lawller, 1986)}. Job satisfaction is associated with increased output, efficiency of the organization, loyalty to the organization, and reduced absenteeism and earnings  {\ref (Ellickson \& Logsdon, 2001)}. Job satisfaction positively affects the ability, effort, and capability of the employees \hyperref[b20]{(Wright \& Davis, 2003)}. Pension and profit-sharing plans are positively associated with job satisfaction \hyperref[b3]{(Bender \& Heywood, 2006)}. Positive and favorable attitudes toward the job indicate job satisfaction similarly, negative and unfavorable attitudes towards the job indicate job dissatisfaction  {\ref (Amstrong, 2006)}. \hyperref[b1]{Armstrong (2006)} classified job satisfaction has multi-dimensional facets consisting of attitude toward salary, promotion, working experience, working environment, and nature of work.\par
Job satisfaction is the collection of feelings and beliefs that human resources have about their current job \hyperref[b9]{(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 \hyperref[b0]{(Adhikari, 2009}). An effective reward system with adequate performance recognition creates employee job satisfaction and enhances favorable working conditions, which serve as crucial motivators \hyperref[b5]{(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 \hyperref[b15]{(Newman et al., 2011)}. Salary and remuneration is the most essential factor ranked by employees of commercial banks \hyperref[b7]{(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 \hyperref[b19]{(Walia and Bajaj, 2012)}.\par
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 \hyperref[b11]{(Iqbal et al., 2012)}. \hyperref[b12]{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 \hyperref[b18]{(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 \hyperref[b4]{(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 \hyperref[b17]{(Santis et al., 2018)}.\par
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.\par
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. \hyperref[b8]{George and Mallery (2003)} provide the following rules of thumb: "\textunderscore  > .9 -Excellent,\textunderscore  > .8 -Good, \textunderscore  > .7 -Acceptable, \textunderscore  > .6 -Questionable, \textunderscore  > .5 -Poor, and \textunderscore  < .5 -Unacceptable". 
\section[{Cronbach's Alpha}]{Cronbach's Alpha}\par
No. of Items 0.700 15\par
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.\par
This research work has also met the core assumptions of independent sample t-tests which are as follows:\par
i. As one dependent variable should be measured in ratio scale here, job satisfaction has been measured in ratio scale.\par
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. 
\section[{IV. Result and Discussion}]{IV. Result and Discussion} 
\section[{Salary}]{Salary}\par
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.\par
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. 
\section[{Bonus}]{Bonus}\par
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.\par
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.\par
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.\par
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.\par
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.\par
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.\par
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.\par
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.\par
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.\par
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.\par
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.\par
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.\par
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. 
\section[{Global}]{Global}\par
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. 
\section[{V. Conclusion}]{V. Conclusion}\par
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.\par
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.\begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1}\includegraphics[]{image-2.png}
\caption{\label{fig_0}Figure 1 :}\end{figure}
   \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{3} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.85\textwidth}}
Year 2023\\
Volume XXIII Issue V Version I\\
( ) A\\
Global Journal of Management and Business Research\\
© 2023 Global Journals\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_0}Table 3 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.71128\textwidth}P{0.06527999999999999\textwidth}P{0.008159999999999999\textwidth}P{0.02584\textwidth}P{0.039439999999999996\textwidth}}
\multicolumn{5}{l}{The above table shows us thep-value of the job satisfaction (p=0.581) is greater than the alfa value}\\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{(?=0.05) in motivational salary. Therefore, job satisfaction is normally distributed within the sample size of human}\\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{resources receiving motivational salary. Similarly, the p-value of job satisfaction (p=0.260) is greater than the alfa}\\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{value (?=0.05) in de-motivational salary. Therefore, job satisfaction is normally distributed with in the sample size of}\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{human resources receiving the de-motivational salary.}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep Salary\tabcellsep N\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep Std. Deviation\\
Job Satisfaction\tabcellsep Motivational Salary De-motivational Salary\tabcellsep 191 9\tabcellsep 40.4293 46.5556\tabcellsep 6.49404 5.15051\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_1}Table 1 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{2} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.2833333333333333\textwidth}P{0.4407407407407407\textwidth}P{0.1259259259259259\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Shapiro-Wilk\tabcellsep \\
Statistic\tabcellsep df\tabcellsep Sig.\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_2}Table 2 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{4} \par 
\begin{longtable}{}
\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_3}Table 4 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{5} \par 
\begin{longtable}{}
\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_4}Table 5 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{6} \par 
\begin{longtable}{}
\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_5}Table 6 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{7} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.85\textwidth}}
An Empirical Study on Factors Influencing Job Satisfaction of Human Resource in Banks and Insurance\\
Companies of Nepal\\
15\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_6}Table 7 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{10} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.04473684210526315\textwidth}P{0.1789473684210526\textwidth}P{0.6263157894736842\textwidth}}
N\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep Std. Deviation\end{longtable} \par
 
\begin{quote}
The above table shows us the p-value of job satisfaction (p=0.110) is greater than the alfa value (?=0.05) in the motivational vehicle facility. Therefore, job satisfaction is normally distributed within the sample size of human resources receiving motivational salaries. Similarly, the p-value of the job satisfaction (p=0.372) is greater than the\end{quote}

\caption{\label{tab_8}Table 10 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{11} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.3221774193548387\textwidth}P{0.13024193548387097\textwidth}P{0.19879032258064513\textwidth}P{0.027419354838709675\textwidth}P{0.06854838709677419\textwidth}P{0.1028225806451613\textwidth}}
Year 2023\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Volume XXIII Issue V Version I\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
( ) A\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Global Journal of Management and Business Research\tabcellsep Job Satisfaction\tabcellsep Trainings Motivational Trainings De-motivational Trainings\tabcellsep N 158 42\tabcellsep Mean 39.6392 44.7143\tabcellsep Std. Deviation 6.15016 6.54174\\
\tabcellsep © 2023 Global Journals\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_9}Table 11 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{8} \par 
\begin{longtable}{}
\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_10}Table 8 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{9} \par 
\begin{longtable}{}
\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_11}Table 9 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{12} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.06505102040816327\textwidth}P{0.21683673469387754\textwidth}P{0.1951530612244898\textwidth}P{0.03903061224489796\textwidth}P{0.1778061224489796\textwidth}P{0.04770408163265306\textwidth}P{0.10841836734693877\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Levene's Test for Equality of Variances}\tabcellsep t-test for Equality of Means\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep F\tabcellsep Sig.\tabcellsep t\tabcellsep df\tabcellsep Sig. (2-tailed)\\
Job\tabcellsep Equal variances assumed\tabcellsep 0.920\tabcellsep 0.339\tabcellsep -4.690\tabcellsep 198\tabcellsep 0.000\\
Satisfaction\tabcellsep Equal variances not assumed\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep -4.524\tabcellsep 61.641\tabcellsep 0.000\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_12}Table 12 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{13} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.09645390070921986\textwidth}P{0.4159574468085106\textwidth}P{0.12056737588652483\textwidth}P{0.12659574468085105\textwidth}P{0.09042553191489361\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Job Promotion\tabcellsep Statistic\tabcellsep Shapiro-Wilk df\tabcellsep Sig.\\
Job Satisfaction\tabcellsep Motivational Job Promotion De-motivational Job Promotion\tabcellsep 0.993 0.965\tabcellsep 135 65\tabcellsep 0.725 0.059\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_13}Table 13 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{14} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.09714285714285714\textwidth}P{0.41892857142857143\textwidth}P{0.0425\textwidth}P{0.11535714285714284\textwidth}P{0.17607142857142857\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Job Promotion\tabcellsep N\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep Std. Deviation\\
Job Satisfaction\tabcellsep Motivational Job Promotion De-motivational Job Promotion\tabcellsep 135 65\tabcellsep 38.8370 44.5846\tabcellsep 6.14527 5.64273\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_14}Table 14 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{15} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.04171779141104295\textwidth}P{0.1329754601226994\textwidth}P{0.15122699386503066\textwidth}P{0.11472392638036809\textwidth}P{0.036503067484662574\textwidth}P{0.127760736196319\textwidth}P{0.2450920245398773\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Year 2023\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Volume XXIII Issue V Version I\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep ( ) A\\
Job Satisfaction\tabcellsep Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed\tabcellsep Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F Sig. 0.411 0.522\tabcellsep t-test for Equality of Means t -6.358 -6.552\tabcellsep df 198 136.679\tabcellsep Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000\tabcellsep Global Journal of Management and Business Research\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep © 2023 Global Journals\tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_15}Table 15 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{16} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.09066666666666667\textwidth}P{0.442\textwidth}P{0.11333333333333333\textwidth}P{0.11900000000000001\textwidth}P{0.085\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Work Environment\tabcellsep Statistic\tabcellsep Shapiro-Wilk df\tabcellsep Sig.\\
Job Satisfaction\tabcellsep Motivational Work Environment De-motivational Work Environment\tabcellsep 0.994 0.974\tabcellsep 172 28\tabcellsep 0.668 0.697\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_16}Table 16 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{17} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.0912751677852349\textwidth}P{0.4449664429530201\textwidth}P{0.03993288590604027\textwidth}P{0.10838926174496645\textwidth}P{0.16543624161073825\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Work Environment\tabcellsep N\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep Std. Deviation\\
Job Satisfaction\tabcellsep Motivational Work Environment De-motivational Work Environment\tabcellsep 172 28\tabcellsep 39.8953 45.6786\tabcellsep 6.53560 4.02817\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_17}Table 17 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{18} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.06606217616580311\textwidth}P{0.22020725388601034\textwidth}P{0.19378238341968912\textwidth}P{0.039637305699481866\textwidth}P{0.17616580310880828\textwidth}P{0.04404145077720207\textwidth}P{0.11010362694300517\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Levene's Test for}\tabcellsep t-test for Equality\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Equality of Variances}\tabcellsep of Means\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep F\tabcellsep Sig.\tabcellsep t\tabcellsep df\tabcellsep Sig. (2-tailed)\\
Job\tabcellsep Equal variances assumed\tabcellsep 5.920\tabcellsep 0.016\tabcellsep -4.538\tabcellsep 198\tabcellsep 0.000\\
Satisfaction\tabcellsep Equal variances not assumed\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep -6.356\tabcellsep 53.55\tabcellsep 0.000\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_18}Table 18 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{19} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.269023569023569\textwidth}P{0.10875420875420876\textwidth}P{0.30622895622895624\textwidth}P{0.0601010101010101\textwidth}P{0.0601010101010101\textwidth}P{0.045791245791245785\textwidth}}
Year 2023\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Volume XXIII Issue V Version I\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
( ) A\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Global Journal of Management and Business Research\tabcellsep Job Satisfaction\tabcellsep Relationship With Colleagues Motivational Relation with Colleagues De-motivational Relation with Colleagues\tabcellsep Statistic 0.994 0.912\tabcellsep Shapiro-Wilk df 193 7\tabcellsep Sig. 0.587 0.407\\
\tabcellsep © 2023 Global Journals\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_19}Table 19 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{20} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.2125\textwidth}P{0.37670454545454546\textwidth}P{0.028977272727272723\textwidth}P{0.09176136363636364\textwidth}P{0.14005681818181817\textwidth}}
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Relationship With Colleagues}\tabcellsep N\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep Std. Deviation\\
Job Satisfaction\tabcellsep Motivational Relation with Colleagues De-motivational Relation with Colleagues\tabcellsep 193 7\tabcellsep 40.6321 42.7143\tabcellsep 6.59580 5.25085\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_20}Table 20 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{21} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.06538461538461539\textwidth}P{0.21794871794871792\textwidth}P{0.19615384615384615\textwidth}P{0.03923076923076923\textwidth}P{0.17871794871794872\textwidth}P{0.04358974358974359\textwidth}P{0.10897435897435896\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Levene's Test for Equality of Variances}\tabcellsep t-test for Equality of Means\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep F\tabcellsep Sig.\tabcellsep t\tabcellsep df\tabcellsep Sig. (2-tailed)\\
Job\tabcellsep Equal variances assumed\tabcellsep 0.382\tabcellsep 0.537\tabcellsep -0.825\tabcellsep 198\tabcellsep 0.410\\
Satisfaction\tabcellsep Equal variances not assumed\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep -1.020\tabcellsep 6.706\tabcellsep 0.343\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_21}Table 21 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{22} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.10303030303030303\textwidth}P{0.38636363636363635\textwidth}P{0.12878787878787878\textwidth}P{0.13522727272727272\textwidth}P{0.09659090909090909\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Allowances\tabcellsep Statistic\tabcellsep Shapiro-Wilk df\tabcellsep Sig.\\
Job Satisfaction\tabcellsep Motivational Allowances De-motivational Allowances\tabcellsep 0.989 0.917\tabcellsep 180 20\tabcellsep 0.153 0.088\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_22}Table 22 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{23} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.054183266932270914\textwidth}P{0.20657370517928286\textwidth}P{0.027091633466135457\textwidth}P{0.06772908366533864\textwidth}P{0.17609561752988048\textwidth}P{0.3183266932270916\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Year 2023\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Volume XXIII Issue V Version I\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep ( ) A\\
Job Satisfaction\tabcellsep Allowances Motivational Allowances De-motivational Allowances\tabcellsep N 180 20\tabcellsep Mean 40.7222 40.5500\tabcellsep Std. Deviation 6.49112 7.27270\tabcellsep Global Journal of Management and Business Research\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep © 2023 Global Journals\tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_23}Table 23 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{24} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.06640625\textwidth}P{0.22135416666666669\textwidth}P{0.19479166666666664\textwidth}P{0.03984375\textwidth}P{0.16822916666666665\textwidth}P{0.04869791666666666\textwidth}P{0.11067708333333334\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Levene's Test for}\tabcellsep t-test for Equality\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Equality of Variances}\tabcellsep of Means\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep F\tabcellsep Sig.\tabcellsep t\tabcellsep df\tabcellsep Sig. (2-tailed)\\
Job\tabcellsep Equal variances assumed\tabcellsep 0.113\tabcellsep 0.737\tabcellsep 0.111\tabcellsep 198\tabcellsep 0.912\\
Satisfaction\tabcellsep Equal variances not assumed\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep 0.102\tabcellsep 22.494\tabcellsep 0.920\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_24}Table 24 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{25} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.08242424242424243\textwidth}P{0.47909090909090907\textwidth}P{0.10303030303030303\textwidth}P{0.10818181818181817\textwidth}P{0.07727272727272727\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Rules and Regulations\tabcellsep Statistic\tabcellsep Shapiro-Wilk df\tabcellsep Sig.\\
Job Satisfaction\tabcellsep Motivational Rules and Regulations De-motivational Rules and Regulations\tabcellsep 0.990 0.983\tabcellsep 170 30\tabcellsep 0.283 0.894\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_25}Table 25 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{26} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.08292682926829269\textwidth}P{0.48201219512195115\textwidth}P{0.03628048780487805\textwidth}P{0.09847560975609757\textwidth}P{0.15030487804878048\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Rules and Regulations\tabcellsep N\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep Std. Deviation\\
Job Satisfaction\tabcellsep Motivational Rules and Regulations De-motivational Rules and Regulations\tabcellsep 170 30\tabcellsep 39.7706 46.0000\tabcellsep 6.25969 5.68118\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_26}Table 26 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{27} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.06505102040816327\textwidth}P{0.21683673469387754\textwidth}P{0.1951530612244898\textwidth}P{0.03903061224489796\textwidth}P{0.1778061224489796\textwidth}P{0.04770408163265306\textwidth}P{0.10841836734693877\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Levene's Test for Equality of Variances}\tabcellsep t-test for Equality of Means\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep F\tabcellsep Sig.\tabcellsep t\tabcellsep df\tabcellsep Sig. (2-tailed)\\
Job\tabcellsep Equal variances assumed\tabcellsep 0.570\tabcellsep 0.451\tabcellsep -5.091\tabcellsep 198\tabcellsep 0.000\\
Satisfaction\tabcellsep Equal variances not assumed\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep -5.450\tabcellsep 42.423\tabcellsep 0.000\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_27}Table 27 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{28} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.09645390070921986\textwidth}P{0.4159574468085106\textwidth}P{0.12056737588652483\textwidth}P{0.12659574468085105\textwidth}P{0.09042553191489361\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Loan Facility\tabcellsep Statistic\tabcellsep Shapiro-Wilk df\tabcellsep Sig.\\
Job Satisfaction\tabcellsep Motivational Loan Facility De-motivational Loan Facility\tabcellsep 0.989 0.971\tabcellsep 177 23\tabcellsep 0.205 0.708\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_28}Table 28 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{29} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.09714285714285714\textwidth}P{0.41892857142857143\textwidth}P{0.0425\textwidth}P{0.11535714285714284\textwidth}P{0.17607142857142857\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Loan Facility\tabcellsep N\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep Std. Deviation\\
Job Satisfaction\tabcellsep Motivational Loan Facility De-motivational Loan Facility\tabcellsep 177 23\tabcellsep 39.7345 48.1739\tabcellsep 6.12211 4.77353\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_29}Table 29 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{30} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.06505102040816327\textwidth}P{0.21683673469387754\textwidth}P{0.1951530612244898\textwidth}P{0.03903061224489796\textwidth}P{0.1778061224489796\textwidth}P{0.04770408163265306\textwidth}P{0.10841836734693877\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Levene's Test for Equality of Variances}\tabcellsep t-test for Equality of Means\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep F\tabcellsep Sig.\tabcellsep t\tabcellsep df\tabcellsep Sig. (2-tailed)\\
Job\tabcellsep Equal variances assumed\tabcellsep 1.897\tabcellsep 0.170\tabcellsep -6.359\tabcellsep 198\tabcellsep 0.000\\
Satisfaction\tabcellsep Equal variances not assumed\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep -7.696\tabcellsep 32.225\tabcellsep 0.000\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_30}Table 30 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{31} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.08095238095238094\textwidth}P{0.48571428571428565\textwidth}P{0.10119047619047618\textwidth}P{0.10625\textwidth}P{0.07589285714285714\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Relation With Superior\tabcellsep Statistic\tabcellsep Shapiro-Wilk df\tabcellsep Sig.\\
Job Satisfaction\tabcellsep Motivational Relation With Superior De-motivational Relation With Superior\tabcellsep 0.991 0.919\tabcellsep 188 12\tabcellsep 0.329 0.279\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_31}Table 31 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{32} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.081437125748503\textwidth}P{0.48862275449101794\textwidth}P{0.03562874251497006\textwidth}P{0.0967065868263473\textwidth}P{0.1476047904191617\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Relation with Superior\tabcellsep N\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep Std. Deviation\\
Job Satisfaction\tabcellsep Motivational Relation With Superior De-motivational Relation With Superior\tabcellsep 188 12\tabcellsep 40.2979 47.0833\tabcellsep 6.44488 4.87029\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_32}Table 32 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{33} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.06572164948453608\textwidth}P{0.21907216494845358\textwidth}P{0.19278350515463916\textwidth}P{0.03943298969072165\textwidth}P{0.17525773195876287\textwidth}P{0.04819587628865979\textwidth}P{0.10953608247422679\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Levene's Test for}\tabcellsep t-test for Equality\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Equality of Variances}\tabcellsep of Means\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep F\tabcellsep Sig.\tabcellsep t\tabcellsep df\tabcellsep Sig. (2-tailed)\\
Job\tabcellsep Equal variances assumed\tabcellsep 1.081\tabcellsep 0.300\tabcellsep -3.579\tabcellsep 198\tabcellsep 0.000\\
Satisfaction\tabcellsep Equal variances not assumed\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep -4.577\tabcellsep 13.586\tabcellsep 0.000\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_33}Table 33 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{34} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.11333333333333333\textwidth}P{0.34\textwidth}P{0.14166666666666666\textwidth}P{0.14875\textwidth}P{0.10625\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Awards\tabcellsep Statistic\tabcellsep Shapiro-Wilk df\tabcellsep Sig.\\
Job Satisfaction\tabcellsep Motivational Awards De-motivational Awards\tabcellsep 0.990 0.976\tabcellsep 139 61\tabcellsep 0.401 0.260\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_34}Table 34 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{35} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.11428571428571428\textwidth}P{0.34285714285714286\textwidth}P{0.049999999999999996\textwidth}P{0.1357142857142857\textwidth}P{0.20714285714285713\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Awards\tabcellsep N\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep Std. Deviation\\
Job Satisfaction\tabcellsep Motivational Awards De-motivational Awards\tabcellsep 139 61\tabcellsep 38.7986 45.0492\tabcellsep 5.88560 5.93135\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_35}Table 35 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{36} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.06472081218274112\textwidth}P{0.21573604060913704\textwidth}P{0.19416243654822335\textwidth}P{0.03883248730964467\textwidth}P{0.1769035532994924\textwidth}P{0.05177664974619289\textwidth}P{0.10786802030456852\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Levene's Test for Equality of Variances}\tabcellsep t-test for Equality of Means\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep F\tabcellsep Sig.\tabcellsep t\tabcellsep df\tabcellsep Sig. (2-tailed)\\
Job\tabcellsep Equal variances assumed\tabcellsep 0.054\tabcellsep 0.816\tabcellsep -6.899\tabcellsep 198\tabcellsep 0.000\\
Satisfaction\tabcellsep Equal variances not assumed\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep -6.878\tabcellsep 113.816\tabcellsep 0.000\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_36}Table 36 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{37} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.09251700680272108\textwidth}P{0.4336734693877551\textwidth}P{0.11564625850340136\textwidth}P{0.12142857142857141\textwidth}P{0.08673469387755102\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Challenging Job\tabcellsep Statistic\tabcellsep Shapiro-Wilk df\tabcellsep Sig.\\
Job Satisfaction\tabcellsep Motivational Challenging Job De-motivational Challenging Job\tabcellsep 0.993 0.970\tabcellsep 181 19\tabcellsep 0.531 0.782\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_37}Table 37 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{38} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.09315068493150684\textwidth}P{0.4366438356164384\textwidth}P{0.040753424657534246\textwidth}P{0.11061643835616437\textwidth}P{0.16883561643835615\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Challenging Job\tabcellsep N\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep Std. Deviation\\
Job Satisfaction\tabcellsep Motivational Challenging Job De-motivational Challenging Job\tabcellsep 181 19\tabcellsep 40.0829 46.6316\tabcellsep 6.46003 4.07173\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_38}Table 38 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{39} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.06505102040816327\textwidth}P{0.21683673469387754\textwidth}P{0.1951530612244898\textwidth}P{0.03903061224489796\textwidth}P{0.1778061224489796\textwidth}P{0.04770408163265306\textwidth}P{0.10841836734693877\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Levene's Test for Equality of Variances}\tabcellsep t-test for Equality of Means\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep F\tabcellsep Sig.\tabcellsep t\tabcellsep df\tabcellsep Sig. (2-tailed)\\
Job\tabcellsep Equal variances assumed\tabcellsep 4.259\tabcellsep 0.040\tabcellsep -4.324\tabcellsep 198\tabcellsep 0.000\\
Satisfaction\tabcellsep Equal variances not assumed\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep -6.235\tabcellsep 28.570\tabcellsep 0.000\end{longtable} \par
 
\begin{quote}
than\end{quote}

\caption{\label{tab_39}Table 39 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{40} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.07683615819209039\textwidth}P{0.5042372881355932\textwidth}P{0.096045197740113\textwidth}P{0.10084745762711865\textwidth}P{0.07203389830508473\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Relation With Subordinate\tabcellsep Statistic\tabcellsep Shapiro-Wilk df\tabcellsep Sig.\\
Job Satisfaction\tabcellsep Motivational Relation With Subordinate De-motivational Relation With Subordinate\tabcellsep 0.987 0.970\tabcellsep 188 12\tabcellsep 0.074 0.910\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_40}Table 40 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{41} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.07683615819209039\textwidth}P{0.5042372881355932\textwidth}P{0.03361581920903955\textwidth}P{0.16327683615819208\textwidth}P{0.07203389830508473\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Relation With Subordinate\tabcellsep N\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Mean Std. Deviation}\\
Job Satisfaction\tabcellsep Motivational Relation With Subordinate De-motivational Relation With Subordinate\tabcellsep 188 12\tabcellsep 40.2713 47.5000\tabcellsep 6.24592 7.76355\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_41}Table 41 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{42} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.06606217616580311\textwidth}P{0.22020725388601034\textwidth}P{0.19378238341968912\textwidth}P{0.039637305699481866\textwidth}P{0.17616580310880828\textwidth}P{0.04844559585492228\textwidth}P{0.10569948186528497\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Levene's Test for}\tabcellsep t-test for Equality\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Equality of Variances}\tabcellsep of Means\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep F\tabcellsep Sig.\tabcellsep t\tabcellsep df\tabcellsep Sig. (2tailed)\\
Job\tabcellsep Equal variances assumed\tabcellsep 0.933\tabcellsep 0.335\tabcellsep -3.830\tabcellsep 198\tabcellsep 0.000\\
Satisfaction\tabcellsep Equal variances not assumed\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep -3.161\tabcellsep 11.926\tabcellsep 0.008\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_42}Table 42 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{43} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.09855072463768116\textwidth}P{0.40652173913043477\textwidth}P{0.12318840579710146\textwidth}P{0.12934782608695652\textwidth}P{0.09239130434782608\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Job Security\tabcellsep Statistic\tabcellsep Shapiro-Wilk df\tabcellsep Sig.\\
Job Satisfaction\tabcellsep Motivational Job Security De-motivational Job Security\tabcellsep 0.993 0.986\tabcellsep 164 36\tabcellsep 0.583 0.911\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_43}Table 43 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{44} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.09927007299270073\textwidth}P{0.40948905109489053\textwidth}P{0.04343065693430657\textwidth}P{0.11788321167883212\textwidth}P{0.17992700729927005\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Job Security\tabcellsep N\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep Std. Deviation\\
Job Satisfaction\tabcellsep Motivational Job Security De-motivational Job Security\tabcellsep 164 36\tabcellsep 39.9756 44.0278\tabcellsep 6.52221 5.67947\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_44}Table 44 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{45} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.06505102040816327\textwidth}P{0.21683673469387754\textwidth}P{0.1951530612244898\textwidth}P{0.03903061224489796\textwidth}P{0.1778061224489796\textwidth}P{0.04770408163265306\textwidth}P{0.10841836734693877\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Levene's Test for Equality of Variances}\tabcellsep t-test for Equality of Means\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep F\tabcellsep Sig.\tabcellsep t\tabcellsep df\tabcellsep Sig. (2-tailed)\\
Job\tabcellsep Equal variances assumed\tabcellsep 0.511\tabcellsep 0.476\tabcellsep -3.450\tabcellsep 198\tabcellsep 0.001\\
Satisfaction\tabcellsep Equal variances not assumed\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep -3.770\tabcellsep 57.169\tabcellsep 0.000\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_45}Table 45 :}\end{figure}
 			\label{foot_0}\footnote{\label{foot_0} © 2023 Global Journals} 		 		\backmatter  			  				\begin{bibitemlist}{1}
\bibitem[Sharma ()]{b18}\label{b18} 	 		‘A comparative study of sleep habits among medical and non-medical students in Saifai’.  		 			A Et Sharma 		.  	 	 		\textit{Itawah. International journal community medical public health}  		Sept, 2014. 5 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Armstrong ()]{b1}\label{b1} 	 		\textit{A Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice},  		 			M Armstrong 		.  		2006. Kogan Page Publishers. p. 19.  	 
\bibitem[Adhikari ()]{b0}\label{b0} 	 		 			D R Adhikari 		.  		\textit{Organizational Behaviour},  		 (Kathmandu)  		2009. Buddha Academic.  	 	 (rd ed.) 
\bibitem[Keith ()]{b12}\label{b12} 	 		‘An assessment on job satisfaction of academic employees: a survey on Ethiopian private institutions of higher learning’.  		 			D Keith 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of Research in Commerce and Management}  		2013. 4  (12)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Aswathappa ()]{b2}\label{b2} 	 		 			K Aswathappa 		.  		\textit{Organizational Behaviour},  		2017. Himalaya Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.  	 	 (th ed.) 
\bibitem[Gautam ()]{b7}\label{b7} 	 		‘Changing perspectives of managing human resources in Nepal’.  		 			D K Gautam 		.  	 	 		\textit{Proceedings of Nepalese Academy of management},  		 (Nepalese Academy of management)  		2011. 1 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Eilickson and Logsdon ()]{b6}\label{b6} 	 		‘Determinants of Job Satisfaction of Municipal Government Employees’.  		 			M C Eilickson 		,  		 			K Logsdon 		.  	 	 		\textit{State and Local Government Review}  		2001. 33  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Santis et al. ()]{b17}\label{b17} 	 		‘Does cultural capital matter for individual job performance? A large-scale survey of the impact of cultural, social and psychological capital on individual performance in Brazil’.  		 			A S Santis 		,  		 			M T R Neto 		,  		 			E Verwaal 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management}  		2018. 67  (8)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[George and Mallery ()]{b8}\label{b8} 	 		 			D George 		,  		 			P Mallery 		.  		\textit{SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update},  		 (Boston)  		2003. Allyn \& Bacon.  	 	 (th ed.) 
\bibitem[Locke (ed.) ()]{b14}\label{b14} 	 		\textit{Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology},  		 			E A Locke 		.  		Dunnette, M. D. (ed.)  		1976. Rand McNally, Chicago, IL. p. .  	 	 (The nature and causes of job satisfaction) 
\bibitem[Lawller ()]{b13}\label{b13} 	 		‘High-Involvement arrangement: Participative strategies for improving organizational performance’.  		 			E Lawller 		.  	 	 		\textit{International journal of Bank Marketing}  		1986. 24  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Walia ()]{b19}\label{b19} 	 		‘Impact of human resource management (HRM) practices on employee retention’.  		 			Bajaj Walia 		.  	 	 		\textit{International journal of research in IT \& management}  		2012. 2  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Danish and Usman ()]{b5}\label{b5} 	 		‘Impact of reward and recognition on job satisfaction and motivation: An empirical study from Pakistan’.  		 			R Q Danish 		,  		 			A Usman 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of Business and Management}  		2010. 5  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Bista and Regmi ()]{b4}\label{b4} 	 		‘Job Satisfaction among Employees of Commercial Banks in Nepal’.  		 			P Bista 		,  		 			R Regmi 		.  	 	 		\textit{Proceedings of the Australia-Middle East Conference on Business and Social Sciences},  		 (the Australia-Middle East Conference on Business and Social Sciences)  		2016. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Wright and Davis ()]{b20}\label{b20} 	 		\textit{Job Satisfaction in the Public Sector: The Role of the Work Environment},  		 			B E Wright 		,  		 			B S Davis 		.  		2003. American Review of Public Administration. 33 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Bender and Heywood ()]{b3}\label{b3} 	 		‘Job Satisfaction of the Highly Educated: The Role of Gender, Academic Tenure, and Earnings’.  		 			K A Bender 		,  		 			J S Heywood 		.  	 	 		\textit{Scottish journal of Political Economy}  		2006. 53  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Griffin and Moorhead ()]{b10}\label{b10} 	 		‘Organizational Behavior: Managing People and Organizations’.  		 			R W Griffin 		,  		 			G Moorhead 		.  	 	 		\textit{South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning},  		2017.  	 	 (th ed.) 
\bibitem[Poudyal and Pradhan ()]{b16}\label{b16} 	 		 			S R Poudyal 		,  		 			G M Pradhan 		.  		\textit{Organizational Behaviour},  		2018. Kriti Books Publishers and Distribution Pvt. Ltd.  	 	 (nd ed.) 
\bibitem[Newman et al. ()]{b15}\label{b15} 	 		‘The impact of employee perceptions of training on organizational commitment and turnover intentions: A study of multinationals in the Chinese service sector’.  		 			A Newman 		,  		 			R Thanacoody 		,  		 			W Hui 		.  	 	 		\textit{The International Journal of Human Resource Management}  		2011. 22  (8)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Iqbal et al. ()]{b11}\label{b11} 	 		‘The impact of person job fit on job satisfaction and its subsequent impact on employees performance’.  		 			M T Iqbal 		,  		 			W Latif 		,  		 			W Naseer 		.  	 	 		\textit{Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences}  		2012. 3  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Yukongdi and Shrestha ()]{b21}\label{b21} 	 		‘The influence of affective commitment, job satisfaction, and job stress on turnover intention: A study of Nepalese Bank employees’.  		 			V Yukongdi 		,  		 			P Shrestha 		.  	 	 		\textit{Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research}  		2020. 9  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[George and Jones ()]{b9}\label{b9} 	 		\textit{Understanding and managing organizational behavior},  		 			J M George 		,  		 			G R Jones 		.  		2008. New Jersey: Pearson/Prentice Hall.  	 
\end{bibitemlist}
 			 		 	 
\end{document}