\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={Reconceptualizing Job Satisfaction in Trinidad and Tobago},
 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{Reconceptualizing Job Satisfaction in Trinidad and Tobago}
\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]{Andrew  Young}

\renewcommand\Authands{ and }

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

\maketitle


\begin{abstract}
        


The current research explores the latent drivers of job satisfaction in Trinidad and Tobago. The aim is to determine the construct validity of the Hackman Oldham (1975) Job Characteristics Model (JCM) to measure job satisfaction. Data was collected from employees using the cross-sectional research method and conveniently sampled from twelve (12) service institutions. The twelve (12) service institutions span three sectors: information and communications technology (ICT), tertiary education, and public utilities. These three (3) sectors were chosen because they represent the three most significant sectors in the Trinidad and Tobago economy and three (3) different levels of industry. Using three (3) different sectors in research enhances generalizability by providing a more diverse sample, reducing the risk of bias, and increasing the likelihood that findings can be applied to a broader range of contexts or populations. The service institutions include TSTT, FLOW, and DIGICEL (Information and Communications Technology). UTT, UWI, SBCS, ALJ-GSB, SAMS-TT, and CTS-CBS (Leaders in Tertiary Education). WASA, T&TEC, and PTSC (Public Utilities). These service institutions were purposely chosen because they represent the top-performing companies in their respective industries.

\end{abstract}


\keywords{hackman oldham?s (1975) job characteristics model (JCM), construct validation, factor analysis, job satisfaction, trinidad and tobago.}

\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
he evolving nature of work and organizational structures underscores the imperative to reconceptualize job satisfaction \hyperref[b50]{(Elsamani, Mejia, \& Kajikawa (2023)}; \hyperref[b91]{Jones, 2006)}. Traditional frameworks may not fully capture the nuances of contemporary work environments, necessitating a reevaluation of the factors influencing employee contentment \hyperref[b36]{(Cattaneo \& Chapman, 2010)}. Research suggests that incorporating elements such as remote work dynamics and a focus on work-life balance could enhance the accuracy and relevance of job satisfaction measures \hyperref[b47]{(Drescher, 2017)}. As organizations adapt, it becomes crucial to reassess and refine our understanding of job satisfaction in light of these changing dynamics." 
\section[{II. Problem Statement}]{II. Problem Statement}\par
"The increasing significance of employee satisfaction in organizational performance underscores the need for accurate measurement tools. However, the construct validity of existing job satisfaction instruments remains a critical concern. Onegoal of this research is to explore the correlation between the Job Characteristics Questionnaire developed by \hyperref[b69]{Hackman-Oldham in 1975} and cognitive job satisfaction. The main objective of this research is to ensure that the measurement instrument truly captures the complex nuances of employee contentment. This research is vital for organizations seeking reliable insights into employee satisfaction to foster a positive work environment and enhance overall productivity."\par
The factors influencing manifest and latent job satisfaction are innumerable (Liere-Nether, Vogelsang, Hoppe, \& Steinhuser, 2017). The number and names of the factors that drive job satisfaction vary according to population \hyperref[b88]{(Johari, Mit, \& Yahya, 2010)}. It is thus necessary to test the factorial validity of a given job satisfaction scale in each new population. The research problem seeks to answer three specific research questions detailed below.\par
The paper emphasizes a multidimensional approach to job satisfaction, recognizing that many factors beyond mere financial compensation influence it. It considers individual-level factors, such as personal values, work-life balance, career development opportunities, organizational factors, leadership, workplace culture \hyperref[b167]{(Young, 2023)}, employee benefits \hyperref[b96]{(Kaur \& Sharma, 2016)}, and organizational support systems. Additionally, it recognizes the influence of outside elements such associetal and technological changes on Job Satisfaction. Liere-Nether, Vogelsang, Hoppe, and Steinhuser (2017) showed how technology characteristics such as usability, data quality, and service quality impact job satisfaction.\par
By reconceptualizing job satisfaction in this manner, organizations can better understand how job characteristics interact with each other and their impact on job satisfaction. This enhanced perspective allows for the development of more effective strategies to foster job satisfaction and promote a positive work environment. It also recognizes that job satisfaction is a dynamic construct that evolves and requires ongoing attention and adaptation.\par
The proposed methodology provides a basis for future research and practical applications in human resources management \hyperref[b157]{(Van Saane, Sluiter, \& Verbeek, 2003)}. Integrating traditional and emerging dimensions of job satisfaction enables organizations to align their practices and policies with employees' evolving needs and expectations. This comprehensive approach to job satisfaction can enhance organizational performance in changing work dynamics \hyperref[b3]{(Ali, Said, Yunus, Latif, \& Munap, 2013)}.\par
The next section is the Literature Review, which delves into the definitions of job satisfaction, measuring job satisfaction and job characteristics. 
\section[{III. Literature Review a) Definitions of Job Satisfaction}]{III. Literature Review a) Definitions of Job Satisfaction}\par
Job satisfaction can be defined in a few different ways. Numerous academics have presented their understandings; however, Locke's definition of job satisfaction, which characterizes it as a positive emotional condition resulting from one's work encounters, is widely acknowledged. On the other hand, Zahoor's definition is broader, including a combination of psychological, physiological, and environmental factors that make an individual feel genuinely satisfied with their job. These competing definitions underscore the multidimensional nature of job satisfaction, encompassing both emotional and broader contextual factors \hyperref[b108]{(Locke, 1976;}\hyperref[b169]{Zahoor, 2015)}. One popular definition of job satisfaction refers to the degree of contentment that workers experience in their jobs, encompassing their overall liking for the job itself and specific elements or components, such as the nature of the work or the quality of supervision \hyperref[b127]{(Rahman, Samah, Rasdi, \& Sabri, 2019)}.\par
The literature review will now turn to measuring Job Satisfaction. 
\section[{b) Measuring Job Satisfaction}]{b) Measuring Job Satisfaction}\par
Spector (1997) defines job satisfaction as having cognitive, affective, and behavioral components. Researchers have also observed that job satisfaction measures differ in their ability to measure either feelings about the job (affective job satisfaction) or cognitions about the job (cognitive job satisfaction) \hyperref[b108]{(Locke, 1976)}. It is evaluated at two levels: global (if the individual is content with the job overall) and facet (whether the individual is satisfied with particular parts of the job). 
\section[{c) Job Satisfaction Instruments}]{c) Job Satisfaction Instruments}\par
Many job satisfaction measures rely on selfreports through multi-item scales, varying in concepttualization (affective or cognitive) and psychometric validation rigor. The BIAJS is a measure that focuses on emotions and job satisfaction, and consists of four items. It has been thoroughly tested for reliability, validity, and cross-population consistency by Thompson and Phua in 2012. The Job Descriptive Index (JDI) takes a cognitive approach, assessing satisfaction in five facets: pay, promotions, coworkers, supervision, and the work itself \hyperref[b143]{(Smith, Kendall, \& Hulin, 1969)}. The Job 
\section[{d) Job Characteristics Model}]{d) Job Characteristics Model}\par
The Job Characteristics Model (JCM) consists of five core job characteristics that affect three Critical Psychological States (CPS) of an employee that, in turn, affect the cognitive, affective (e.g., satisfaction and motivation), and behavioral (e.g., performance quality, absenteeism) responses of employees to their work \hyperref[b69]{(Hackman \& Oldham, 1975)}. The JCM is founded on the principle that the inherent characteristics of the TASKS play a central role in motivating employees. The five core job characteristics postulated by the original model are Skill Variety, Task Identity, Task Significance, Autonomy, and Feedback.\par
It is important to note that these five core job characteristics interact with each other to influence the three critical psychological states. For example, a job with high skill variety and task identity is more meaningful than a job with low levels of both.\par
1. Skill Variety: The capaciousness to which a job requires various skills and abilities. \hyperref[b17]{Behson et al. (2000)} suggest high skill variety leads to experienced meaningfulness. Employees see their work as challenging and valuable. 2. Task Identity: The capacity to which a job involves completing a whole and identifiable work. High-task identity is linked to experienced meaningfulness and experienced responsibility for outcomes, as employees feel ownership and pride in their work \hyperref[b89]{(Jones, 2018}). 3. Task Significance: The scope to which a job substantially impacts other people or critical organizational goals. High task significance contributes to experienced meaningfulness and knowledge of results, as employees understand the importance of their work and can see its direct effects \hyperref[b91]{(Jones, 2006)}. \hyperref[b3]{4}. Autonomy: The amplitude to which a job gives employees freedom, independence, and decisionmaking authority. \hyperref[b17]{Behson et al. (2000)} highlight that high autonomy fosters experienced responsibility for outcomes and knowledge of results, as employees are accountable for their decisions and work outcomes. 5. Feedback: The degree to which employees receive direct and transparent information about how well they perform their jobs. High levels of feedback contribute to knowledge of results, allowing employees to learn and improve their performance \hyperref[b90]{(Jones, 2009)}.\par
Moreover, the relationship between Hackman Oldham's (19750) core job characteristics and workplace outcomes is moderated by the variable of Growth Need Strength (employee's desire for growth). Initially, Hackman and Oldham presented a three-stage model. They also empirically tested it, but later on, most researchers excluded the mediating variable-Critical Psychological States (CPS), and moderating variable -Growth Need Strength (GNS), and tested the two-stage model, determining the direct relation of Job Characteristics with Outcomes. 
\section[{e) Moderation and Mediation Effects}]{e) Moderation and Mediation Effects}\par
Moderation and mediation are concepts in statistical analysis that describe different types of relationships within a model \hyperref[b79]{(Hayes, 2018)}. 
\section[{Moderation}]{Moderation}\par
According to Hayes' definition given in 2018, the relationship between two variables (independent and dependent) can be influenced by a third variable known as a moderator. If the impact of job satisfaction on performance varies based on the level of leadership support, leadership support acts as a moderator in this relationship. \hyperref[b14]{Baron and Kenny (1986)} introduced the concept of moderation, highlighting situations where the strength or direction of a relationship is contingent upon the level of a third variable. 
\section[{Mediation}]{Mediation}\par
According to \hyperref[b79]{Hayes (2018)}, mediation occurs when a mediator, or third variable, clarifies the relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable. For example, if an increase in employee knowledge explains the influence of training on job performance, then employee knowledge acts as a mediator in this relationship. Baron and Kenny introduced the idea of mediation in 1986. One way to understand the connection between two variables is by introducing a third variable that can help clarify their relationship. 
\section[{Key findings of Behson, S. J., Eddy, E. R., and Lorenzet, S. J. (2000): Meta-Analysis:}]{Key findings of Behson, S. J., Eddy, E. R., and Lorenzet, S. J. (2000): Meta-Analysis:}\par
Behson et al. (  {\ref 2000}) conducted a meta-analysis of thirteen \hyperref[b12]{(13)} studies to check the fit of the three-stage and two-stage models. They found that the customarily tested two-stage model in the literature may better fit the data than the three-stage original model. The research findings of \hyperref[b17]{Behson et al.'s (2000)} meta-analysis of job characteristics are significant and offer valuable insights into the Job Characteristics Model (JCM) developed by \hyperref[b69]{Hackman and Oldham (1975)}. Here are some key findings: 
\section[{Support for the JCM}]{Support for the JCM}\par
The analysis showed that the main ideas of the JCM are valid. It found that the five essential job characteristics (skill variety and autonomy) are positively related to three crucial psychological states (such as 
\section[{Global Journal of Management and Business Research ( A ) XXIV Issue I Version I Year 2024}]{Global Journal of Management and Business Research ( A ) XXIV Issue I Version I Year 2024} 
\section[{4}]{4}\par
© 2024 Global Journals feeling a sense of responsibility and knowing the results of one's work).The research findings have verified that certain psychological conditions significantly affect an individual's work-related outcomes, such as job satisfaction, personal growth, motivation, and reduced absenteeism. 
\section[{Importance of the Critical Psychological States}]{Importance of the Critical Psychological States}\par
Interestingly, the findings revealed that including the critical psychological states as mediating variables provided a better fit to the data than the simplified twostage model without them. This highlights the importance of considering these states as a vital link between job characteristics and work outcomes. The study also showed that different job characteristics contribute differently to the three critical psychological states. For example, skill variety and task identity were found to have the strongest effect on experienced meaningfulness, while autonomy had the strongest influence on experienced responsibility and knowledge of results. 
\section[{Limitations and Future Directions}]{Limitations and Future Directions}\par
The study acknowledged limitations such as potential publication bias and the need for further research to examine various moderators and boundary conditions of the JCM. It also emphasized the importance of investigating individual differences in how people respond to different job characteristics. 
\section[{Overall Significance}]{Overall Significance}\par
Behson et al.'s (2000) meta-analysis is a crucial piece of research in the work design and motivation fields. It strengthens the theoretical foundation of the JCM and provides empirical evidence for its practical application in enhancing employee job satisfaction and performance. 
\section[{f) Previous Research on Job Characteristics Linked to}]{f) Previous Research on Job Characteristics Linked to}\par
Job Satisfaction Turner and Lawrence introduced operational measures for job characteristics in 1965. They developed six task attributes positively related to workers' satisfaction and attendance. The results revealed a close relationship among variables, and on the basis of the results, they developed the required task attribute index. This summary index determined the relationship between task attributes, job satisfaction, and attendance. The results need to be fully supported.\par
In 1971, Hackman and Lawler conducted a study to explore how job characteristics and individual differences in need strength relate to employee outcomes, including motivation, satisfaction, absenteeism, and productivity. Their findings showed a clear and positive correlation between job charcteristics dimensions and dependent measures, including motivation, satisfaction, turnover, and attendance.  \hyperref[b124]{(Parker \& Wall, 1998}).\par
? It overlooks factors like personality traits and individual differences that can moderate the relationship between job characteristics and psychological states \hyperref[b162]{(Warr, 1999)}. 
\section[{Oversimplification of Job Characteristics}]{Oversimplification of Job Characteristics}\par
? The five core job characteristics are viewed as independent and additive, which may not be realistic in actual job settings. Job characteristics often interact and influence each other in complex ways \hyperref[b62]{(Grant \& Parker, 2009}). ? The model fails to account for the dynamic nature of jobs, where tasks and responsibilities can change over time \hyperref[b81]{(Humphrey, 2002)}. 
\section[{Measurement Issues}]{Measurement Issues}\par
? The measurement of job characteristics and psychological states can be subjective and prone to biases, leading to inaccurate results \hyperref[b93]{(Judge \& Klinger, 2007}). ? Operationalizing the core job characteristics can be challenging, especially in complex and dynamic jobs (Van der Velden et al., 2001). 
\section[{Limited Empirical Support}]{Limited Empirical Support}\par
? While the JCM has been widely tested, the findings are not always consistent and tend to show weaker relationships than initially proposed \hyperref[b93]{(Judge \& Klinger, 2007}). ? The model may not be universally applicable across different job types, industries, sectors and cultures \hyperref[b116]{(Morgeson \& Humphrey, 2006}). 
\section[{Emphasis on Job Design}]{Emphasis on Job Design}\par
? The JCM primarily focuses on job design as a means to improve job satisfaction. This can neglect other factors like work-life balance, compensation, and social relationships that can also be important for employee well-being \hyperref[b8]{(Arthur, 1994}). 
\section[{?}]{?}\par
The model takes a top-down perspective, assuming that managers can effectively redesign jobs to enhance employee motivation and satisfaction. This can overlook the importance of employee involvement and empowerment in job design \hyperref[b71]{(Hackman, 2009)}. These critiques highlight the limitations of the JCM and emphasize the need for further research to refine and expand the model. Future research should consider the broader context of work, individual differences, and dynamic nature of jobs. Additionally, it is crucial to develop more robust and objective measures for job characteristics and psychological states. Finally, future models should move beyond focusing solely on job design and consider other factors that contribute to job satisfaction. 
\section[{h) Significance of this Research}]{h) Significance of this Research}\par
Even after four decades (1975) of continuous research on job characteristics and satisfaction, scholarship in Trinidad and Tobago (T\&T) has been a minor feature on these subjects. Furthermore, there has yet to be significant amounts of research in general within the Caribbean region on these critical psychological constructs. According to Mijts, Arens, and Buys (2019), Small Island Developing States have seen insufficient research capacity; thus, a limited amount of research endeavors emanated from SIDS. This current research seeks to determine the relationship between job characteristics and job satisfaction in three service sectors of T\&T. The services sector is a crucial driver of national performance \hyperref[b76]{(Hall \& Jones, 1999)}. Measuring the quality of service outcomes in ICT, public utilities, and education sector services is a crucial measure of national development for developing countries like Ghana, Kenya, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago \hyperref[b13]{(Barro, 2001)}. These three (3) sectors were purposefully chosen because they represent the three (3) largest service sectors in Trinidad and Tobago (S \& P Global \hyperref[b135]{Ratings, 2001)}. Additionally, each sector reflects a different industry level: public utilities are secondary, tertiary education is considered tertiary, and information and communications technology (ICT) is categorized as quaternary according to S \& P Global \hyperref[b135]{Ratings (2001)}.\par
This concludes the literature review section, and the methodology will now be outlined. 
\section[{IV. Methodology}]{IV. Methodology}\par
This segment of the paper outlines the conceptual framework, the measurement variables, sample size determination, research questions, objectives, hypotheses, and methods. 
\section[{a) Research Methodology}]{a) Research Methodology}\par
An exploratory quantitative methodology was selected because quantitative and mixed methods are relevant for quantifying causal relationships and analyzing numbers \hyperref[b166]{(Yin, 1989)}. The literature review is exploratory and explanatory, consistent with a unified approach to this research study. In line with Allwood's 
\section[{Global Journal of Management and Business Research ( A ) XXIV Issue I Version I Year 2024}]{Global Journal of Management and Business Research ( A ) XXIV Issue I Version I Year 2024} 
\section[{6}]{6}\par
© 2024 Global Journals (2012) assertion, the study adopted a positivist research paradigm philosophy since empirical evidence is used to derive conclusions about the research questions. The study used one multidimensional survey instrument to collect the required data. This study utilized Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) via PCA to reveal the latent factors because the measurement model was formative \hyperref[b24]{(Bollen \& Lennox, 1991)}. \hyperref[b69]{Hackman Oldham's (1975)} Job Characteristics questionnaire was adapted with a ratio scale to collect information on the factors influencing job satisfaction and the extent of their influence. 
\section[{b) Conceptual Framework}]{b) Conceptual Framework}\par
This research seeks to determine the relationship between Job Characteristics and Job Satisfaction. The dependent variable in this research is Job Satisfaction, and the independent variable is Job Characteristics. The theoretical framework for this research is shown in figure \hyperref[fig_0]{1} below. The job satisfaction questionnaire used in this study consisted of 24 items and was adapted from \hyperref[b69]{Hackman and Oldham's (1975)} Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS). However, a ratio scale was employed instead of the original ordinal Likert scale, thereby modifying the instrument. This decision was made because many statisticians consider Likert scales to be ordinal, resulting in data scores with a lower level of measurement (LOM) \hyperref[b118]{(Newman, 1994)}. On the other hand, a ratio scale produces ratio data, which can be utilized in Factor Analysis. Factor Analysis assumes that the data is ratio and continuous, making ratio data the highest level of measurement \hyperref[b153]{(Tukey, 1977)}. Therefore, a ratio scale was adopted for this study.\par
Figure \hyperref[fig_0]{1} Conceptual Framework illustrates the relationship between \hyperref[b69]{Hackman Oldham's (1975)} five core job characteristics and job satisfaction. This study focused on a specific facet of cognitive job satisfaction as the chosen dependent variable. This selection was based on the widespread utilization of this domain in research related to the Job Characteristics Model. Cognitive job satisfaction is a comprehensive gauge, capturing the overall level of contentment and happiness that employees derive from their jobs \hyperref[b69]{(Hackman \& Oldham, 1975)}. 
\section[{d) Independent Measures -Five Core Job}]{d) Independent Measures -Five Core Job}\par
Characteristics of \hyperref[b69]{Hackman Oldham's (1975)} Model This research has used five independent variables collectively known as the Job Characteristics. These are described in detailed below: i. Skill Variety Skill variety refers to the extent to which a job requires various activities in carrying out the work, which involves using several different skills and talents of the person \hyperref[b69]{(Hackman \& Oldham, 1975)}.\par
ii. Task Identity This refers to the extent to which the job requires completing a whole and identifiable piece of work that is doing a job from beginning to end with a visible outcome \hyperref[b69]{(Hackman \& Oldham, 1975)}. 
\section[{iii. Task Significance}]{iii. Task Significance}\par
Task significance refers to the capacity to which the job substantially impacts the lives or work of other  \hyperref[b69]{(Hackman \& Oldham, 1975)}. 
\section[{iv. Autonomy}]{iv. Autonomy}\par
Task autonomy can be defined as an individual's level of independence and discretion in scheduling their work and deciding how to complete the tasks assigned to them. This definition was put forward by  {\ref Hackman and Oldham in 1975 v. Feedback} Feedback refers to an individual's ability to obtain precise information about the effectiveness of his or her performance by carrying out the job-required work activities. \hyperref[b69]{(Hackman \& Oldham, 1975} These three critical research questions give rise to three complementary research objectives, which will now be outlined below. 
\section[{Research Objectives (RO)}]{Research Objectives (RO)}\par
RO1: To determine if \hyperref[b69]{Hackman-Oldham's (1975)}   A survey was designed to ensure the accuracy and credibility of the information collected. Three hundred forty-seven (347) responses were obtained, but two hundred and ninety (290) questionnaires were selected for detailed analysis. The response rate was 100 percent, of which the useable questionnaire response rate was around 83.6 percent. 
\section[{f) Procedure}]{f) Procedure}\par
The primary data was collected through the questionnaire adopted from the job diagnostic survey questionnaire \hyperref[b69]{(Hackman \& Oldham, 1975}) for all the independent measures but for only one dependent measure. The job diagnostic survey questionnaire is the most reliable measurement scale for measuring the job characteristics' model variables. However, it has a flaw! It does not have a 0 and is measured on a Likert scale \hyperref[b118]{(Newman, 1994)}. This research introduced a scale that will help clarify this area by correcting that caveat. A new scale, Young's ratio scale, measures job satisfaction on a multi-item ratio scale. All the items given in the questionnaire are developed on a six-point Young's ratio scale ranging from a score of 0 for minimum satisfaction to a score of 5 for maximum satisfaction. The data was collected in Trinidad and Tobago between October and December 2019. 
\section[{g) Methods}]{g) Methods}\par
Other methods have been used to develop satisfaction scores, but the factor analysis method was chosen because it validates the job satisfaction scale in the Trinidad and Tobago population. 
\section[{How were the Job Satisfaction Scores Derived?}]{How were the Job Satisfaction Scores Derived?}\par
? A measure of job satisfaction (internal organizational performance) was computed for each organization through the development of scale scores (Del Castillo \& Benitez, 2012) ? Scale scores were computed using the following method:\par
o Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was carried out on all interval scales using principal component extraction and varimax rotation to produce orthogonal factors(DiStefano, Zhu, \& Minidrila, 2009) o The names given to the Factors are based on subjective factors and correspond to the scale statements that have a strong positive correlation (>0.50) with that particular Factor \hyperref[b163]{(Watkins, 2018)}.\par
The Factor solutions are used to get scale scores for each respondent using weighted averages of the Factor regression scores. The \% variance explained by each Factor is used as its weight in the average (Chyung, Winiecki, Hunt, \& Sevier, 2017). Other methods have been used to develop satisfaction scores, but factor analysis was chosen because it validates the job satisfaction scale in the specific population. 
\section[{V. Analysis Techniques}]{V. Analysis Techniques}\par
IBM SPSS V23 was used to process the data. The data was critically analyzed in three stages. 
\section[{Stage -I:}]{Stage -I:}\par
Examined the demographic characteristics of the respondents, mean, standard deviation, and reliability (Cronbach's Alphas) of all the variables used in the study. 
\section[{Stage -II:}]{Stage -II:}\par
Pearson correlations and regressions were run to examine the relationships among the variables as hypothesized. Before running the regressions, the assumptions of multiple regressions were also tested for the dependent variable (Job Satisfaction) regressed on independent variables. The analysis of the data was carried out on IBM SPSS version 23.0 for Windows. Stage -III: Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted to summarize the main characteristics of the data through visualization and summary statistics and to gain insight into its structure, patterns, and potential issues \hyperref[b153]{(Tukey, 1977)}. Exploratory factor analysis is a powerful tool and widely utilized approach within data science. 
\section[{a) Exploratory Factor Analysis}]{a) Exploratory Factor Analysis}\par
When the objective of the research is to develop a measurement tool that represents an underlying latent dimension(s) or formative construct (s) depicted in the observed variables, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) can be an appropriate method \hyperref[b52]{(Fabrigar \& Wegener 2012)}.\par
The developed scale will contribute to the overall study and the understanding of job satisfaction in Trinidad and Tobago because it measures the psychometric quality aspects of the \hyperref[b69]{Hackman Oldham (1975)}  because it is the only statistically robust process to reveal the underlying structure and relationship between job satisfaction and job characteristics. In such a context, researchers want to identify groups of variables with high correlations with only one factor and then interpret and label each factor  {\ref (Warner, 2008)}. EFA was conducted to develop a scale that measures job satisfaction perceptions. The researcher was curious whether the finalized scale was unidimensional or multidimensional. If multidimensional, how many factors (dimensions) did the new instrument include, and which items were grouped as factors? The five observed job characteristics factors (24 items) were treated as one block for factor analysis because it is hypothesized that all the job characteristics items measure a singular construct of job satisfaction. The main objective of this research is to determine the validity of the job satisfaction instrument. What construct validity is will now be outlined below. 
\section[{b) Construct Validity}]{b) Construct Validity}\par
Construct Validity assesses whether an instrument measures the intended theoretical construct \hyperref[b88]{(Johari, Mit, \& Yahya, 2010)}. It involves examining the relationship between the instrument and other variables to ensure it accurately captures the desired concept. 
\section[{Methods to Determine Construct Validity:}]{Methods to Determine Construct Validity:}\par
?  
\section[{Data Screening i. Unengaged Responses}]{Data Screening i. Unengaged Responses}\par
We examined response patterns and employed attention-checking questions strategically placed within surveys to check unengaged responses during data screening. Attention checks assess whether participants are paying attention and responding thoughtfully. Response time analysis and identifying inconsistent or patterned responses also helped flag unengaged participants. 
\section[{ii. Normality}]{ii. Normality}\par
To assess normality, the researchers used methods including visual inspection of histograms, Q-Q plots, and the Shapiro-Wilk statistical test. We checked for data normality and removed items with high levels of skewness and kurtosis (> |1.0|). 
\section[{iii. Missing Data}]{iii. Missing Data}\par
Then, we checked for missing values. Missing data analysis was performed and found to be Missing Completely At Random (MCAR) \hyperref[b149]{(Tabachnick \& Fidell, 2014)}. Missing Completely at Random (MCAR) occurs when the probability of missingness is unrelated to observed and unobserved data (Golden, Henley, White, \& Kashner, 2019). It was handled by complete-case analysis. Another method used to evaluate MCAR was Little's MCAR statistical test \hyperref[b51]{(Enders, 2010)}.\par
By default, SPSS excludes cases with missing values from most analyses. This means that if any variable has a missing value for a particular case, that entire case is excluded from the analysis. This exclusion is based on listwise deletion, and it is a common practice when dealing with missing data in SPSS. While listwise deletion is straightforward, it may reduce sample size and potentially bias the results if the missing data is not completely random. Careful consideration was given to the missing data mechanism and alternative methods like imputation would have been explored if exclusion may introduce bias \hyperref[b134]{(Rubin, 1987)}. These practices contribute to ensuring data quality and the validity of statistical analyses. 
\section[{d) Factorability Check i. Job Satisfaction Instrument}]{d) Factorability Check i. Job Satisfaction Instrument}\par
The factorability of the 290 responses in the job satisfaction data set was first checked. The Correlation Matrix was not positive definite. -No K.M.O., A.I.C., or Bartlett's test since there is no Correlation Matrix. These results indicated that the data set was inappropriate for factor analysis \hyperref[b149]{(Tabachnick \& Fidell, 2014)}.\par
In light of this discovery, the researchers proceeded cautiously with the factor analysis, taking into consideration the non-positive definite correlation matrix. We conducted a thorough investigation into the root cause of this issue and identified the sample size as a contributing factor. In small sample sizes, the estimated correlation matrix may not exhibit positive definiteness due to random variability, as \hyperref[b43]{Cochran (1963)} suggested. To address this issue, the researchers employed statistical methods, including bootstrapping, to evaluate the variability of the estimates and establish confidence levels. This approach was instrumental in quantifying the uncertainty associated with the survey results, as highlighted by \hyperref[b18]{Belsley, Kuh, and Welsch (1980)}. 
\section[{ii. Research Population and Sampling Design}]{ii. Research Population and Sampling Design}\par
In research studies, a sample refers to a subset of the population being studied that is representative of the population as a whole. This definition comes from the works of \hyperref[b31]{Bryman and Bell (2007)}  The general population in this study consists of service organizations in the ICT, tertiary education, and public utilities sectors. The sample includes 12 service sector organizations, with the first sample comprising employees from these organizations in Trinidad and Tobago-the job characteristics questionnaire aimed to extract perceptions of job satisfaction dimensions.\par
To conduct the research, 12 service organizations were purposefully selected from the three sectors: TSTT, FLOW, and DIGICEL from Information and Communications Technology; UTT, UWI, SBCS, ALJ-GSB, SAMS-TT, and CTS-CBS from Tertiary Education; and WASA, T\&TEC, and PTSC from Public Utilities. These 12 companies represent 60\% of the target population of companies \hyperref[b18]{(20)} in the three sectors. Surveys were conducted among employees of the same 12 companies to obtain data. The number of employees was determined through interviews with company representatives. 
\section[{e) POWER and Sample Size}]{e) POWER and Sample Size}\par
The sample size in research significantly impacts statistical power, which refers to the probability of detecting an actual difference \hyperref[b141]{(Singh \& Masuku, 2014)}. This concept is akin to the sensitivity of a diagnostic test \hyperref[b30]{(Browner \& Newman, 1987)}. Applied research often utilizes frequency measures like rates, ratios, and proportions \hyperref[b54]{(Fleiss, 2003)}. Sampling techniques are commonly employed to estimate population characteristics more efficiently and accurately \hyperref[b128]{(Rao, 1985)}. Insufficient sample sizes can lead to a failure to detect significant effects or associations and imprecise estimates \hyperref[b66]{(Gupta \& Kapoor, 1970)}.\par
Conversely, an appropriate sample size can contribute to more accurate study results, although it is essential to consider the associated costs \hyperref[b98]{(Kish, 1965)}. Collaboration with a statistical expert is necessary to determine the appropriate sample size \hyperref[b136]{(Sathian, 2010)}. Methods for estimating sample size and conducting power analysis depend on the study's design and primary measure, with different approaches available for statistical inference based on confidence intervals and significance tests \hyperref[b98]{(Kish, 1965;}\hyperref[b66]{Gupta \& Kapoor, 1970)}.\par
Several criteria must be considered in determining the appropriate sample size, including precision, confidence level, and variability \hyperref[b112]{(Miaoulis \& Michener, 1976;}\hyperref[b43]{Cochran, 1963)}. Different methods can be employed, such as referencing published tables that provide sample sizes based on specific criteria \hyperref[b85]{(Israel, 1992)}. However, it is essential to note that these sample sizes pertain to the responses obtained rather than the number of surveys or interviews planned. Convenience sampling, although quick and cost-effective, may raise concerns about generalizability \hyperref[b136]{(Sathian, 2010)}. For populations larger than 100,000, a sample size of 400 is suggested for a precision level of 0.05, a confidence level of 95\%, and a probability of 0.05 to ensure representativeness \hyperref[b85]{(Israel, 1992)}.\par
In applied statistics research, selecting appropriate sampling methods and determining the sample size are crucial for drawing valid conclusions \hyperref[b128]{(Rao, 1985)}. Inadequate sample sizes can compromise the ability to detect significant effects or associations and result in imprecise estimates \hyperref[b66]{(Gupta \& Kapoor, 1970)}. Conversely, an appropriate sample size enhances the reliability and validity of study findings \hyperref[b98]{(Kish, 1965)}. However, it is crucial to establish an equilibrium between sample size and associated costs. Different methods are available for calculating sample size and conducting power analysis based on the study design and outcome measures \hyperref[b98]{(Kish, 1965;}\hyperref[b66]{Gupta \& Kapoor, 1970)}. 
\section[{f) Sample Size Determination}]{f) Sample Size Determination}\par
The population in this study was the residential customers and employees from 12 service organizations in Trinidad and Tobago. Sampling was carried out with consideration of the limitations that do not allow the entire population to be studied see Table \hyperref[tab_6]{3}. To determine the sample size required the following formula was utilized in accordance with \hyperref[b85]{(Israel, 1992)}:   \hyperref[b85]{(Israel, 1992)}. A method of purposeful sampling was employed in the present research to poll service organizations, with convenience samples taken within each selected organization \hyperref[b43]{(Cochran, 1963)}. Purposive sampling, also known as judgment sampling, allows the researcher to selectively choose a sample based on their expertise to gain indepth knowledge about a particular phenomenon, often without concluding statistics or in cases where the number of people is restricted and focused \hyperref[b48]{(Davis \& Cosenza, 1993)}. The researcher selected multiple organizations with different demographic characteristics to gather diverse data on their satisfaction levels. The convenience sampling method was chosen for its ease, speed, and cost-effectiveness, although the generalizability of findings may be limited \hyperref[b85]{(Israel, 1992)}.???????????? ð??"ð??"ð??"ð??"ð??"ð??"?? ?? = ?? * [???? * ?? * (?? -??)/????] / [?? -?? + (???? * ?? * (??\textbf{-} 
\section[{h) Administration of the Surveys}]{h) Administration of the Surveys}\par
A pilot study was conducted in August 2019 to validate the survey instrument. The job satisfaction questionnaire was tested to check time constraints and familiarize the researcher with the different demands of the instruments. Both online (internet) and face-to-face methods were used to administer the questionnaires. Google Forms was used to distribute the job satisfaction questionnaires. The survey was supported by face-toface administration on site of all the service companies mentioned. Data collection in this study followed an exploratory sequential approach, whereas data analysis was conducted in three phases. Equal importance was given to each type of data, leading to the classification of this study as a descriptive design, according to \hyperref[b40]{Creswell (2009)}. The study took place in Trinidad and Tobago and the information was gathered during the period from September 2019 to December 2019.\par
We now move on to the Results section of the paper. 
\section[{VI. Results}]{VI. Results}\par
The results were analyzed in three stages to answer the three main research questions and fulfill the research objectives.  The maximum number of respondents fell in the AGE group of "41-50" years and minimum number of respondents fell in the age group of "61 and above" years. In terms of percent 22.5 percent of the employees were of the age of 18 to 30 years, 20.7 percent employees were of the AGE of 31 to 40 years, percent of the employees were of the age of 40 to 49 years, and 33.8 percent of the employees were of the age 41 to 50, 17.3 percent were of the age 51 to 60 and 1.2 percent were above 61 years. (Table \hyperref[tab_8]{5}) In terms of EXPERIENCE (Number of years in the organization), employees having at least one year of experience were selected in the sample. In terms of experience, 32 percent of the employees had the experience of 1 to 5 years, 18.2 percent of the employees had the experience of 6 to less than ten years, 33.7 percent of the employees had experience of 11-15 years, 11.0 percent had the experience of 16 -20 years, 4.9 percent had the experience of 21 -30 years, and .3 percent has 31 and over years of experience. (Table \hyperref[tab_9]{7})  Job Satisfaction mean scores were relatively higher in the Tertiary Education Sector (2.47 for UTT) when compared to the ICT Sector (2.40 for both DIGICEL and TSTT) and the Public Utilities Sector (2.44 for WASA). One possible explanation for this pattern could be job satisfaction may be higher due to intrinsic rewards associated with academia, such as the fulfilment of contributing to education and research.\par
Conversely, the ICT and Public Utilities Sectors may face higher stress levels, faster-paced environments, and stringent regulations potentially impacting employee satisfaction. All three sectors scored below average (2.5) job satisfaction mean scores, suggesting poor sector-wide performance.\par
Interestingly job satisfaction mean scores in Trinidad and Tobago were significantly lower than those observed in a study conducted by Al Shehhi et al. (  {\ref 2021}) in the UAE. The mean job satisfaction scores in that study were  {\ref (3.30)} in the public sector and (3.48) in the private sector. These results support the notion that the conceptualization of job satisfaction varies with sector and population \hyperref[b58]{(Gilbert \& Von Glinow, 2015)}.\par
Mean, standard deviation, Cronbach alpha, were used to measure the internal consistency reliability of the items see Table9 below. Cronbach alpha was used because of the type of data, which was ratio and perceptual. Table \hyperref[tab_8]{5} shows the descriptive value of the variables under investigation. Items for each factor were measured using a 6-point satisfaction ratio scale that ranged from 0 to 5, with 0 indicating not satisfied and five indicating satisfied. The results indicate that all five job characteristics are lowly scored. 
\section[{a) Reliability of Job Satisfaction Questionnaire}]{a) Reliability of Job Satisfaction Questionnaire}\par
The minimum mean score is 1.64 for autonomy, suggesting a relatively low level of independence or © 2024 Global Journals freedom in decision-making, while the maximum mean score is 3.00 for task significance, indicating a high perceived importance of tasks.\par
The standard deviation score ranges from .36 for task identity to .78 for autonomy, which indicates moderate variability in these dimensions. This suggests that perceptions regarding task identity and autonomy are somewhat dispersed among respondents, showing a degree of diversity in their views on these aspects.\par
The Cronbach alpha values range from .70 for task identity to .91 for autonomy, suggesting acceptable to high internal consistency reliability. The overall internal consistency for the 24-item job satisfaction scale is .95, well above the acceptable level of .70, as recommended by Cronbach, L. J.  {\ref (1951)}. This indicates that all 24 items strongly correlate with each other, implying a reliable measurement of the Job Satisfaction construct. 
\section[{Stage -II: Represents the results of correlations and regressions.}]{Stage -II: Represents the results of correlations and regressions.}\par
There is no multicollinearity problem in our measures. The results are given in Table10 -Collinearity Diagnostics. The correlations showed the relationship among the variables. The problem of multicollinearity was also checked through the correlation matrix. The correlation results between the independent variables are well below .9, as shown in Table \hyperref[tab_14]{10} above.\par
The correlation results ranged from a minimum of .56 between Task Identity and Autonomy to a maximum of .95 between Job Satisfaction and Skill Variety. The varying correlation results suggest that different factors influence the relationships between job satisfaction and specific job characteristics. A correlation of 0.56 between task identity and autonomy indicates a moderate positive relationship, while a correlation of 0.95 between job satisfaction and Skill Variety suggests a strong positive association. These differences could be attributed to the unique impact each job characteristic has on an individual's overall job satisfaction, with some factors playing a more significant role than others. Overall, Job Characteristics were found to be positively related to Job Satisfaction. The results are given in Table \hyperref[tab_15]{11}.  
\section[{Task Significance}]{Task Significance}\par
Task Significance and Task Identity (r = .827)\par
Task Significance and Feedback (r = .825) 
\section[{Task Identity}]{Task Identity}\par
Task Identity and Feedback (r = .866)\par
After testing the regression assumption, the regression results explained the amount of variance explained by the independent variable in the dependent variable. The problem of multicollinearity was also checked while running regressions. SPSS determines multicollinearity while running regressions under the table heading coefficients Table \hyperref[tab_16]{12}. If tolerance level is insignificant or near to zero than there is problem of multicollinearity but in our results, tolerance level is not near to zero. It means there is no problem of multicollinearity.\par
Regression results for Job Characteristics and Job Satisfaction is described below.  \hyperref[tab_16]{12} above. The most impactful job characteristic is Autonomy, explaining 31\% of the variance in Job Satisfaction. This might stem from individuals feeling empowered and in control of their work, leading to a sense of fulfilment and accomplishment. Increase autonomy allows employees to make decisions aligned with their preferences, potentially contributing to higher job satisfaction. 
\section[{These Results Validate H2 which State:}]{These Results Validate H2 which State:}\par
The five core manifest job characteristics of Hackman-Oldham's (1975) model (Skill Variety, Task Identity, Task Significance, Autonomy and Feedback) impact Job Satisfaction. (Accepted) This is shown in Table12 above. The Model Summary and ANOVA using the ENTER Method are in Tables \hyperref[tab_35]{13} and\hyperref[tab_17]{14}, respectively. 
\section[{Global Journal of Management and Business Research ( A ) XXIV Issue I Version}]{Global Journal of Management and Business Research ( A ) XXIV Issue I Version}\par
The regression "R" results showed a strong correlation between Job Characteristics and Job Satisfaction. The Regression R -Square results showed that Job Characteristics explain 100 percent variance in Job Satisfaction. (Table \hyperref[tab_17]{14}  \hyperref[b24]{(Bollen \& Lennox, 1991)}. The Varimax rotation method is chosen in factor analysis to simplify factor interpretation by maximizing the squared loadings' variance. It aims to achieve a more precise, straightforward structure in the rotated factor solution. Varimax rotation helps make the factors more orthogonal (uncorrelated), which can enhance the interpretability of the factors by reducing the complexity of the relationships between items and factors.\par
The results supported a five-factor solution for Job Satisfaction across the Trinidad and Tobago population. As shown in Tables \hyperref[tab_21]{16}\hyperref[tab_25]{17}\hyperref[tab_22]{18}\hyperref[tab_23]{19}\hyperref[tab_24]{20} The Correlation Matrix was not positive definite. -No KMO, AIC, or Bartlett's test since there is no Correlation Matrix. Despite this finding, the researchers still proceeded cautiously with the factor analysis. We investigated the underlying cause of the non-positive definite correlation matrix to ensure the validity of the factor analysis results. The cause was found to be the size of the sample. In small sample sizes, the estimated correlation matrix might not be positive definite due to random variability \hyperref[b43]{(Cochran, 1963)}. This was addressed by applying statistical methods, such as bootstrapping, to assess the variability of the estimates and construct confidence levels. These methods helped quantify the uncertainty in the survey results \hyperref[b18]{(Belsley, Kuh, \& Welsch, 1980)}.\par
The following data was collected after having adapted \hyperref[b69]{Hackman Oldham's (1975)} job diagnostic survey (JDS) and pilot-tested it with a new ratio scale. The information was evaluated using both descriptive and inferential statistics.\par
Only 290 responded to the job satisfaction questionnaire component. The population of this study is estimated to be 20 companies. A sample of 12 companies was purposefully chosen; more than 50\% of the population was sampled. These 12 companies were chosen because they represent the leaders in each sector. It is estimated that there are 20,000 employees in total from these 12 companies. This was determined after consultation with company leaders.\par
The results of the exploratory factor analysis of the job satisfaction instrument are given in Table15. The paper will now focus on the discussion of the research findings and distinguish it from previous global studies. 
\section[{VII. Discussion}]{VII. Discussion}\par
Each statistical test answered a specific research question linked to a specific research objective. In light of the results determined in the previous section the findings are now discussed answering the research questions and fulfilling the research objectives. The discussion will highlight major findings of this research and specify how they contribute to the existing body of literature on Job Characteristics and Job satisfaction.  
\section[{Research Questions (RQ), Objectives (RO)}]{Research Questions (RQ), Objectives (RO)}
\begin{quote}
Research\end{quote}
 
\section[{Effect of Job Characteristics on Job Satisfaction}]{Effect of Job Characteristics on Job Satisfaction}\par
The Standardized Beta coefficient of the Job Characteristics revealed that Skill Variety explained 19 percent (?=0.19; ?<0.001), Task Identity explained 14 percent (?=0.14; ?<0.001), Task Significance explained 26 percent (?=0.26; ?<0.001), Autonomy explained 31 percent (?=0.31; ?<0.001), and Feedback explained 20 percent (?=0.20; ?<0.001) variance in Job satisfaction. The most impactful job characteristic is Autonomy, explaining 31\% of the variance in Job Satisfaction. This might stem from individuals feeling empowered and in control of their work, leading to a sense of fulfillment and accomplishment. Increased autonomy allows employees to make decisions aligned with their preferences, potentially contributing to higher job satisfaction.\par
The results of the regression analysis table \hyperref[b19]{(21)}below confirmed that the five (5) core manifest job characteristics of \hyperref[b69]{Hackman Oldham's (1975)}  Table \hyperref[b19]{(21)} below showing results of regression analysis of Job Satisfaction on \hyperref[b69]{Hackman-Oldham (1975)} five job characteristics factors.\par
The regression "R" results showed a strong correlation between Job Characteristics and Job Satisfaction. The Regression R -Squared results showed that Job Characteristics explain 100 percent variance in Job Satisfaction. 
\section[{Thus, the Regression Equation:}]{Thus, the Regression Equation:}\par
Job Satisfaction (R) =  
\section[{a) Theoretical Implications of Correlational Results}]{a) Theoretical Implications of Correlational Results}\par
The correlation results ranged from a minimum of .56 between Task Identity and Autonomy to a maximum of .95 between Job Satisfaction and Skill Variety (Table \hyperref[tab_3]{22}) below. The varying correlation results suggest that different factors influence the relationships between job satisfaction and specific job characteristics. A correlation of 0.56 between task identity and autonomy indicates a moderate positive relationship, while a correlation of 0.95 between job satisfaction and 
\section[{Global Journal of Management and Business Research ( A ) XXIV Issue I Version I Year 2024}]{Global Journal of Management and Business Research ( A ) XXIV Issue I Version I Year 2024} 
\section[{© 2024 Global Journals}]{© 2024 Global Journals}\par
Skill Variety suggests a strong positive association. These differences could be attributed to each job characteristic's unique impact on an individual's overall job satisfaction, with some factors playing a more significant role than others. The overall correlation results showed a strong, positive relationship between \hyperref[b69]{Hackman Oldham's (1975)} five job characteristics and job satisfaction in the three service sectors of ICT, tertiary education, and public utilities in Trinidad and Tobago.\par
In this research, the correlation results are much higher (see table 22 below) than those found in a Pakistani study on Job satisfaction and Motivation  {\ref (Bhatti, Syed, \& Shaikh, 2012)}. The sample for that research was drawn from the Banking Industry, while this study covered three sectors spanning seven \hyperref[b6]{(7)} industries (ICT Sector -Smartphone, Landline, Internet Service Provider (ISP) industries; Tertiary Education Sector -Tertiary Education Industry; Public Utilities Sector -Water, Electricity and Public Transportation industries. This study's correlation results are excellent (close to 1) compared to those found in other studies like the Pakistani Banking industry case measuring job characteristics and job satisfaction. In that study the correlation results ranged from a minimum of .125 between task identity and growth satisfaction to a maximum of .384 between task significance and general satisfaction. Overall job characteristics were found to be positively related to personal outcomes (e.g. general (job) satisfaction, internal work motivation and growth satisfaction  {\ref (Bhatti, Syed, \& Shaikh, 2012)}. Correlation results can have theoretical implications by providing insights into the relationships between variables. They may support or challenge existing theories, helping researchers refine or develop new hypotheses. Understanding correlations can contribute to a deeper comprehension of underlying mechanisms, guiding future studies and informing theoretical frameworks in a specific discipline. \hyperref[b20]{Biggs (2003)} found a weak relationship (r = .39) between skill variety and job satisfaction, while this study contradicted that result, finding a strong correlation (r = .947). This is due to the differing backgrounds of the respondents \hyperref[b20]{(Biggs, 2003)}. The above correlational results from this study add to the global body of knowledge by establishing new linkages between job characteristic variables and job satisfaction. The factors that impact job satisfaction are not static; they are dynamic. What motivated employees forty-eight years ago may or may not be their current motivation. Research must be sensitive to these changes over time thus this researcher believes empowerment and delegation are two key factors that influence job satisfaction. This was proven via exploratory factor analysis.  The five new latent drivers of job satisfaction shown in table 23 above will now be discussed in the context of previous research findings. A key point to be restated is that these factors differ from the five (5) core job characteristics espoused by \hyperref[b69]{Hackman and Oldham (1975)} in that they were not directly measured. 
\section[{Global Journal of Management and Business Research ( A ) XXIV Issue I Version}]{Global Journal of Management and Business Research ( A ) XXIV Issue I Version} 
\section[{b) Significance of Job Tasks}]{b) Significance of Job Tasks}\par
The dimension of job tasks is a significant underlying factor that drives job satisfaction and consists of nine items. It is important first to clarify the concept of tasks and differentiate it from the concept of skills. Tasks refer to units of work activity that produce output, such as goods and services, whereas skills represent the capabilities possessed by individuals to perform various tasks \hyperref[b0]{(Acemoglu \& Autor, 2011)}. Tasks are specific to actual jobs or workplaces and may change as these environments evolve, while skills are held by individuals who perform these tasks (Matthes, Christoph, \& Janik, 2014). While a job's task profile and an incumbent's skills may align, there can be instances where the incumbent lacks some necessary skills for task performance or possesses skills that are not required for the job, resulting in under-or over qualification respectively. These concepts are interconnected since performing tasks can help develop the necessary skills, and possessing certain skills can provide employees with better opportunities for jobs requiring those skills. To analyze the interdependencies between tasks and skills effectively, it is crucial to accurately differentiate between these two concepts. 
\section[{c) Autonomy in Decision Making and Work Methods}]{c) Autonomy in Decision Making and Work Methods}\par
Autonomy refers to the scope of freedom, independence, and discretion that an individual has in scheduling their work and determining the procedures to carry it out \hyperref[b69]{(Hackman \& Oldham, 1975)}. The concept of autonomy covers different areas, which have been identified through exploratory factor analysis. Specifically, autonomy in decision-making, work methods, and Skill Variety has been identified as a latent driver of job satisfaction. This dimension consists of five items and accounts for 28\% of the variance in job satisfaction. These findings align with prior research on job satisfaction conducted by \hyperref[b29]{Breaugh (1985)}, which also emphasized the significance of work autonomy. 
\section[{i. Autonomy in Scheduling}]{i. Autonomy in Scheduling}\par
Autonomy in scheduling is identified as a separate latent driver of job satisfaction. It consists of four-line items that specifically address the issue of scheduling within autonomy. This dimension explains 5.1\% of the variance in job satisfaction. Scheduling involves managing and optimizing workloads in industrial or manufacturing environments, as defined by Pinedo in 2012. It is distinct from other dimensions, such as autonomy in decision-making, work methods, and Skill Variety. Similar to the Autonomy in Task dimension developed by German researchers \hyperref[b110]{(Matthes et al., 2014)}, this dimension includes items that capture the concept of autonomy within scheduling. 
\section[{ii. Empowerment}]{ii. Empowerment}\par
Empowerment is a latent driver of job satisfaction. It accounts for 14.6\% of the variance in job satisfaction. Empowerment means giving colleagues knowledge, facts, and authority \hyperref[b147]{(Spreitzer, 1995)}. Empowerment includes giving employees freedom of action to decide how they go about their daily activities \hyperref[b35]{(Carless, 2004)}. The belief in improving a job's quality by enhancing authority and participation in decisionmaking in one's job \hyperref[b75]{(Hales \& Kalidas, 1998)}. Research shows that employee empowerment and job satisfaction positively impact loyalty \hyperref[b161]{(Waqas, 2014)}  
\section[{iii. Delegation}]{iii. Delegation}\par
Delegation is identified as a driver of job satisfaction, although it explains a smaller percentage of the variance in job satisfaction compared to empowerment (10.7\% vs. 14.6\%). At the individual level, delegation involves granting authority and responsibility to others within the organizational hierarchy \hyperref[b148]{(Tannenbaum, 1968)}. It represents a transfer of power downward in the organization and the authorization for individuals to perform tasks typically carried out by higher-ranking personnel \hyperref[b95]{(Kanter, 1979)}. Delegation can reshape the organizational structure and operations, although downsizing and delayering may have limited delegation opportunities, counterbalanced by the demand for greater flexibility and empowerment. Effective delegation is crucial in the era of empowerment \hyperref[b63]{(Greiner, 1972)}, and it has long been recognized as a 
\section[{Global Journal of Management and Business Research ( A ) XXIV Issue I Version I Year 2024}]{Global Journal of Management and Business Research ( A ) XXIV Issue I Version I Year 2024} 
\section[{22}]{22}\par
© 2024 Global Journals vital aspect of successful management and leadership \hyperref[b65]{(Gul, 2012)}. Previous studies have established a link between delegation and job satisfaction \hyperref[b87]{(Jha, 2004}; Given the inconsistencies in measuring job satisfaction, there is a need for a re-conceptualization of this construct. While previous studies have approached job satisfaction as a multidimensional concept, there is still no consensus on the specific factors that should be included \hyperref[b25]{(Boonzaier, Ficker, \& Rust, 2001)}. This study investigated the psychometric properties of cognitive job satisfaction by incorporating the five subscales of Hackman Oldham's (1975) Job Characteristics Model. It was hypothesized that these five factors could explain job satisfaction. Results of the correlational and regression analysis of this paper supported the proposition that job satisfaction can indeed be measured using these five factors, which aligns with the findings of Johari, Mit, and Yahya (2010) in their study of the Malaysian public service context. However, factor analysis using PCA and varimax rotation revealed five new latent factors that drive job satisfaction, as shown in Figure \hyperref[fig_11]{2}  To evaluate the effectiveness of this research tool, it becomes crucial to examine the concerns related to the reliability and validity of the instrument, drawing insights from previous research outcomes. Reliability, as defined by \hyperref[b44]{Collis and Hussey (2013)}, pertains to the consistency of a measuring instrument in producing reliable findings within the research context.\par
The minimum mean score is 1.64 for autonomy, suggesting a relatively low level of independence or freedom in decision-making, while the maximum mean score was 3.00 for task significance indicates a high perceived importance of tasks.\par
The standard deviation score ranges from .36 for task Identity to .78 for autonomy, which indicates moderate variability for these dimensions. This suggests that perceptions regarding task identity and autonomy are somewhat dispersed among respondents, showing a degree of diversity in their views on these aspects.\par
The Cronbach alpha values range from .70 for task identity to .91 for autonomy, suggesting acceptable to high internal consistency reliability. The overall internal Tobago with a small quantity of variation. \hyperref[b59]{(Gliem \& Gliem, 2003)}.\par
Although several instruments exist to measure job satisfaction, such as the Job in General Scale (JGS) by \hyperref[b84]{Ironson et al. (1989)} and the Nurse Satisfaction Scale (NSS) by \hyperref[b119]{Ng (1993)}, the two-stage Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) by \hyperref[b69]{Hackman and Oldham (1975)}was chosen due to its popularity andthe confirmation of its 5factor structure through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in various settings, including Malaysia's public service \hyperref[b88]{(Johari et al., 2010)}.\par
Table \hyperref[b22]{(24)} below shows the mean and reliability scores for the job satisfaction sub-scales scales used in the Malaysia setting by \hyperref[b88]{Johari et al (2010)}  The validity of a measurement instrument is determined by its ability to accurately gauge the intended attribute it purports to measure, as articulated by \hyperref[b31]{Bryman and Bell (2007)}. \hyperref[b69]{Hackman and Oldham (1975)} assert that their Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) questionnaire demonstrates evidence of construct validity, which involves assessing how well the instrument aligns with theoretical expectations and its relationships with other constructs. To support the validity of the JDS, \hyperref[b69]{Hackman and Oldham (1975)} correlated it with another job satisfaction questionnaire, the Job Characteristic INVENTORY (JCI), which was developed by \hyperref[b56]{Fried (1991)}. The correlations between the two questionnaires, as shown in Table \hyperref[tab_31]{25below}, confirm that they measure similar perceptions and values, further supporting the instrument's validity (Van Saane, Sluiter, Verbeek, \& Frings-Dresen, 2003).\par
Additionally, the results in Table \hyperref[tab_31]{25} below indicate that both questionnaires capture the same cognitive aspect of respondents' experiences. While the JDS by \hyperref[b69]{Hackman and Oldham (1975)} survey indirectly captures some affective elements by evaluating employee satisfaction and motivation, its main emphasis is on cognitive factors related to the perceived design and structure of the job. In the context of job satisfaction and motivation, the terms "affective domain" and "cognitive domain" are often used to distinguish between emotional and thought-related aspects, respectively. The Job Characteristics Model, developed by J. Richard  {\ref Hackman and Greg Oldham (1975)}, includes both affective and cognitive components.\par
-Affective Domain: In summary, both the JCX and the JDS contribute to assessing both affective and cognitive aspects of job satisfaction, with the JCX (1976) focusing more on affective responses and the JDS providing a broader measurement that includes cognitive evaluations of job characteristics. Job Satisfaction mean scores were relatively higher in the Tertiary Education Sector (2.47 for UTT) when compared to the ICT Sector (2.40 for both DIGICEL and TSTT) and the Public Utilities Sector (2.44 for WASA). One possible explanation for this pattern could be job satisfaction may be higher due to intrinsic rewards associated academia, such as the fulfilment of contributing to education and research. Conversely, the ICT and Public Utilities Sectors may face higher stress levels, faster-paced environments, and stringent regulations potentially impacting employee satisfaction. All three sectors scored below average (2.5) job satisfaction mean scores, suggesting poor sector-wide performance.\par
Interestingly job satisfaction mean scores in Trinidad and Tobago were significantly lower than those observed in a study conducted by Al Shehhi et al. (  {\ref 2021}) in the UAE. The mean job satisfaction score in that study was  {\ref (3.30)} in the public sector and (3.48) in the private sector. These results support the notion that the conceptualization of job satisfaction varies with sector and population \hyperref[b58]{(Gilbert \& Von Glinow, 2015)}.\par
Implications for Theory, Policy, and Practices will now be discussed. 
\section[{b) Implications for Theory}]{b) Implications for Theory}\par
Job satisfaction research findings have several theoretical implications, influencing organizational and psychological theories. Some implications include: Individual-Level Implications: 
\section[{Motivation Theories:}]{Motivation Theories:}\par
Job satisfaction and motivation theories share a complex relationship in organizational psychology. According to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (1943), job satisfaction is influenced by fulfilling basic needs, while Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory (1959) suggests that motivation and satisfaction are distinct factors. Locke's Range of Affect Theory (1976) emphasizes that job satisfaction is influenced by the perceived discrepancy between what one has and wants.\par
Additionally, Vroom's Expectancy Theory (1964) posits that motivation is driven by the expectation of a desired outcome, impacting job satisfaction indirectly. Adam's Equity Theory (1963) asserts that perceived fairness in reward distribution affects motivation and satisfaction.\par
These theories collectively illustrate the interconnectedness between motivation and job satisfaction, highlighting intrinsic and extrinsic factors' role in shaping employees' workplace experiences \hyperref[b111]{(Maslow, 1943;}\hyperref[b80]{Herzberg, 1959;}\hyperref[b108]{Locke, 1976;}\hyperref[b160]{Vroom, 1964;}\hyperref[b1]{Adams, 1963)}. 
\section[{Organizational Behavior Theories:}]{Organizational Behavior Theories:}\par
Job satisfaction and organizational behavior theories are intertwined in understanding employee experiences within an organization. Blau's Social Exchange Theory  {\ref (1964)} suggests that the level of job satisfaction is dependent on the mutual exchange of benefits and contributions between the employees and the organization. Organizational Behavior Modification (OB Mod) \hyperref[b144]{(Skinner, 1974)}  Organizational behavior theories provide frameworks to understand the dynamics affecting job satisfaction, emphasizing the impact of social exchanges, organizational interventions, and the nature of job characteristics  {\ref (Blau, 1964;}\hyperref[b144]{Skinner, 1974;}\hyperref[b68]{Hackman \& Oldham, 1976;}\hyperref[b150]{Tajfel \& Turner, 1979}). 
\section[{Employee Engagement Theories:}]{Employee Engagement Theories:}\par
Job satisfaction and employee engagement theories are closely linked, reflecting the interplay between individual contentment and overall involvement in the workplace. The Job Characteristics Model \hyperref[b68]{(Hackman \& Oldham, 1976}) emphasizes that engaging job characteristics contribute to both job satisfaction and employee engagement, stressing the importance of skill variety, task identity, and task significance.\par
Kahn's model of Employee Engagement (1990) suggests that engagement involves both physical and cognitive aspects, with job satisfaction being a crucial cognitive component. The Gallup Q12 model \hyperref[b77]{(Harter et al., 2002)} identifies specific factors, such as feeling recognized and having opportunities for personal development, that contribute to both engagement and satisfaction.\par
These theories collectively highlight how job satisfaction and employee engagement are interconnected, with engaging job characteristics and specific organizational practices influencing both aspects \hyperref[b68]{(Hackman \& Oldham, 1976;}\hyperref[b97]{Kahn, 1990;}\hyperref[b77]{Harter et al., 2002)}. 
\section[{Job-Demands-Resources Model:}]{Job-Demands-Resources Model:}\par
This model integrates job satisfaction into a broader framework, considering job demands (stressors) and resources (supportive aspects) and their impact on well-being and performance. The JD-R model suggests that high job demands, if not balanced by sufficient resources, can lead to burnout and other negative outcomes. On the other hand, when jobs provide adequate resources, employees are more likely to experience positive wellbeing, job satisfaction, and performance. This model has been influential in research on occupational health and well-being, providing a comprehensive framework for understanding the interplay between job characteristics and employee outcomes.\par
These implications contribute to developing and refining motivation, organizational behavior, and organizational performance theories. 
\section[{c) Organizational-Level Implications}]{c) Organizational-Level Implications}\par
? Culture and leadership: Positive organizational cultures characterized by autonomy, respect, and support contribute to higher job satisfaction. This underscores the importance of strong leadership in shaping work environments. Job satisfaction research offers valuable insights into the complex relationship between tasks and work outcomes. By understanding the theoretical implications of its findings, organizations, policymakers, and individuals can work towards creating work environments that are both productive and fulfilling. Limitations 
\section[{? Complexity of Job Design}]{? Complexity of Job Design}\par
The Job Characteristics Model is considered the most influential theory of Job Design. Therefore, analyzing all its aspects in one study is very difficult. Job design is a multi-dimensional psychological construct that involves shaping a job to satisfy organizational and individual needs. Job characteristics, a key aspect, include skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback. The complexity arises as job designers must balance these factors to create roles that engage employees, enhance productivity, and align with organizational goals, requiring a nuanced understanding of the specific context, tasks, and workforce dynamics. This study focuses on specific aspects, particularly cognitive job satisfaction. \hyperref[b69]{Hackman Oldham's (1975)} Job Characteristics Model (JCM) is just one out of hundreds of Job Characteristics measurement models.\par
? Findings specific to the three service sectors of ICT, Tertiary Education, and Public Utilities The researcher was unable to gather data from sectors such as Banking and Fast Food in Trinidad and Tobago due to limitations in time and finances. By studying job satisfaction in Trinidad and Tobago's banking and fast-food sectors, organizations can tailor strategies to create healthier work environments, improve experiences, and ultimately achieve better organizational and national outcomes. 
\section[{e) Prospects for Future Research}]{e) Prospects for Future Research}\par
This research provides the following prospects for future research. The effect of Job Characteristics should also be tested on behavioral outcomes such as customer satisfaction, employee benefits, and employee engagement. 3. Employee Benefits can be both a dependent and independent variable \hyperref[b167]{(Young, 2023)}.The relationship between demographic characteristics, organizational culture, and job satisfaction on employee benefits should be examined via a General Linear Model (GLM). 
\section[{IX. Recommendations}]{IX. Recommendations}\par
The Job Characteristics Model can be very helpful in designing jobs for employees across the Public and Private Sectors. The human resource managers of companies must design employees' jobs, paying proper consideration to job characteristics. Moreover, if they feel that the Job Satisfaction level of the employees is reducing due to fatigue, burnout and boredom from the work, they should redesign their jobs by including these job characteristics to rebuild the Job Satisfaction level of the employees.\par
Implementing a new job satisfaction instrument can have various policy and practice implications. Here are some specific recommendations: a) Policy Implications Remember to regularly review and update policies and practices based on the evolving needs of the workforce and the insights gained from the job satisfaction instrument.\par
In conclusion, the reconceptualization of job satisfaction presented in this research offers a holistic and nuanced understanding of employee job characteristics in the modern workplace. By considering new dimensions (factors), validating the measurement instruments, and new theoretical linkages, organizations can better support their employees, foster job satisfaction, and create a positive work environment conducive to long-term success.\begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1}\includegraphics[]{image-2.png}
\caption{\label{fig_0}Figure 1 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{8}\includegraphics[]{image-3.png}
\caption{\label{fig_1}8 ©}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{9}\includegraphics[]{image-4.png}
\caption{\label{fig_2}9 ©}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{11}\includegraphics[]{image-5.png}
\caption{\label{fig_3}11 ©}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{:12}\includegraphics[]{image-6.png}
\caption{\label{fig_4}Stage I : 12 ©}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-7.png}
\caption{\label{fig_5}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-8.png}
\caption{\label{fig_6}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-9.png}
\caption{\label{fig_7}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{22}\includegraphics[]{image-10.png}
\caption{\label{fig_8}Table 22 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-11.png}
\caption{\label{fig_9}RO2:}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{2}\includegraphics[]{image-12.png}
\caption{\label{fig_11}Figure 2 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-13.png}
\caption{\label{fig_12}}\end{figure}
   \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.4308524590163934\textwidth}P{0.12262295081967213\textwidth}P{0.2965245901639344\textwidth}}
Theorist\tabcellsep Year\tabcellsep Contribution\\
James \& Tetrick\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{1986 Established temporal relationship for job characteristics and satisfaction}\\
Fried \& Ferris\tabcellsep 1987\tabcellsep Stronger relationship between Job characteristics and psychological outcomes than behavioral outcomes (meta-analysis)\\
Behson, Eddy, Lorenzet\tabcellsep 2000\tabcellsep Two-stage model of Job Characteristics without psychological states result in a better fit than the three-stage model (SEM)\\
Humphrey, Nahrgang, \& Morgeson\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{2007 Proposed expanded JCM}\\
Schjoedt\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{2009 Expanded JCM into the field of Entrepreneurship}\\
Batchelor, Abston, Lawlor, \& Burch\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{2014 Extended JCM to Entrepreneurial Motivation}\\
Liere-Nether et al (2017)\tabcellsep 2017\tabcellsep Extended JCM to measure Job Satisfaction for Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) based workplaces\\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{Source: Adapted from Batchelor et al. (2014)}\\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{Batchelor, Abston, Lawlor, and Burch (2014) enhanced our understanding of how JCM motivates entrepreneurs. The discipline of Entrepreneurship is a new field. Schjoedt (2009) was one of the few researchers using JCM to understand entrepreneurs' job characteristics. Liere-Nether, Steinhuser (2017) hypothesized that job satisfaction Vogelsang, Hoppe, and partly results from the employee's emotional state. This idea was initially introduced by Hackman and Oldham (1976). The "perceived usefulness" variable from that research is considered part of the affective domain.}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Liere-Nether et al. (2017) modeled task and technology\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep characteristics as being mediated by critical\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep psychological (CPS) and perceived usefulness, ulti-\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep mately impacting job satisfaction.\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_0}Table 1 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.8184782608695652\textwidth}P{0.004347826086956522\textwidth}P{0.017391304347826087\textwidth}P{0.006521739130434782\textwidth}P{0.003260869565217391\textwidth}}
\multicolumn{5}{l}{The Research Questions (RQ), Objectives (RO)}\\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{and Hypothesis (RH) will now be detailed.}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{Research Questions (RQ), Objectives (RO) and}\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Hypothesis (RH)}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{Research Questions}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{RQ1: Does Hackman-Oldham's (1975) five (5) manifest}\\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{Job Characteristics of Skill Variety, Task Identity, Task}\\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{Significance, Autonomy, and Feedback impact Job}\\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{Satisfaction in the three (3) service sectors of ICT,}\\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{Tertiary Education, and Public Utilities in Trinidad and}\\
Tobago?\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{RQ2: What are the latent drivers of Job Satisfaction in}\\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{the three (3) service sectors of ICT, Tertiary Education}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{and Public Utilities in Trinidad and Tobago?}\tabcellsep \\
RQ3:\tabcellsep Does\tabcellsep Hackman-Oldham's\tabcellsep (1975)\tabcellsep Job\\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{Characteristic Instrument validly measure Job}\\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{Satisfaction in the three (3) service sectors of ICT,}\\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{Tertiary Education, and Public Utilities in Trinidad and}\\
Tobago?\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_2}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{2} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.85\textwidth}}
five (5)\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_3}Table 2 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.07774390243902439\textwidth}P{0.7722560975609756\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep research selected from the population. The sample in\\
\tabcellsep this study consists of 12 purposively selected service\\
\tabcellsep organizations from a total population of 20 companies,\\
\tabcellsep accounting for approximately 20,000 employees.\\
\tabcellsep In positivistic paradigms, large samples are\\
\tabcellsep commonly used for statistical analysis, as Collis and\\
\tabcellsep Hussey (2013) noted. A larger sample increases the\\
\tabcellsep likelihood of the results applying to the entire population.\\
\tabcellsep This research used convenience sampling to identify the\\
\tabcellsep sample (Terre Blanche, Durrheim, \& Painter, 2006).\\
\tabcellsep Convenience sampling involves selecting readily\\
\tabcellsep available sample elements that can provide the required\\
Year 2024\tabcellsep information, and it is a form of non-probability sampling (Hair, Money, Samouel, \& Page, 2007; Leedy \& Ormrod, 2018). Non-probability sampling is when elements are not randomly selected using statistical interpretation\\
\tabcellsep (Terre Blanche et al., 2006).\\
10\tabcellsep \\
Global Journal of Management and Business Research ( A ) XXIV Issue I Version I\tabcellsep c)\\
\tabcellsep © 2024 Global Journals\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_5}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{3} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.68122009569378\textwidth}P{0.03660287081339713\textwidth}P{0.0549043062200957\textwidth}P{0.07727272727272727\textwidth}}
Population\tabcellsep Target Group\tabcellsep Sample\tabcellsep Suggested Sample Size (Israel,1992)\\
Employees from 12 Service\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Sector Organizations in\tabcellsep 20,000\tabcellsep 290 -Job Satisfaction\tabcellsep 100\\
Trinidad and Tobago\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{g) Sampling Methods used in this Study}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Non-probability sampling techniques are}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{commonly employed in exploratory quantitative}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{research, where the focus is on developing initial}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{insights about a specific, less-studied population rather}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
than testing broad hypotheses\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_6}Table 3 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{4} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.06640625\textwidth}P{0.19921875\textwidth}P{0.11953124999999999\textwidth}P{0.17265624999999998\textwidth}P{0.17265624999999998\textwidth}P{0.11953124999999999\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Male\tabcellsep 144\tabcellsep 41.5\tabcellsep 41.5\tabcellsep 41.5\\
Valid\tabcellsep Female\tabcellsep 203\tabcellsep 58.5\tabcellsep 58.5\tabcellsep 100.0\\
\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep 347\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_7}Table 4 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{5} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.24355300859598852\textwidth}P{0.24964183381088825\textwidth}P{0.09620343839541547\textwidth}P{0.0060888252148997134\textwidth}P{0.14247851002865328\textwidth}P{0.05845272206303725\textwidth}P{0.053581661891117474\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{6}{l}{Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent}\\
\tabcellsep 18 -30 yrs\tabcellsep 78\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 22.5\tabcellsep 22.5\tabcellsep 22.5\\
\tabcellsep 31 -40 yrs\tabcellsep 72\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 20.7\tabcellsep 20.7\tabcellsep 43.2\\
Valid\tabcellsep 41 -50 yrs 51 -60 yrs\tabcellsep 133 60\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 38.3 17.3\tabcellsep 38.3 17.3\tabcellsep 81.6 98.8\\
\tabcellsep 61 \& Above yrs\tabcellsep 4\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 1.2\tabcellsep 1.2\tabcellsep 100.0\\
\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep 347\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{100.0}\tabcellsep 100.0\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{Regarding EDUCATION, 35.2 percent were}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{Secondary O-levels, 39.2 percent were Secondary A -}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{most of the employees held Secondary A-level}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{A-levels, 17.6 percent were Undergraduate Degree}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{certificates. Insert (Table 6)}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{holders, 7.8 percent were Master' Degree holders, and}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{5}{l}{Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent}\\
\tabcellsep Secondary O -Levels\tabcellsep 122\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 35.2\tabcellsep 35.2\tabcellsep 35.2\\
\tabcellsep Secondary A -Levels\tabcellsep 136\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 39.2\tabcellsep 39.2\tabcellsep 74.4\\
Valid\tabcellsep Undergraduate Degree Masters Degree\tabcellsep 61 27\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 17.6 7.8\tabcellsep 17.6 7.8\tabcellsep 91.9 99.7\\
\tabcellsep Doctorate Degree\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep \tabcellsep .3\tabcellsep .3\tabcellsep 100.0\\
\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep 347\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_8}Table 5 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{7} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.01888888888888889\textwidth}P{0.29088888888888886\textwidth}P{0.24933333333333332\textwidth}P{0.09822222222222221\textwidth}P{0.09822222222222221\textwidth}P{0.09444444444444444\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent}\\
\tabcellsep 1 to 5 yrs\tabcellsep 111\tabcellsep 32.0\tabcellsep 32.0\tabcellsep 32.0\\
\tabcellsep 6 to 10 yrs\tabcellsep 63\tabcellsep 18.2\tabcellsep 18.2\tabcellsep 50.1\\
\tabcellsep 11 to 15 yrs\tabcellsep 117\tabcellsep 33.7\tabcellsep 33.7\tabcellsep 83.9\\
Valid\tabcellsep 16 to 20 yrs\tabcellsep 38\tabcellsep 11.0\tabcellsep 11.0\tabcellsep 94.8\\
\tabcellsep 21 to 30 yrs\tabcellsep 17\tabcellsep 4.9\tabcellsep 4.9\tabcellsep 99.7\\
\tabcellsep 31 \& Above yrs\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep .3\tabcellsep .3\tabcellsep 100.0\\
\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep 347\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_9}Table 7 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{6} \par 
\begin{longtable}{}
\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_10}Table 6 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.85\textwidth}}
Year 2024\\
13\\
Global Journal of Management and Business Research ( A ) XXIV Issue I Version I\\
© 2024 Global Journals\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_11}Reconceptualizing Job Satisfaction in Trinidad and Tobago}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{8} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.3978\textwidth}P{0.28900000000000003\textwidth}P{0.1632\textwidth}}
Sector\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Company Job Satisfaction Mean}\\
Public Utilities\tabcellsep WASA\tabcellsep 2.44\\
Education\tabcellsep ALJGSB\tabcellsep 2.22\\
Education\tabcellsep UWI\tabcellsep 2.16\\
ICT\tabcellsep FLOW\tabcellsep 2.36\\
Public Utilities\tabcellsep PTSC\tabcellsep 2.33\\
Education\tabcellsep SAM\tabcellsep 2.04\\
Public Utilities\tabcellsep T \& TEC\tabcellsep 2.26\\
Education\tabcellsep UTT\tabcellsep 2.47\\
ICT\tabcellsep TSTT\tabcellsep 2.40\\
Education\tabcellsep SBCS\tabcellsep 2.37\\
ICT\tabcellsep DIGICEL\tabcellsep 2.40\\
Education\tabcellsep CTSCBS\tabcellsep 2.08\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_12}Table 8 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{9} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.4940625\textwidth}P{0.1275\textwidth}P{0.095625\textwidth}P{0.0371875\textwidth}P{0.095625\textwidth}}
Skill Variety\tabcellsep 2.24\tabcellsep .49\tabcellsep 4\tabcellsep .85\\
Task Identity\tabcellsep 2.94\tabcellsep .36\tabcellsep 4\tabcellsep .70\\
Task Significance\tabcellsep 3.00\tabcellsep .65\tabcellsep 4\tabcellsep .88\\
Autonomy\tabcellsep 1.64\tabcellsep .78\tabcellsep 9\tabcellsep .91\\
Feedback\tabcellsep 2.82\tabcellsep .49\tabcellsep 3\tabcellsep .73\\
Personal outcomes:\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Job Satisfaction\tabcellsep 2.53\tabcellsep .50\tabcellsep 24\tabcellsep .95\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_13}Table 9 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{10} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.13795811518324608\textwidth}P{0.01557591623036649\textwidth}P{0.057853403141361254\textwidth}P{0.1112565445026178\textwidth}P{0.06452879581151832\textwidth}P{0.0712041884816754\textwidth}P{0.1268324607329843\textwidth}P{0.0912303664921466\textwidth}P{0.08232984293193718\textwidth}P{0.0912303664921466\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Variance Proportions}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Model Dimension E}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Condition Index\tabcellsep (Constant)\tabcellsep Autonomy Mean\tabcellsep Skill Variety Mean\tabcellsep Task Significance Mean\tabcellsep Task Identity Mean\tabcellsep Feedback From Job Mean\\
\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 5.856\tabcellsep 1.000\tabcellsep .00\tabcellsep .00\tabcellsep .00\tabcellsep .00\tabcellsep .00\tabcellsep .00\\
\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep .116\tabcellsep 7.099\tabcellsep .02\tabcellsep .28\tabcellsep .00\tabcellsep .00\tabcellsep .00\tabcellsep .00\\
1\tabcellsep 3 4\tabcellsep .015 .006\tabcellsep 20.060 30.944\tabcellsep .37 .14\tabcellsep .34 .04\tabcellsep .03 .20\tabcellsep .19 .68\tabcellsep .00 .00\tabcellsep .01 .19\\
\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep .005\tabcellsep 32.641\tabcellsep .04\tabcellsep .07\tabcellsep .67\tabcellsep .00\tabcellsep .00\tabcellsep .35\\
\tabcellsep 6\tabcellsep .002\tabcellsep 59.436\tabcellsep .43\tabcellsep .27\tabcellsep .10\tabcellsep .12\tabcellsep .99\tabcellsep .44\\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{a. Dependent Variable: Job Satisfaction Mean}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_14}Table 10 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{11} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.36184210526315785\textwidth}P{0.07368421052631578\textwidth}P{0.05921052631578947\textwidth}P{0.23026315789473686\textwidth}P{0.05131578947368421\textwidth}P{0.038157894736842106\textwidth}P{0.035526315789473684\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Job Satisfaction Mean\tabcellsep Mean of Autonomy\tabcellsep Skill Variety Mean\tabcellsep Task Significance Mean\tabcellsep Task Identity Mean\tabcellsep Feedback From Job Mean\\
Job Satisfaction Mean\tabcellsep 1.000\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Mean of Autonomy\tabcellsep .881**\tabcellsep 1.000\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Skill Variety Mean\tabcellsep .947**\tabcellsep .819**\tabcellsep 1.000\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Task Significance Mean\tabcellsep .933**\tabcellsep .737**\tabcellsep .855**\tabcellsep 1.000\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Task Identity Mean\tabcellsep .854**\tabcellsep .557**\tabcellsep .800**\tabcellsep .827**\tabcellsep 1.000\tabcellsep \\
Feedback from Job Mean\tabcellsep .917**\tabcellsep .718**\tabcellsep .834**\tabcellsep .825**\tabcellsep .866**\tabcellsep 1.000\\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{* *Correlations are significant at 0.01 level** (2 -tailed)}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Job Satisfaction\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{Job Satisfaction and Task Significance (r = .933)}\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Job Satisfaction and Autonomy (r=.881)}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{Job Satisfaction and Task Identity (r = .854)}\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Job Satisfaction and Skill Variety (r = .947)}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{Job Satisfaction and Feedback (r = .917)}\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_15}Table 11 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{12} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.45113019891500905\textwidth}P{0.04764918625678119\textwidth}P{0.02305605786618445\textwidth}P{0.037658227848101265\textwidth}P{0.043037974683544304\textwidth}P{0.037658227848101265\textwidth}P{0.03150994575045208\textwidth}P{0.08838155515370705\textwidth}P{0.01767631103074141\textwidth}P{0.006148282097649186\textwidth}P{0.013833634719710669\textwidth}P{0.03304701627486437\textwidth}P{0.019213381555153706\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Unstandardized Coefficients}\tabcellsep Standardized Coefficients\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{95\% Confidence Interval for B}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Correlations}\tabcellsep Collinearity Statistics\\
Model\tabcellsep B\tabcellsep Std. Error\tabcellsep Beta\tabcellsep t\tabcellsep Sig.\tabcellsep Lower Bound\tabcellsep Upper Bound\tabcellsep Zero -order\tabcellsep Partia l\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Part Tolerance VIF}\\
(Constant)\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{4.224E-15 .000}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{.000 1.000 .000}\tabcellsep .000\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Mean Of Autonomy\tabcellsep .200\tabcellsep .000\tabcellsep .312\tabcellsep 8.418 E7\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{.000 .200}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{.200 .881 1.000 .154}\tabcellsep .244\tabcellsep 4.094\\
Task Variety Mean\tabcellsep .200\tabcellsep .000\tabcellsep .193\tabcellsep 4.058 E7\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{.000 .200}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{.200 .947 1.000 .074}\tabcellsep .148\tabcellsep 6.767\\
Task Significance Mean\tabcellsep .200\tabcellsep .000\tabcellsep .260\tabcellsep 6.233 E7\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{.000 .200}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{.200 .933 1.000 .114}\tabcellsep .192\tabcellsep 5.203\\
Task Identity Mean\tabcellsep .200\tabcellsep .000\tabcellsep .141\tabcellsep 3.067 E7\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{.000 .200}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{.200 .854 1.000 .056}\tabcellsep .158\tabcellsep 6.346\\
Feedback From Job Mean\tabcellsep .200\tabcellsep .000\tabcellsep .195\tabcellsep 4.350 E7\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{.000 .200}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{.200 .917 1.000 .080}\tabcellsep .167\tabcellsep 5.976\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{a. Dependent Variable: Job Satisfaction Mean}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{b) Effect of Job Characteristics on Job Satisfaction}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{The Standardized Beta coefficient of the Job}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{Characteristics revealed that Skill Variety explained 19}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{percent (?=0.19; ?<0.001), Task Identity explained 14}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{percent (?=0.14; ?<0.001), Task Significance explained}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{26 percent (?=0.26; ?<0.001), Autonomy explained 31}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{percent (?=0.31; ?<0.001), and Feedback explained 20}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{percent (?=0.20; ?<0.001) variance in Job satisfaction}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
as shown in table\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_16}Table 12 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{14} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.85\textwidth}}
Year 2024\\
16\\
I\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_17}Table 14 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{13} \par 
\begin{longtable}{}
\end{longtable} \par
 
\begin{quote}
© 2024 Global Journals\end{quote}

\caption{\label{tab_19}Table 13 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{15} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.3791193181818182\textwidth}P{0.2994318181818182\textwidth}P{0.12798295454545455\textwidth}P{0.04346590909090909\textwidth}}
Scale\tabcellsep Factors\tabcellsep Factors (Variance)\tabcellsep No of items\\
1\tabcellsep Significance of Job Tasks\tabcellsep 36.3\%\tabcellsep 9\\
2\tabcellsep Autonomy in Decision Making and work methods\tabcellsep 28.0\%\tabcellsep 5\\
3\tabcellsep Empowerment\tabcellsep 14.6\%\tabcellsep 3\\
4\tabcellsep Delegation\tabcellsep 10.7\%\tabcellsep 3\\
5\tabcellsep Autonomy in Scheduling\tabcellsep 5.1\%\tabcellsep 4\\
\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep 94.7\%\tabcellsep 24\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Note the Correlation Matrix is not positive definite. -No}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{KMO, AIC, or Bartlett's test since no correlation matrix.}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Those metrics all stem from that.}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_20}Table 15 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{16} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.7261051373954599\textwidth}P{0.008124253285543608\textwidth}P{0.002031063321385902\textwidth}P{0.002031063321385902\textwidth}P{0.03655913978494624\textwidth}P{0.03757467144563919\textwidth}P{0.03757467144563919\textwidth}}
\multicolumn{4}{l}{TASK SIGNIFICANCE -The job that is}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{performed has a significant impact on}\tabcellsep .946\tabcellsep -.117\tabcellsep .198\\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{people outside the organization.}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{SKILL VARIETY -The job involves performing a wide variety of tasks.}\tabcellsep .927\tabcellsep .236\tabcellsep .253\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{TASK IDENTITY -The job involves}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{completing a piece of work that has an}\tabcellsep .919\tabcellsep .264\tabcellsep .258\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{obvious beginning and end.}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{TASK IDENTITY -The job allows me to complete work i start.}\tabcellsep .919\tabcellsep .264\tabcellsep .258\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{SKILL VARIETY -The job requires the performance of a wide range of tasks.}\tabcellsep .882\tabcellsep .318\tabcellsep .253\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{TASK SIGNIFICANCE -The job itself is}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{very significant and important in the}\tabcellsep .855\tabcellsep .399\tabcellsep .279\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{broader scheme of things.}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{TASK SIGNIFICANCE -The results of}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{my work are likely to significantly affect}\tabcellsep .682\tabcellsep .498\tabcellsep .170\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{the lives of other people.}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{SKILL VARIETY -The job involves doing a number of different things.}\tabcellsep .680\tabcellsep .646\tabcellsep .281\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{FEEDBACK FROM JOB -The job itself}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
provides\tabcellsep feedback\tabcellsep on\tabcellsep my\tabcellsep .655\tabcellsep .568\tabcellsep -.307\\
performance.\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_21}Table 16 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{18} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.85\textwidth}}
3 -Empowerment\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_22}Table 18 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{19} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.85\textwidth}}
4 -Delegation\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_23}Table 19 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{20} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.6693236714975845\textwidth}P{0.032850241545893714\textwidth}P{0.034903381642512075\textwidth}P{0.07801932367149758\textwidth}P{0.034903381642512075\textwidth}}
TASK IDENTITY -The job is arranged so\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
that i can do an entire piece of work from\tabcellsep .639\tabcellsep -.496\tabcellsep .008 -.093\tabcellsep .364\\
beginning to end.\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
TASK SIGNIFICANCE -The job has a\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
large impact on people outside the\tabcellsep .601\tabcellsep .575\tabcellsep .309 .307\tabcellsep -.095\\
organization.\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
WORK SCHEDULING AUTONOMY -The job allows me to plan how i do my work.\tabcellsep .597\tabcellsep .255\tabcellsep .467 .106\tabcellsep .471\\
FEEDBACK FROM JOB -The job itself\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
provides me with information about my\tabcellsep .546\tabcellsep .484\tabcellsep -.023 .511\tabcellsep .433\\
performance.\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_24}Table 20 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{17} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.85\textwidth}}
Year 2024\\
19\\
Global Journal of Management and Business Research ( A ) XXIV Issue I Version I\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_25}Table 17 : Reconceptualizing Job Satisfaction in Trinidad and Tobago}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{21} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.85\textwidth}}
4.224 + .200 (Autonomy) + .200\\
(Skill Variety) + .200 (Task Significance) + .200 (Task\\
Identity) +.200 (Feedback From Job)\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_26}Table 21 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{23} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.04126213592233009\textwidth}P{0.5116504854368932\textwidth}P{0.2682038834951456\textwidth}P{0.028883495145631065\textwidth}}
Scale\tabcellsep Factors\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Factors (Variance) No of Items}\\
1\tabcellsep Significance of Job Tasks\tabcellsep 36.3\%\tabcellsep 9\\
2\tabcellsep Autonomy in Decision Making and Work Methods\tabcellsep 28.0\%\tabcellsep 5\\
3\tabcellsep Empowerment\tabcellsep 14.6\%\tabcellsep 3\\
4\tabcellsep Delegation\tabcellsep 10.7\%\tabcellsep 3\\
5\tabcellsep Autonomy in Scheduling\tabcellsep 5.1\%\tabcellsep 4\\
\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep 94.7\%\tabcellsep 24\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_27}Table 23 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{}
\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_28}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.11900000000000001\textwidth}P{0.17\textwidth}P{0.255\textwidth}P{0.306\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Significance of\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep Job Tasks\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Autonomy in\tabcellsep \\
Other factors\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Decision Making and Work\tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep Job Satisfaction\tabcellsep Methods\tabcellsep Year 2024\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep 23\\
Autonomy in Scheduling\tabcellsep Delegation\tabcellsep Empowerment\tabcellsep Global Journal of Management and Business Research ( A ) XXIV Issue I Version I\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep © 2024 Global Journals\tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_29}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{24} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.48\textwidth}P{0.14333333333333334\textwidth}P{0.06\textwidth}P{0.08\textwidth}P{0.08666666666666667\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Trinidad and Tobago}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Malaysia\\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{Job characteristics Mean Cronbach ? Mean Cronbach ?}\\
Skill Variety\tabcellsep 2.24\tabcellsep .85\tabcellsep 4.45\tabcellsep .61\\
Task Identity\tabcellsep 2.94\tabcellsep .70\tabcellsep 4.56\tabcellsep .63\\
Task Significance\tabcellsep 3.00\tabcellsep .88\tabcellsep 5.56\tabcellsep .61\\
Autonomy\tabcellsep 1.64\tabcellsep .91\tabcellsep 4.61\tabcellsep .82\\
Feedback\tabcellsep 2.82\tabcellsep .73\tabcellsep 5.61\tabcellsep .79\\
Personal outcomes:\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Job Satisfaction\tabcellsep 2.53\tabcellsep .95\tabcellsep 4.96\tabcellsep .76\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_30}Table 24 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{25} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.37701612903225806\textwidth}P{0.005800248138957817\textwidth}P{0.014764267990074442\textwidth}P{0.007645781637717121\textwidth}P{0.3211228287841191\textwidth}P{0.10730459057071962\textwidth}P{0.008173076923076924\textwidth}P{0.008173076923076924\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{Fried, (1991) Questionnaires}\tabcellsep \\
Instrument\tabcellsep Population\tabcellsep Internal consistency\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Convergent Validity}\tabcellsep Comparative Instrument\tabcellsep Discriminant Validity\tabcellsep Comparative Instrument\\
Job\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Diagnostic\tabcellsep Heterogenous\tabcellsep .56 -.88\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{0.32 -0.71}\tabcellsep JCI\tabcellsep 0.12 -0.28\tabcellsep subscales\\
Survey (JDS)\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{8}{l}{Source: Reliability and Validity of Instruments Measuring Job Satisfaction -a Systematic Review (Van Saane, Sluiter, \& Verbeek,}\\
2003)\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{three (3) service sectors of ICT, Tertiary Education, and}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Public Utilities in Trinidad and Tobago.}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Assessing the validity of the job satisfaction}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{scale is crucial for ensuring it accurately measures what}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{it's intended to. The following methods were employed.}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{1. Construct Validity:}\tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{? Convergent validity: Correlate the scale with other}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{established measures of job satisfaction or related}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{constructs like employee engagement or motivation.}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{High correlations support the scale's validity}\\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{VIII. Conclusion}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{(Cronbach \& Meehl, 1955). ? Factor analysis: Analyze the scale items to see if}\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Research Objectives (RO):}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{they are grouped into distinct sub-factors}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{RO1: To determine if Hackman-Oldham's (1975) five (5) manifest Job Characteristics of Skill Variety, Task Identity, Task Significance, Autonomy, and Feedback}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{representing different aspects of job satisfaction, as expected (Hair et al., 2019). 2. Criterion Validity:}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{impact job satisfaction in the three (3) service sectors of}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{? Concurrent validity: Compare scale scores to}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{ICT, Tertiary Education, and Public Utilities in Trinidad}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{external indicators of job satisfaction, like supervisor}\\
and Tobago.\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{ratings or performance reviews. The agreement}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{Results of multiple regression analysis}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{reinforces the scale's accuracy (Guion, 2011).}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{confirmed the five (5) manifest Job Characteristics factors of Skill Variety, Task Identity, Task Significance, Autonomy, and Feedback impact job satisfaction in the three (3) service sectors of ICT, Tertiary Education, and Public Utilities in Trinidad and Tobago.}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{3. Reliability: ? Internal consistency: Assess the inter-item consistency using measures like Cronbach's alpha. High alpha values (e.g., >0.7) indicate reliable measurement (Cronbach, 1951).}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{RO2: To determine the latent drivers of Job Satisfaction in the three (3) service sectors of ICT, Tertiary Education, and Public Utilities in Trinidad and Tobago. Exploratory Factor Analysis using PCA and Varimax rotation revealed five new latent factors. These factors are the Significance of Job Tasks (36.3\%), Autonomy in Decision Making and Work Methods (28.0\%), Empowerment (14.6\%), Delegation (10.7\%), and Autonomy in Scheduling (5.1\%). These five situational factors account for (94.7\%) variance in job satisfaction. RO3: To determine the construct validity of Hackman-Oldham's (1975) Job Characteristic Instrument in the}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{Additional Considerations was Given to: ? Sample size: Ensure the sample used to test validity represents the target population to generalize the findings. ? Statistical methods: Choose appropriate statistical tests based on the research questions and data type. ? By employing these methods, the researcher rigorously assess the validity of the Hackman Oldham (1975) job satisfaction scale, ensuring it provides accurate and meaningful data for under-standing and improving employee experiences in the workplace.}\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_31}Table 25 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.85\textwidth}}
Year 2024\\
26\\
© 2024 Global Journals\end{longtable} \par
 
\begin{quote}
a\end{quote}

\caption{\label{tab_33}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.7888888888888889\textwidth}P{0.036111111111111115\textwidth}P{0.016666666666666666\textwidth}P{0.008333333333333333\textwidth}}
\multicolumn{2}{l}{d) Implications for Policy and Practice}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{? Policy and regulations: The knowledge gained from}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{research can aid in creating policies and regulations}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{aimed at boosting job satisfaction, ultimately}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{contributing to a more constructive and efficient}\\
workforce.\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
? Macroeconomic\tabcellsep implications:\tabcellsep Higher\tabcellsep job\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{satisfaction can lead}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_34}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.85\textwidth}}
b) Practice Implications 1. 5. Performance satisfaction metrics into performance recognition Recognition: Incorporate job and rewards, reinforcing the importance of both productivity and employee satisfaction.\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_35}1 .}\end{figure}
 			\label{foot_0}\footnote{\label{foot_0} © 2024 Global Journals} 		 		\backmatter   			 
\subsection[{Research Objectives (RO):}]{Research Objectives (RO):}\par
RO1: To determine if \hyperref[b69]{Hackman-Oldham's (1975)} five (5) manifest Job Characteristics of Skill Variety, Task Identity, Task Significance, Autonomy, and Feedback impact job satisfaction in the three (3) service sectors of ICT, Tertiary Education, and Public Utilities in Trinidad and Tobago. RO2: To determine the latent drivers of Job Satisfaction in the three (3) service sectors of ICT, Tertiary Education, and Public Utilities in Trinidad and Tobago. RO3: To determine the construct validity of Hackman-Oldham's (1975) Job Characteristic Instrument in the three (3) service sectors of ICT, Tertiary Education, and Public Utilities in Trinidad and Tobago. 			  			  				\begin{bibitemlist}{1}
\bibitem[Blau ()]{b21}\label{b21} 	 		\textit{},  		 			P M Blau 		.  	 	 		\textit{Justice in Social Exchange. Sociological Inquiry}  		1964. 34 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Skinner (ed.) ()]{b144}\label{b144} 	 		\textit{},  		 			B F Skinner 		.  		About Behaviorism. Alfred A. Knopf (ed.)  		1974.  	 
\bibitem[Newman ()]{b118}\label{b118} 	 		\textit{},  		 			W Newman 		.  	 	 		\textit{Social Research Methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon}  		1994.  	 
\bibitem[Leedy and Ormrod ()]{b104}\label{b104} 	 		\textit{},  		 			P D Leedy 		,  		 			J E Ormrod 		.  		2018. New York: Macmillan.  	 	 (Practical research) 
\bibitem[Thompson and Phua ()]{b152}\label{b152} 	 		‘A Brief Index of Affective Job Satisfaction’.  		 			E Thompson 		,  		 			F Phua 		.  	 	 		\textit{Group \& Organization Management}  		2012. 37  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[O'brien ()]{b120}\label{b120} 	 		‘A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors’.  		 			R M O'brien 		.  	 	 		\textit{Quality and Quantity}  		2007. 41 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Zahoor ()]{b169}\label{b169} 	 		‘A comparative study of psychological well-being and job satisfaction among têchers’.  		 			Z Zahoor 		.  	 	 		\textit{Indian Journal of Health and Wellbeing}  		2015. 6  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Ng ()]{b119}\label{b119} 	 		‘A job satisfaction scale for nurses’.  		 			S H Ng 		.  	 	 		\textit{New Zealand Journal of Psychology}  		1993. 22 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Lepine ()]{b105}\label{b105} 	 		\textit{A meta-analysis of the challenge stressor-hindrance stressor framework: Common and unique relationships with job-related attitudes and behaviors},  		 			J A Lepine 		.  		2005.  	 
\bibitem[Loher et al. ()]{b109}\label{b109} 	 		‘A Meta-Analysis of the relation of Job Characteristics to Job Satisfaction’.  		 			B T Loher 		,  		 			R A Noe 		,  		 			N L Moeller 		,  		 			M P Fitzgerald 		.  	 	 		\textit{The Journal of Applied Psychology}  		1985. 70  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Bowling and Hammond ()]{b26}\label{b26} 	 		‘A metaanalytic examination of the construct validity of the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire Job Satisfaction Subscale’.  		 			N A Bowling 		,  		 			G D Hammond 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Vocational Behavior}  		2008. 73  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Champoux ()]{b37}\label{b37} 	 		‘A multivariate test of the job characteristics theory of work motivation’.  		 			J E Champoux 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Organizational Behavior}  		1991. 12  (5)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Boonzaier et al. ()]{b25}\label{b25} 	 		‘A review of research on job characteristics model and the attendant job diagnostic survey’.  		 			Boonzaier 		,  		 			B Ficker 		,  		 			B Rust 		,  		 			Braam 		.  	 	 		\textit{South African Journal of Business Management}  		2001. 32  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Champoux ()]{b38}\label{b38} 	 		‘A three-sample test of some extensions to the job characteristics model of work motivation’.  		 			J E Champoux 		.  	 	 		\textit{The Academy of Management Journal}  		1980. 23  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Ali et al. ()]{b3}\label{b3} 	 		 			S A Ali 		,  		 			N A Said 		,  		 			N M Yunus 		,  		 			D S Latif 		,  		 			R Munap 		.  	 	 		\textit{Hackman and Oldham's Job Characteristics Model to Job Satisfaction. International Conference on Innovation, Management and Technology Research (ICIMTR)},  		 (Malaysia)  		2013. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Kaur and Sharma ()]{b96}\label{b96} 	 		‘Aligning Culture Typologies to Innovative Employee Benefits: Using Cameron and Quinn's Competing Value Framework’.  		 			G Kaur 		,  		 			R V Sharma 		.  	 	 		\textit{13th International Conference on Business Management},  		2016.  	 
\bibitem[Young ()]{b168}\label{b168} 	 		‘An Exploration of the Relationship between Organizational Culture and Organizational Performance in Trinidad and Tobago’.  		 			A C Young 		.  	 	 		\textit{Towards the Development of a New Organizational Diagnostic Model for Public Utilities},  		2024.  		 			University of Trinidad and Tobago 		 	 	 (Ph.D. Thesis) 
\bibitem[Brayfield et al. (1951)]{b28}\label{b28} 	 		‘An index of job satisfaction’.  		 			Arthur H Brayfield 		,  		 			Rothe 		,  		 			F Harold 		.  		 \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0055617}{10.1037/h0055617}.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Applied Psychology}  		 1939-1854.  		October 1951. 35  (5)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Tajfel and Turner ()]{b150}\label{b150} 	 		‘An integrative theory of intergroup conflict’.  		 			H Tajfel 		,  		 			J C Turner 		.  	 	 		\textit{The social psychology of intergroup relations},  		 			W G Austin 		,  		 			\&s Worchel 		 (eds.)  		 (Monterey, CA)  		1979. Brooks/Cole. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Miaoulis and Michener ()]{b112}\label{b112} 	 		\textit{An introduction to sampling},  		 			G Miaoulis 		,  		 			R D Michener 		.  		1976. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall /Hunt Publishing Company.  	 
\bibitem[Varo et al. ()]{b159}\label{b159} 	 		‘Analyzing the job characteristics model: New support from a cross-section of establishments’.  		 			J D Varo 		,  		 			R Li 		,  		 			D Brookshire 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of HRM}  		2007. 18  (6)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Rahman et al. ()]{b127}\label{b127} 	 		\textit{Antecedents of work satisfaction among employees with a special needs child},  		 			S Y A Rahman 		,  		 			B A Samah 		,  		 			R M Rasdi 		,  		 			M F Sabri 		.  		 \url{http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/76837/}  		2019.  	 
\bibitem[Enders ()]{b51}\label{b51} 	 		\textit{Applied missing data analysis},  		 			R Enders 		.  		2010. New York: Gilford Press.  	 
\bibitem[Arches ()]{b7}\label{b7} 	 		 			J Arches 		.  	 	 		\textit{Social Structure, Burnout, and Job Satisfaction},  		1991. 36 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Browner and Newman ()]{b30}\label{b30} 	 		‘Are all significant P values created equal? The analogy between diagnostic tests and clinical research’.  		 			W Browner 		,  		 			T Newman 		.  	 	 		\textit{JAMA}  		1987. 257 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Blanche et al. ()]{b151}\label{b151} 	 		 			Terre Blanche 		,  		 			M Durrheim 		,  		 			K Painter 		,  		 			D 		.  		\textit{Research in Practice: Applied methods for the social sciences. 2 nd Edition},  		 (Capetown)  		2006. UCT Press.  	 
\bibitem[Whirley ()]{b165}\label{b165} 	 		\textit{Burnout Levels of Teachers Within a Selected School District in Minnesota},  		 			A Whirley 		.  		 \url{https://core.ac.uk/download/214129665.pdf}  		2019.  	 
\bibitem[Hashim and Ahmad ()]{b78}\label{b78} 	 		\textit{Business best practices: Lessons for small and medium-sized enterprises},  		 			M K Hashim 		,  		 			S Ahmad 		.  		 \url{https://core.ac.uk/download/12121514.pdf}  		2011.  	 
\bibitem[Davis and Cosenza ()]{b48}\label{b48} 	 		\textit{Business Research for Decision Making/Duane Davis},  		 			D Davis 		,  		 			R M Cosenza 		.  		1950. 1947. 1993. Robert M. Cosenza. Belmont, California, Wadsworth.  	 
\bibitem[Collis and Hussey ()]{b44}\label{b44} 	 		\textit{Business research: a practical guide for undergraduate and postgraduate students},  		 			J Collis 		,  		 			R Hussey 		.  		2013. London: Palgrave Macmillan.  	 	 (4th edition) 
\bibitem[Gliem and Gliem (2003)]{b59}\label{b59} 	 		‘Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales’.  		 			J A Gliem 		,  		 			R R Gliem 		.  	 	 		\textit{Proceedings of the Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult Continuing and Community Education},  		 (the Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult Continuing and Community EducationColumbus, OH)  		2003. October 8-10, 2003. p. .  		 			The Ohio State University 		 	 
\bibitem[Mijts et al. ()]{b113}\label{b113} 	 		\textit{Capacity building for sustainable development in small island states through science and technology research and education},  		 			E Mijts 		,  		 			P Arens 		,  		 			N Buys 		,  		 			G Gielen 		.  		2019.  	 
\bibitem[Yin ()]{b166}\label{b166} 	 		\textit{Case Study Research Design and Methods},  		 			R Yin 		.  		1989. London: Sage.  	 
\bibitem[Ashima ()]{b10}\label{b10} 	 		‘Case Study: Impact of Demographic Variables on Job Contentment: A Study on Academicians of Private Engineering Institutions’.  		 			J Ashima 		.  	 	 		\textit{Advances in Management}  		2016. 9  (11)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Acemoglu and Autor ()]{b0}\label{b0} 	 		‘Chapter 12 -Skills, Tasks and Technologies: Implications for employment and Earnings’.  		 			D Acemoglu 		,  		 			D Autor 		.  	 	 		\textit{Handbook of Labor Economics},  		 (Amsterdam)  		2011. Elsevier -North. 4 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Cronbach ()]{b41}\label{b41} 	 		‘Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests’.  		 			L J Cronbach 		.  	 	 		\textit{Psychometrika}  		1951. 16  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Matthes et al. ()]{b110}\label{b110} 	 		‘Collecting information on job tasks -an instrument to measure tasks required at the workplace in a multi-topic survey’.  		 			B Matthes 		,  		 			B Christoph 		,  		 			M Ruland 		,  		 			F Janik 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal for Labour Market Research}  		2014. 47 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Rao ()]{b129}\label{b129} 	 		‘Concepts in sample size determination’.  		 			U K Rao 		.  	 	 		\textit{Indian Journal of Dental Research}  		2012. 23  (5)  p. 660.  	 
\bibitem[James and Tetrick ()]{b86}\label{b86} 	 		‘Confirmatory analytic tests of three causal models relating to perceptions to job satisfaction’.  		 			L R James 		,  		 			L E Tetrick 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Applied Psychology}  		1986. 71  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Golden et al. ()]{b60}\label{b60} 	 		‘Consequences of Model Misspecification for Maximum Likelihood Estimation with Missing Data’.  		 			R Golden 		,  		 			S Henley 		,  		 			H White 		,  		 			T Kashner 		.  	 	 		\textit{Econometrics}  		2019. 7  (3)  p. 37.  	 
\bibitem[Johari et al. ()]{b88}\label{b88} 	 		‘Construct Validation of the Job Characteristics Scale in the Malaysia Public Service Setting’.  		 			J Johari 		,  		 			D A Mit 		,  		 			K K Yahya 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Review of Business Research Papers}  		2010. 6  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Cronbach and Meehl ()]{b42}\label{b42} 	 		‘Construct Validity in psychological tests’.  		 			L J Cronbach 		,  		 			P E Meehl 		.  	 	 		\textit{Psychological Bulletin}  		1955. 52  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Ironson et al. ()]{b84}\label{b84} 	 		‘Construction of a Job in General scale: A comparison of global, composite, and specific measures’.  		 			G H Ironson 		,  		 			P C Smith 		,  		 			M T Brannick 		,  		 			W M Gibson 		,  		 			K B Paul 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Applied psychology}  		1989. 74  (2)  p. 193.  	 
\bibitem[Tannenbaum ()]{b148}\label{b148} 	 		\textit{Control in Organizations},  		 			A S Tannenbaum 		.  		1968. New York, NY: Mc Graw-Hill.  	 
\bibitem[Bollen and Lennox ()]{b24}\label{b24} 	 		‘Conventional Wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective’.  		 			K Bollen 		,  		 			R Lennox 		.  	 	 		\textit{Psychological Bulletin}  		1991. 110  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Campbell and Fiske ()]{b34}\label{b34} 	 		‘Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitraitmultimethod matrix’.  		 			D T Campbell 		,  		 			D W Fiske 		.  	 	 		\textit{Psychological bulletin}  		1959. 56  (2)  p. 81.  	 
\bibitem[Creswell ()]{b40}\label{b40} 	 		 			J Creswell 		.  		\textit{Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research},  		 (Upper Saddle River)  		2009. Pearson Education.  	 
\bibitem[Drescher ()]{b47}\label{b47} 	 		‘Delegation outcomes: perceptions of leaders and follower's satisfaction’.  		 			G Drescher 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Managerial Psychology}  		2017. 32  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Milletete and Gagne ()]{b114}\label{b114} 	 		\textit{Designing volunteer's tasks to maximize motivation, satisfaction, and performance: The impact of job characteristics on volunteer engagement},  		 			V Milletete 		,  		 			M Gagne 		.  		2008. Springer Science and Business Media. 32 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Del Castillo and Benitez ()]{b45}\label{b45} 	 		‘Determining a public transportation index for user surveys’.  		 			J Del Castillo 		,  		 			F Benitez 		.  	 	 		\textit{Transportmetrica}  		2012. 9  (8)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Hair et al. ()]{b74}\label{b74} 	 		\textit{Development and validation of attitudes measurement scales: fundamental and practical aspects},  		 			J F Hair 		,  		 			M L S D Gabriel 		,  		 			D Da Silva 		,  		 			S B Junior 		.  		2019. Emerald Insight.  	 
\bibitem[Hackman and Oldham ()]{b69}\label{b69} 	 		‘Development of the job diagnostic survey’.  		 			J R Hackman 		,  		 			G R Oldham 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Applied Psychology}  		1975. 60  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Dunham et al. ()]{b49}\label{b49} 	 		‘Dimensionality of task design as measured by job diagnostic survey’.  		 			R B Dunham 		,  		 			R J Aldag 		,  		 			A P Brief 		.  	 	 		\textit{The Academy of Management Journal}  		1977. 20  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Carless ()]{b35}\label{b35} 	 		‘Does psychological empowerment mediate the relationship between © 2024 Global Journals psychological climate and job satisfaction?’.  		 			S A Carless 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Business and Psychology}  		2004. 18  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Van Der Velden and Allen ()]{b156}\label{b156} 	 		‘Educational mismatches vs skill mismatches: Effects on © 2024 Global Journals wages, job satisfaction, and on-the-job search’.  		 			R Van Der Velden 		,  		 			J Allen 		.  	 	 		\textit{Oxford Economic Papers}  		2001. 53  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Lawler et al. ()]{b101}\label{b101} 	 		‘Effects of job redesign: A field experiment’.  		 			E E Lawler 		,  		 			J R Hackman 		,  		 			S Kaufman 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Applied Psychology}  		1973. 3  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Rao ()]{b128}\label{b128} 	 		\textit{Elements of Health Statistics, First edition},  		 			N S N Rao 		.  		1985. Varanasi, India: R. Publication.  	 
\bibitem[Hackman and Lawler ()]{b67}\label{b67} 	 		‘Employee reaction to job characteristics’.  		 			J R Hackman 		,  		 			E E Lawler 		.  	 	 		\textit{The Journal of Applied Psychology}  		1971. 55  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Western and Tomaszewski ()]{b164}\label{b164} 	 		\textit{Employee well-being and innovativeness: A multilevel conceptual framework based on citation network analysis and data mining techniques},  		 			M Western 		,  		 			W Tomaszewski 		.  		2016.  	 
\bibitem[Elsamani et al. ()]{b50}\label{b50} 	 		‘Employee well-being and innovativeness: A multilevel conceptual framework based on citation network analysis and data mining techniques’.  		 			Y Elsamani 		,  		 			C Mejia 		,  		 			Kajikawa 		.  		 \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.02800005}{10.1371/journal.pone.02800005}.  	 	 		\textit{PLOS One}  		2023. 2023.  	 
\bibitem[Biggs ()]{b20}\label{b20} 	 		\textit{Employment Agency workers, their job satisfaction and their influence on permanent workers},  		 			D M Biggs 		.  		2003.  		 			University of Lecester 		 	 	 (PhD Thesis) 
\bibitem[Hales and Kalidas ()]{b75}\label{b75} 	 		‘Empowerment in five-star hotels: choice, voice or rhetoric?’.  		 			C Hales 		,  		 			A Kalidas 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of contemporary hospitality management}  		1998. 10  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Schjoedt ()]{b137}\label{b137} 	 		\textit{Entrepreneurial Job Characteristics: An Examination of Their Effect on Entrepreneurial Satisfaction},  		 			L Schjoedt 		.  		2009. 33.  	 	 (Issue 3. Sage Journals) 
\bibitem[Greiner ()]{b63}\label{b63} 	 		\textit{Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Grows},  		 			L E Greiner 		.  		1972.  	 	 (President and Fellows of Harvard College, s. 39) 
\bibitem[Panzano et al. ()]{b125}\label{b125} 	 		\textit{Examining the value of the job characteristics model for improving the experience of work and work-related outcomes for adults with severe and persistent mental illness},  		 			P C Panzano 		,  		 			B A Seffrin 		,  		 			D S Jones 		.  		2001. Ohio: Decision Support Service.  		 			Ohio State University 		 	 
\bibitem[Blau ()]{b23}\label{b23} 	 		\textit{Exchange and power in social life},  		 			P M Blau 		.  		1964.  	 
\bibitem[Watkins ()]{b163}\label{b163} 	 		‘Exploratory Factor Analysis: A Guide to Best Practice’.  		 			M W Watkins 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Black Psychology}  		2018. 44  (3) .  	 
\bibitem[Alev et al. ()]{b2}\label{b2} 	 		‘Exploring the antecedents of organization identification: The role of job dimension, individual characteristics, and job involvement’.  		 			K Alev 		,  		 			A Gulem 		,  		 			G Gonca 		,  		 			G Burca 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Nursing Management}  		2009. 17  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Scott et al. ()]{b138}\label{b138} 	 		‘Extension agent's perceptions of fundamental job characteristics and their level of job satisfaction’.  		 			M Scott 		,  		 			K A Swortzel 		,  		 			W N Taylor 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research}  		2005. 55  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Fabrigar and Wegener ()]{b52}\label{b52} 	 		 			L Fabrigar 		,  		 			D Wegener 		.  		\textit{Exploratory Factor Analysis},  		 (New York)  		2012. Oxford University Press.  	 
\bibitem[Waqas et al. ()]{b161}\label{b161} 	 		‘Factors influencing job satisfaction and its impact on job loyalty’.  		 			A Waqas 		,  		 			U Bashir 		,  		 			M F Sattar 		,  		 			H M Abdullah 		,  		 			I Hussain 		,  		 			W Anjum 		,  		 			R Arshad 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of Learning and Development}  		2014. 4  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Fleiss et al. ()]{b54}\label{b54} 	 		 			J L Fleiss 		,  		 			B Levin 		,  		 			M C Paik 		.  		\textit{Statistical methods for rates and proportions},  		 (Hoboken)  		2003. Wiley.  	 	 (3rd Edition) 
\bibitem[Fried and Ferris ()]{b55}\label{b55} 	 		 			Y Fried 		,  		 			G R Ferris 		.  	 	 		\textit{The validity of the Job Characteristics Model: A review and metaanalysis},  		1987. 40 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Gupta and Kapoor ()]{b66}\label{b66} 	 		\textit{Fundamental of mathematical statistics},  		 			S C Gupta 		,  		 			V K Kapoor 		.  		1970. New Delhi, India: SC Publications.  	 
\bibitem[Gallagher et al. ()]{b57}\label{b57} 	 		 			W E Gallagher 		,  		 			Jr 		,  		 			H J Einhorn 		.  	 	 		\textit{Motivation theory and job design},  		1976. 49 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Guion et al. ()]{b64}\label{b64} 	 		 			L A Guion 		,  		 			D C Diehl 		,  		 			D Mcdonald 		.  		 \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.32473/edis-fy394-2011}{10.32473/edis-fy394-2011}.  	 	 		\textit{Triangulation: Establishing the Validity of Qualitative Studies},  		2011. p. 3.  	 
\bibitem[Hair et al. ()]{b73}\label{b73} 	 		 			J F Hair 		,  		 			W C Black 		,  		 			B J Babin 		,  		 			R E Anderson 		.  		\textit{Multivariate data analysis},  		 (Harrow, Essex; Upper Saddle River, New Jersey)  		2019. Pearson Publishers.  	 	 (th edition) 
\bibitem[Harter et al. ()]{b77}\label{b77} 	 		 			J K Harter 		,  		 			F L Schmidt 		,  		 			T L Hayes 		.  		\textit{Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis},  		2002.  	 
\bibitem[Barro ()]{b13}\label{b13} 	 		‘Human Capital and Growth’.  		 			R Barro 		.  	 	 		\textit{The American Economoic Review}  		2001. 91  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Turner and Lawrence ()]{b154}\label{b154} 	 		\textit{Industrial Jobs and the Workers},  		 			A N Turner 		,  		 			P R Lawrence 		.  		1965. Boston.  		 			Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration 		 	 
\bibitem[Humphrey et al. ()]{b82}\label{b82} 	 		‘Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta -analytical summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature’.  		 			S E Humphrey 		,  		 			J D Nahrgang 		,  		 			F P Morgeson 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Applied Psychology}  		2007. 92  (5)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Hayes ()]{b79}\label{b79} 	 		\textit{Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach},  		 			A Hayes 		.  		2018. New York: Guilford Press.  	 	 (nd ed.) 
\bibitem[Fernández-Salinero and Topa ()]{b53}\label{b53} 	 		‘Is Job Involvement Enough for Achieving Job Satisfaction? The Role of Skills Use and Group Identification’.  		 			S Fernández-Salinero 		,  		 			G Topa 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health}  		2020. 17  (12)  p. 4193.  	 
\bibitem[Zaffar ()]{b170}\label{b170} 	 		\textit{Job analysis practices in Pakistan},  		 			M U Zaffar 		.  		2005.  		 			National College of Business Administration and Economics Lahore 		 	 	 (Ph. D. thesis) 
\bibitem[Judge and Klinger ()]{b93}\label{b93} 	 		‘Job characteristics and employee satisfaction: Here's to the future’.  		 			T A Judge 		,  		 			R L Klinger 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Vocational Behavior}  		2007. 70  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Humphrey ()]{b81}\label{b81} 	 		‘Job design, work-family conflict, and employee well-being’.  		 			R H Humphrey 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Vocational Behavior}  		2002. 61  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Anderson et al. ()]{b6}\label{b6} 	 		‘Job satisfaction among practicing school psychologists: A national study’.  		 			W T Anderson 		,  		 			T H Hohenshil 		,  		 			D T Brown 		.  	 	 		\textit{School Psychology Review}  		1984. 13  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Bhatti et al. ()]{b19}\label{b19} 	 		‘Job Satisfaction and Motivation in Banking Industry in Pakistan’.  		 			N Bhatti 		,  		 			A A Syed 		,  		 			F Shaikh 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal Asian Business Strategy}  		2012. 2  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Bhatti et al. ()]{b117}\label{b117} 	 		‘Job Satisfaction and Motivation in the Banking Industry in Pakistan’.  		 			Nadeem Bhatti 		,  		 			Ali Anwar 		,  		 			G Shah 		,  		 			F M Syed 		,  		 			Shaikh 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Asian Business Strategy}  		2012. 2  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Spector ()]{b146}\label{b146} 	 		\textit{Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes and consequences},  		 			P E Spector 		.  		1997.  	 
\bibitem[John ()]{b140}\label{b140} 	 		 			Sheldrake John 		.  		\textit{Management Theory},  		 (UK)  		2002. Thompson Publishers.  	 
\bibitem[Gul et al. ()]{b65}\label{b65} 	 		‘Leadership Styles, Turnover Intentions and the Mediating Role of Organizational Commitment’.  		 			S Gul 		,  		 			B Ahmad 		,  		 			S U Rehman 		,  		 			N Shabir 		,  		 			N Razzaq 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Information and Knowledge Management}  		2012. 2  (7) .  	 
\bibitem[Koontz and Wehrich ()]{b99}\label{b99} 	 		\textit{Management},  		 			H Koontz 		,  		 			H Wehrich 		.  		1988. Singapore: McGraw-Hill Book Co-Singapore.  	 
\bibitem[Robbins and Coulter ()]{b132}\label{b132} 	 		\textit{Management},  		 			S P Robbins 		,  		 			M Coulter 		.  		2006. India: Prentice Hall of India.  	 
\bibitem[Maslow ()]{b111}\label{b111} 	 		 			A H Maslow 		.  		\textit{A theory of human motivation},  		1943.  	 
\bibitem[Spector ()]{b145}\label{b145} 	 		‘Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: Development of the Job Satisfaction Survey’.  		 			P E Spector 		.  	 	 		\textit{American Journal of Community Psychology}  		1985. 13  (6)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Chyung et al. ()]{b39}\label{b39} 	 		‘Measuring learners' attitudes towards team projects: Scale development through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses’.  		 			S Chyung 		,  		 			D Winiecki 		,  		 			G Hunt 		,  		 			C Sevier 		.  	 	 		\textit{American Journal of Engineering Education}  		2017. 8  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Kanter ()]{b94}\label{b94} 	 		\textit{Men and Women of the corporation},  		 			R M Kanter 		.  		1977. 1977. New York: Basic Books.  	 	 (© 2024 Global Journals) 
\bibitem[Fried ()]{b56}\label{b56} 	 		‘Meta-analytic comparison of the Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) and the Job Characteristics Inventory (JCI) as correlates of work satisfaction and performance’.  		 			Y Fried 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Applied Psychology}  		1991. 76 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Hackman and Oldham ()]{b68}\label{b68} 	 		‘Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory’.  		 			J R Hackman 		,  		 			G R Oldham 		.  	 	 		\textit{Organizational Behavior and Human Performance}  		1976. 16  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Rubin ()]{b134}\label{b134} 	 		\textit{Multiple Imputation for non response in surveys},  		 			D Rubin 		.  		1987. New Jersey: John Wiley \& Sons.  	 
\bibitem[Lee et al. ()]{b103}\label{b103} 	 		‘Multivariate relationships between job characteristics and job satisfaction in the public sector: A triple cross-validation study’.  		 			R Lee 		,  		 			D J Mccabe 		,  		 			W K Graham 		.  	 	 		\textit{Multivariate Behavioral Research, the Journal of the Society of Multivariate Experimental Psychology}  		1983. 18  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Gilbert and Von Glinow ()]{b58}\label{b58} 	 		‘National context and organizational performance across three sectors’.  		 			G Gilbert 		,  		 			M Von Glinow 		.  	 	 		\textit{Cross Cultural Management}  		2015. 22  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Oldham et al. ()]{b121}\label{b121} 	 		\textit{Norms for the job diagnostic survey},  		 			G R Oldham 		,  		 			J R Hackman 		,  		 			L P Stepina 		.  		 Number-06.  		1978. p. .  		 			Yale University, School of Organization and Management 		 	 	 (Technical Report) 
\bibitem[Organizational Culture and Safety Performance (1999)]{b122}\label{b122} 	 		\textit{Organizational Culture and Safety Performance},  		1999. April 30th. EHS Today.  	 
\bibitem[Pallant ()]{b123}\label{b123} 	 		 			J Pallant 		.  		\textit{SPSS Survival manual},  		 (Philadelphia; Buckingham)  		2002. Open University Press.  	 	 (© 2024 Global Journals) 
\bibitem[Ross ()]{b133}\label{b133} 	 		‘Perceived job characteristics and internal work motivation’.  		 			D L Ross 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Management Development}  		2005. 24  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Judge et al. ()]{b92}\label{b92} 	 		‘Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role of job characteristics’.  		 			Timothy A Judge 		,  		 			Joyce E Bono 		,  		 			Edwin A Locke 		.  		 \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.237.ISSN1939-1854}{10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.237.ISSN1939-1854}.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Applied Psychology}  		2000. 85  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Kanter ()]{b95}\label{b95} 	 		‘Power failure in management circuits’.  		 			R M Kanter 		.  	 	 		\textit{Harvard Business Review}  		1979. 57  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Kahn ()]{b97}\label{b97} 	 		\textit{Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work},  		 			W A Kahn 		.  		1990.  	 
\bibitem[Spreitzer ()]{b147}\label{b147} 	 		‘Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement and validation’.  		 			G M Spreitzer 		.  	 	 		\textit{Academy of Management Journal}  		1995. 38  (5)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Grant and Parker ()]{b62}\label{b62} 	 		\textit{Redesigning work: How to make it better for less},  		 			A M Grant 		,  		 			S K Parker 		.  		2009. John Wiley \& Sons.  	 
\bibitem[Belsley et al. ()]{b18}\label{b18} 	 		\textit{Regression Diagnostics: Identifying influential Data and Sources of Collinearity},  		 			D Belsley 		,  		 			E Kuh 		,  		 			R Welsch 		.  		1980. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley \& Sons, Inc.  	 
\bibitem[Riisgaard et al. ()]{b131}\label{b131} 	 		‘Relations between task delegation and job satisfaction in general practice: a systematic literature review’.  		 			H Riisgaard 		,  		 			J Nexoe 		,  		 			J V Le 		,  		 			J Sondergaard 		,  		 			L Ledderer 		.  	 	 		\textit{BMC Family Practice}  		2016.  (168)  p. 17.  	 
\bibitem[Tyagi ()]{b155}\label{b155} 	 		‘Relative importance of key job dimensions and leadership behavior in motivating salesperson work performance’.  		 			P K Tyagi 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Marketing}  		1985. 49  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Sathian et al. ()]{b136}\label{b136} 	 		‘Relevance of sample size determination in medical research’.  		 			B Sathian 		,  		 			J Sreedharan 		,  		 			S N Baboo 		,  		 			K Sharan 		,  		 			E S Abhilash 		,  		 			E Rajesh 		.  	 	 		\textit{Nepal Journal of Epidemiology}  		2010. 1  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Van Saane et al. ()]{b157}\label{b157} 	 		‘Reliability and Validity of instruments measuring job satisfaction -a systematic review’.  		 			N Van Saane 		,  		 			J Sluiter 		,  		 			J.-D Verbeek 		.  	 	 		\textit{Occupational Medicine}  		2003. 53 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Hair et al. ()]{b72}\label{b72} 	 		‘Research methods for business’.  		 			J F Hair 		,  		 			A H Money 		,  		 			P Samouel 		,  		 			M Page 		.  	 	 		\textit{Education + Training}  		2007. 49  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Sekaran and Bougie ()]{b139}\label{b139} 	 		\textit{Research methods for business: A skill building approach},  		 			U Sekaran 		,  		 			R Bougie 		.  		2000. John Wiley \& sons.  	 
\bibitem[Cochran ()]{b43}\label{b43} 	 		\textit{Sampling Techniques},  		 			W Cochran 		.  		1963. Hoben, New Jersey: Wiley \& Sons, Inc.  	 
\bibitem[Singh and Masuku ()]{b141}\label{b141} 	 		‘Sampling techniques \& determination of sample size in applied statistics research: An overview. International Journal of economics’.  		 			A Singh 		,  		 			M Masuku 		.  	 	 		\textit{Commerce and Management}  		2014. 2  (11) .  	 
\bibitem[Israel (1992)]{b85}\label{b85} 	 		‘Sampling the Evidence of Extension Program Impact. Program Evaluation and Organizational Development’.  		 			Glenn D Israel 		.  	 	 		\textit{IFAS}  		1992. October. 5.  		 			University of Florida 		 	 
\bibitem[Pinedo ()]{b126}\label{b126} 	 		\textit{Scheduling: Theory, Algorithms, and Systems},  		 			M L Pinedo 		.  		2012. New York, NY: Springer.  	 
\bibitem[Sinval and Marôco (2020)]{b142}\label{b142} 	 		‘Short Index of Job Satisfaction: Validity evidence from Portugal and Brazil’.  		 			Jorge ; Sinval 		,  		 			João Marôco 		.  		 \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231474.ISSN1932-6203.PMC7156096}{10.1371/journal.pone.0231474.ISSN1932-6203.PMC7156096}.  		 32287284.  	 	 		\textit{PLOS ONE}  		 			Sergio A Useche 		 (ed.)  		2020-04-14. 15  (4)  p. 231474.  	 
\bibitem[Jha ()]{b87}\label{b87} 	 		‘Strategic flexibility for business excellence-The role of human resource flexibility in select Indian companies’.  		 			V S Jha 		.  	 	 		\textit{Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management}  		2004. 9 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Monje-Amor et al. ()]{b115}\label{b115} 	 		‘Structural empowerment, psychological empowerment, and work engagement: A cross-country study’.  		 			A Monje-Amor 		,  		 			D Xanthopoulou 		,  		 			N Calvo 		,  		 			J P A Vazquez 		.  	 	 		\textit{European Management Journal}  		2021. 39  (6)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Brass ()]{b27}\label{b27} 	 		‘Structural relationships, job characteristics, and worker satisfaction and performance’.  		 			D J Brass 		.  	 	 		\textit{Administrative Science Quarterly}  		1981. 26  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Kish ()]{b98}\label{b98} 	 		\textit{Survey Sampling},  		 			L Kish 		.  		1965. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Rentsch and Steel ()]{b130}\label{b130} 	 		‘Testing the durability of the job characteristics as a predictor of absenteeism over a six-year period’.  		 			J R Rentsch 		,  		 			R P Steel 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Personnel Psychology}  		1998. 51 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Lawrence ()]{b102}\label{b102} 	 		\textit{The application of Hackman and Oldham job characteristics model to perceptions community music school faculty have towards their job},  		 			R M Lawrence 		.  		2001. Denton Texas. p. .  		 			University of North Texas 		 	 	 (Ph. D. thesis) 
\bibitem[Buys et al. ()]{b32}\label{b32} 	 		‘The construct validity of the revised job diagnosis survey’.  		 			M A Buys 		,  		 			C Olckers 		,  		 			P Schaap 		.  	 	 		\textit{South African Journal of Business Management}  		2007. 32  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Parker and Wall ()]{b124}\label{b124} 	 		‘The control paradox: Why autonomy doesn't always lead to happiness’.  		 			S K Parker 		,  		 			T D Wall 		.  	 	 		\textit{Management Science}  		1998.  	 
\bibitem[Arthur ()]{b8}\label{b8} 	 		‘The design of work: A strategic perspective’.  		 			J B Arthur 		.  	 	 		\textit{Human Resource Management Review}  		1994. 4  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Allwood ()]{b5}\label{b5} 	 		‘The distinction between qualitative and quantitative research methods is © 2024 Global Journals problematic’.  		 			C M Allwood 		.  		 \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9455-8}{10.1007/s11135-011-9455-8}.  		 \url{https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9455-8}  	 	 		\textit{Quality \& Quantity}  		2011. 46  (5)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Bryman ()]{b31}\label{b31} 	 		‘The ethics of management research: an exploratory content analysis’.  		 			Bell Bryman 		.  	 	 		\textit{British Journal of Management}  		2007. 18  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Hackman ()]{b71}\label{b71} 	 		‘The future of job design’.  		 			J R Hackman 		.  	 	 		\textit{Industrial and Organizational Psychology}  		2009. 2  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Ratings ()]{b135}\label{b135} 	 		\textit{The global industry classification standard},  		 			Ratings 		.  		2001. New York: Morgan Stanley Capital International and Standard and Poor's.  	 
\bibitem[Awamleh and Fernandes ()]{b11}\label{b11} 	 		‘The impact of core job dimensions on satisfaction and performance: A test in an international environment’.  		 			R Awamleh 		,  		 			C Fernandes 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Business and Economics Research Journal}  		2007. 6  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Allen et al. ()]{b4}\label{b4} 	 		‘The impact of job characteristics on social and human service workers’.  		 			R I Allen 		,  		 			E G Lambert 		,  		 			S Pasupuleti 		,  		 			T C Tolar 		,  		 			L A Ventur 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Social Work and Society}  		2004. 2  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Behson et al. ()]{b17}\label{b17} 	 		‘The importance of critical psychological states in the job characteristics model: A Meta-analytic and structural equations modeling examination’.  		 			S J Behson 		,  		 			E R Eddy 		,  		 			S J Lorenzet 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Social Psychology}  		2000. 5  (12)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Lin et al. ()]{b107}\label{b107} 	 		‘The influence of job characteristics on job outcomes of the pharmacists in hospital, clinic, and community pharmacies’.  		 			B Y J Lin 		,  		 			Y C Yeh 		,  		 			W H Lin 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Medical Systems}  		2007. 31  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Van Stuyvesant Meijen ()]{b158}\label{b158} 	 		\textit{The influence of organizational culture on organizational commitment at a selected local municipality},  		 			J Van Stuyvesant Meijen 		.  		 \url{https://core.ac.uk/download/145041838.pdf}  		2008.  	 
\bibitem[Birnbaum et al. ()]{b22}\label{b22} 	 		‘The job characteristics model in Hong Kong’.  		 			P H Birnbaum 		,  		 			J L Farh 		,  		 			G Y Y Wong 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Applied Psychology}  		1986. 71  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Batchelor et al. ()]{b15}\label{b15} 	 		‘The Job Characteristics Model: 17. An Extension to Entrepreneurial Motivation’.  		 			J H Batchelor 		,  		 			K A Abston 		,  		 			K B Lawlor 		,  		 			G F Burch 		.  	 	 		\textit{Small Business Institute Journal}  		2014. 10  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Becherer et al. ()]{b16}\label{b16} 	 		‘The job characteristics of industrial salespersons: Relationship to motivation and satisfaction’.  		 			R C Becherer 		,  		 			F W Morgan 		,  		 			L M Richard 		.  	 	 		\textit{The Journal of Marketing}  		1982. 46  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Bakker and Demerouti ()]{b12}\label{b12} 	 		‘The job demands-resources model: State of the art’.  		 			A B Bakker 		,  		 			E Demerouti 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Managerial Psychology}  		2007. 22  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Hackman and Oldham ()]{b70}\label{b70} 	 		\textit{The job diagnosis survey: An instrument for the diagnosis of jobs and the evaluation of job redesign projects},  		 			J R Hackman 		,  		 			G R Oldham 		.  		 No. 4.  		1974.  		 			Yale University, Department of Administrative Science 		 	 	 (Technical Report) 
\bibitem[Smith et al. ()]{b143}\label{b143} 	 		\textit{The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement},  		 			P Smith 		,  		 			L Kendall 		,  		 			C Hulin 		.  		1969. Chicago: Rand McNally.  	 
\bibitem[Breaugh ()]{b29}\label{b29} 	 		‘The measurement of work autonomy’.  		 			J A Breaugh 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Human Relations}  		1985. 1985. 38  (6)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Cammann et al. ()]{b33}\label{b33} 	 		\textit{The Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire},  		 			C Cammann 		,  		 			M Fichman 		,  		 			D Jenkins 		,  		 			J Klesh 		.  		1979. Ann Arbor.  		 			University of Michigan 		 	 	 (Unpublished manuscript) 
\bibitem[Baron and Kenny ()]{b14}\label{b14} 	 		‘The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations’.  		 			R M Baron 		,  		 			D A Kenny 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Personality and Social Psychology}  		1986. 51  (6)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Herzberg ()]{b80}\label{b80} 	 		\textit{The motivation to work},  		 			F Herzberg 		.  		1959. New York: John Wiley \& Sons.  	 
\bibitem[Locke ()]{b108}\label{b108} 	 		‘The nature and causes of job satisfaction’.  		 			E A Locke 		.  	 	 		\textit{Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology},  		 			M D Dunnette 		 (ed.)  		 (Chicago)  		1976. Rand McNally. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Cattaneo and Chapman ()]{b36}\label{b36} 	 		‘The process of empowerment: A model for use in research and practice’.  		 			L B Cattaneo 		,  		 			Chapman 		.  		 \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018854.PubMed}{10.1037/a0018854.PubMed}.  	 	 		\textit{American Psychologist Journal}  		2010. 65  (7)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Asgari et al. ()]{b9}\label{b9} 	 		‘The relationship between organizational characteristics, task characteristics, cultural context, and organizational citizenship behavior’.  		 			A Asgari 		,  		 			A D Silong 		,  		 			A Ahmad 		,  		 			B A Samah 		.  	 	 		\textit{European Journal of Economics, Finance, and Administrative Sciences}  		2008. 13 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Jones ()]{b89}\label{b89} 	 		\textit{The relationship of employee engagement and employee job satisfaction to organizational commitment},  		 			R Jones 		.  		2018.  		 			Walden University 		 	 	 (Ph.D. Thesis) 
\bibitem[Grant ()]{b61}\label{b61} 	 		‘The significance of task significance: Job performance effects, relational mechanisms, and boundary conditions’.  		 			A M Grant 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Personnel Psychology}  		2008. 93  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Morgeson and Humphrey ()]{b116}\label{b116} 	 		\textit{The work design questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work},  		 			F P Morgeson 		,  		 			S E Humphrey 		.  		2006. American Psychology Association. 91 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Adams ()]{b1}\label{b1} 	 		‘Towards an understanding of inequity’.  		 			J S Adams 		.  	 	 		\textit{The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology}  		1963. 67  (5)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Liere-Nether et al. ()]{b106}\label{b106} 	 		‘Towards the User: Extending the Job Characteristics model to measure Job Satisfaction for Enterprise Resources Planning ERP based workplaces -A Qualitative Approach’.  		 			K Liere-Nether 		,  		 			K Vogelsang 		,  		 			U Hoppe 		,  		 			M Steinhuser 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Conference on Information Resources Management},  		2017. CONF-IRM). Association for Information Systems.  	 
\bibitem[Jones et al. ()]{b90}\label{b90} 	 		‘Training, Job Satisfaction, and Work Place Performance in Britain: Evidence from WERS’.  		 			M Jones 		,  		 			R Jones 		,  		 			P Latreille 		,  		 			P Sloane 		.  	 	 		\textit{Labour}  		2009. 2004. 23 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Tukey ()]{b153}\label{b153} 	 		 			J Tukey 		.  		\textit{Exploratory Data Analysis},  		1977. Addison-Wesley.  	 
\bibitem[Di Stefano et al. ()]{b46}\label{b46} 	 		‘Understanding and using factor scores: Considerations for the applied researcher’.  		 			C Di Stefano 		,  		 			M Zhu 		,  		 			D Mindrila 		.  	 	 		\textit{Practical assessment, research, and evaluation},  		2009. 14 p. 20.  	 
\bibitem[Tabachnick and Fidell ()]{b149}\label{b149} 	 		\textit{Using multivariate statistics: Pearson new international edition},  		 			B G Tabachnick 		,  		 			L S Fidell 		.  		2014. Pearson Higher Ed.  	 
\bibitem[Hunter ()]{b83}\label{b83} 	 		\textit{Viability of job characteristics model in a team environment: Prediction of job satisfaction and potential moderators},  		 			P E Hunter 		.  		2006. Denton Texas.  		 			University of North Texas 		 	 	 (Ph. D. thesis) 
\bibitem[Vroom ()]{b160}\label{b160} 	 		 			V H Vroom 		.  		\textit{Work and motivation},  		1964. Wiley.  	 
\bibitem[Warr ()]{b162}\label{b162} 	 		‘Well-being and the workplace’.  		 			P Warr 		.  	 	 		\textit{Well-being: The foundations of the hedonic psychology},  		 			D Kahneman 		,  		 			E Diener 		,  		 			N Schwarz 		 (eds.)  		1999. p. .  	 	 (Russell Sage Foundation) 
\bibitem[Jones ()]{b91}\label{b91} 	 		‘Which is a better predictor of job performance: Job satisfaction or life satisfaction’.  		 			M D Jones 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management}  		2006. 8  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Hall and Jones ()]{b76}\label{b76} 	 		‘Why do some countries produce so much more output per worker than others?’.  		 			R Hall 		,  		 			C Jones 		.  	 	 		\textit{The quarterly Journal of Economics}  		1999. 114  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Kulik et al. ()]{b100}\label{b100} 	 		‘Work design as an approach to personenvironment fit’.  		 			C T Kulik 		,  		 			J R Hackman 		,  		 			G R Oldham 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Vocational Behavior}  		1987. 31 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Young ()]{b167}\label{b167} 	 		‘Young's Model of Organizational Culture’.  		 			A C Young 		.  		 \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojbm.2023.116171}{10.4236/ojbm.2023.116171}.  		 \url{https://doi.org/10.4236/ojbm.2023.116171}  	 	 		\textit{Open Journal of Business and Management}  		2023. 11 p. .  	 
\end{bibitemlist}
 			 		 	 
\end{document}
