Karen Sashaine V.

Yanez

1. Socio-demographic profile of the respondent

Skewness
Missi Media Minimu Maximu Skewn
N Mean SD SE
ng n m m ess

Age 4 28 42.4 41.5 12.1 26.0 65.0 0.341 0.37

0 4
Monthly 4 28 5500 5500 1132 4000 7000 0.000 0.37
Salary 0 .0 .0 .3 4
Job 4 28 78.3 90.0 24.5 10 100 -1.670 0.37
Statisfact 0 4
ion Score
Job 4 28 106. 110. 29.8 50 150 -0.203 0.37
Performa 0 5 0 4
nce Score

The respondents’ average age is 42.4 years, ranging from 26 to 65. The data shows a

mild right skewness (0.341), suggesting that most respondents are in middle adulthood, an age

range associated with persistence and high performance. In the workplace, age is recognized as a

factor that shapes transitions, workplace hierarchies, and career stages (Fineman, 2014). It also

has a divisive effect, creating age-based groups within organizations, where these groups are

often defined by stereotypical perceptions of aging as a diminishing process (Thomas, Hardy,

Cutcher, & Ainsworth, 2014).

The average monthly salary is 5,500, with a standard deviation of 1,132.3. The

distribution of salaries is fairly even (skewness = 0.000), indicating a pay structure that promotes

fairness and equity, which likely contributes to higher employee satisfaction (Gerhart & Rynes,

2003). The average job satisfaction score is 78.3, with a large variability (SD = 24.5) and a

negative skewness of -1.670. Furthermore, job performance scores have a mean of 106.5, with a

standard deviation of 29.8, and a near-normal distribution (skewness = -0.203). According to

study on The Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Job Performance: A Study on Sports

Industry. It was determined that individuals did not differ according to their gender in both their

job satisfaction levels and their job performance. It was determined that there was a significant

difference in the “External Satisfaction” sub-dimension of the job satisfaction scale according to

marital status, and there was a statistical difference in the “Internal Satisfaction” and “External

Satisfaction” sub-dimensions of the job satisfaction scale according to the working hours of the

participants in the workplace. (Ertekin, 2021)

Civil Status Status of Employee Rank Educational Attainment

N 40 40 40 40
Missing 28 28 28 28
Mean 5.88 4.60 5.90 5.72
Median 6.00 4.00 6.00 6.00
Standard deviation 0.757 0.810 0.709 0.599
Minimum 5 4 4 4
Maximum 8 6 7 6

In this study, most respondents are married, comprising 50% of the sample, while 32.5%

are single, 15% are separated, and a small proportion (2.5%) are divorced. Regarding

employment status, 60% of the participants are permanent employees, followed by 20%

probationary and 20% casual workers, indicating that most of the workforce enjoys job stability

with a smaller shareholding of temporary roles. Concerning job rank, 80% of respondents are

rank-and-file employees, while 10% occupy administrative and supervisory positions each.

Educational attainment among the respondents is high: 80% possess a college degree, 12.5%

have completed a doctorate, and 7.5% hold a master’s degree. This reflects a highly educated

workforce, which often correlates with greater productivity and innovation, as highlighted by

Barrett & O’Connell (2001).

 Further studies indicate a positive significant relationship between marital status and job

performance. According to Hafeez et al. (2020), this information can be valuable for HR

managers when considering how marital status influences job activity and satisfaction. Married

employees may demonstrate higher engagement and performance in their roles.

Civil Status Counts % of Total Cumulative %

Single 13 32.5% 32.5%

Married 20 50.0% 82.5%

Separated 6 15.0% 97.5%

Divorced 1 2.5% 100.0%

The data indicates that most respondents are married (50%), with single individuals

(32.5%) coming next, followed by those who are separated (15%) and a small proportion who

are divorced (2.5%). In addition, there is a study that shows on work life balance among

employees in banking industry of Pakistan. It was hypothesized that there will be a significant

difference between married and unmarried bankers on job satisfaction, organizational

commitment and work life balance. Results revealed significant difference between married and

unmarried bankers on job satisfaction and work life balance, whereas no significant difference

between married and unmarried participants on organizational commitment. (Atif, 2018)

Status of Employee Counts % of Total Cumulative %

 Permanent 24 60.0% 60.0%
Probationary 8 20.0% 80.0%
Casual 8 20.0% 100.0%

The data reveals that most respondents are permanent employees (60%), with 20% in

probationary roles and another 20% in casual positions. This suggests a largely stable workforce,

with many workers in secure, long-term positions. The inclusion of probationary and casual

workers reflects a flexible staffing approach, allowing organizations to adjust their workforce as

needed. Studies show that permanent employment tends to be linked with higher job satisfaction,

greater stability, and lower turnover rates (Hom et al., 2017). In contrast, employees in

probationary and casual roles may face more uncertainty regarding job security, which can affect

their engagement and motivation (De Cuyper et al., 2011).

Frequencies of Rank
Rank Counts % of Total Cumulative %

Admin 4 10.0% 10.0%

Rank and File 32 80.0% 90.0%
Supervisor 4 10.0% 100.0%

The data shows that 80% of respondents are in rank-and-file positions, with smaller

percentages in administrative (10%) and supervisory roles (10%). This suggests that the majority

of the workforce is focused on operational tasks, which are vital to the organization’s daily

functions. The limited number of employees in higher-level roles likely reflects the

organization’s structure, where operational staff form the backbone of the workforce. Research

highlights that rank-and-file employees are key to an organization’s success, as they drive much

of its day-to-day operations (Harrison & Rainer, 2022).

 Educational Attainment Counts % of Total Cumulative %

Masters 3 7.5% 7.5%

Doctorate 5 12.5% 20.0%
College 32 80.0% 100.0%

The above data shows that most respondents (80%) have a college degree, with fewer

holding a master's (7.5%) or doctorate (12.5%). This suggests that the workforce is mainly

composed of individuals with a bachelor's degree, while advanced degrees are less common.

This trend may reflect the qualifications required for the organization's positions and the

industry's demand for skilled workers.

Recent research indicates that a well-educated workforce can drive innovation and

enhance organizational performance, though the value of higher education depends on the

industry and job specifics (Nabi, 2021).

2. Test on the level of HRM practices in terms of recruitment, selection, placement, and
performance management.

Recruitment Selection Placement Performance Management

N 40 40 40 40
Missing 28 28 28 28
 Mean 7.35 11.0 15.6 19.6
Median 7.50 11.0 15.5 19.0
Standard deviation 0.864 1.74 1.50 1.48
Minimum 6 9 14 18
Maximum 9 14 18 22

The above table shows the levels of four HRM practices in terms of Recruitment,

Selection, Placement, and Performance Management based on their mean scores and standard

deviations, reflecting their implementation and consistency within the sample.

Recruitment (M = 7.35, SD = 0.864) is moderately practiced with a narrow score range,

indicating that it is important but not as consistently applied as other practices. Selection (M =

11.0, SD = 1.74) exhibits more variability, suggesting inconsistent application across

organizations. Placement (M = 15.6, SD = 1.50) is the most consistently implemented practice,

with scores tightly clustered, while Performance Management (M = 19.6, SD = 1.48) is the most

emphasized HRM function, though with slight variability in its application across organizations.

Recruitment and selection in the next table are fundamental to HRM and play a critical

role in driving organizational success. When these processes are well-designed, they help

organizations attract and keep the right people (Breaugh & Starke, 2000). Studies have shown

that companies with strong recruitment strategies tend to have higher job satisfaction and lower

turnover rates, making them more successful in the long run (Ployhart, 2006).

Recruitment Counts % of Total Cumulative %

moderately practiced 8 20.0% 20.0%

highly practiced 12 30.0% 50.0%

 extremely practiced 18 45.0% 95.0%

slightly practiced 2 5.0% 100.0%

Selection Counts % of Total Cumulative %

highly practiced 13 32.5% 32.5%

slightly practiced 4 10.0% 42.5%
extremely practiced 8 20.0% 62.5%
not at all practiced 1 2.5% 65.0%
moderately practiced 13 32.5% 97.5%
moderately parcticed 1 2.5% 100.0%

The table in the next page on placement practices are key to ensuring that

employees are placed in roles that suit their skills and meet the organization’s needs.

When done effectively, placement can boost both employee performance and satisfaction

(Kraimer, Wayne, & Jaworski, 2011). When employees are matched with roles that align

with their strengths and career aspirations, they are more likely to feel engaged and

committed to the organization (Saks & Ashforth, 2000).

Placement Counts % of Total Cumulative %

moderately practiced 15 37.5% 37.5%

highly practiced 5 12.5% 50.0%

 slightly practiced 4 10.0% 60.0%

extremely practiced 12 30.0% 90.0%

not at all practiced 4 10.0% 100.0%

The table below shows Performance management plays a crucial role in ensuring that

individual performance aligns with the broader goals of the organization. When done well, it not

only supports employee development but also boosts motivation and overall performance

(Pulakos, 2009). However, inconsistent performance management practices can lead to

frustration and disengagement among employees (Aguinis, 2009). Research indicates that

organizations with strong, well-implemented performance management systems tend to see

higher levels of employee performance and engagement (Schneider & Bateman, 2008).

Performance Management Counts % of Total Cumulative %

highly practiced 14 35.0% 35.0%

not at all practiced 7 17.5% 52.5%
moderately practiced 7 17.5% 70.0%
extremely practiced 6 15.0% 85.0%
slightly practiced 6 15.0% 100.0%
[Link] on the level of motivation of the respondents in terms of achievement, work itself,
recognition and salary

Achievement Work Itself Recognition Salary

N 40 40 40 40
Missing 28 28 28 28
Mean 7.60 12.1 7.83 7.38
Median 7.00 12.0 8.00 7.00
Standard deviation 1.46 1.07 1.01 1.00
Minimum 6 11 6 6
Maximum 10 14 9 9

Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory (1959) emphasizes that intrinsic motivators, such as

achievement, recognition, and the work itself, play a more significant role in job satisfaction and

motivation than extrinsic factors like salary. This aligns with the study’s findings, where

employees reported higher motivation from intrinsic factors, particularly the nature of their work

and personal achievements, with recognition also playing a meaningful role.

Similarly, Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) suggests that intrinsic

motivation, driven by autonomy, mastery, and relatedness, fosters greater job satisfaction and

long-term engagement. The study’s high motivation levels for work itself and achievement

reflect this theory, suggesting that employees find purpose and fulfillment in their roles,

consistent with the principles of self-determination.

While salary is undeniably important, research by Kohn (1993) and Deci (1971) indicates

that its motivational impact diminishes once basic financial needs are met. The study supports

this, showing that salary was a weaker motivator compared to intrinsic factors like achievement
and work itself, reinforcing the idea that extrinsic rewards have a limited effect on long-term

motivation.

Achievement Counts % of Total Cumulative %

extremely motivated 13 32.5% 32.5%

highly motivated 8 20.0% 52.5%
moderately motivated 7 17.5% 70.0%
slightly motivated 6 15.0% 85.0%
highly motivated 6 15.0% 100.0%

The Achievement table above scores shows that employees are generally moderately to

highly motivated, with 52.5% reporting being extremely or highly motivated. However, a small

percentage (15%) felt less motivated, indicating mixed levels of satisfaction from personal

accomplishments.

Work Itself Counts % of Total Cumulative %

moderately motivated 15 37.5% 37.5%

extremely motivated 10 25.0% 62.5%
highly motivated 10 25.0% 87.5%
slightly motivated 5 12.5% 100.0%

Work itself had the highest mean score (12.1) as we can glean, with most employees

reporting moderate to extreme motivation. This suggests that employees find engaging,

meaningful work to be a key motivator, with only a small percentage feeling less motivated.

Recognition Counts % of Total Cumulative %

slightly motivated 6 15.0% 15.0%

extremely motivated 6 15.0% 30.0%
 moderately motivated 17 42.5% 72.5%
highly motivated 11 27.5% 100.0%

While the recognition table shows a mean of 7.83, reflecting that while recognition is a

strong motivator for most, with 42.5% moderately motivated and 27.5% highly motivated, some

employees (15%) felt overlooked.

Salary Counts % of Total Cumulative %

extremely motivated 8 20.0% 20.0%

moderately motivated 16 40.0% 60.0%
highly motivated 9 22.5% 82.5%
slightly motivated 7 17.5% 100.0%

On the other hand, salary table showed with the lowest mean score of 7.38, is a less

significant motivator. While it remains important, its influence diminishes once basic financial

needs are met, as seen by the 40% of employees reporting moderate motivation from salary.

These findings align with Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory (1959), which highlights the

importance of intrinsic motivators like achievement, work itself, and recognition. Deci and

Ryan’s Self-Determination Theory (2000) supports this, emphasizing the role of autonomy,

competence, and relatedness in fostering intrinsic motivation.

Salary, while still important, has less long-term motivational impact. Research by Kohn

(1993) and Baard et al. (2023) confirms that once basic financial needs are met, intrinsic factors

become more influential in driving engagement and job satisfaction. Therefore, organizations

should focus on creating meaningful work and offering recognition, while ensuring salary

remains competitive but not the primary driver of motivation.

4. The extent of job satisfaction of the employees
N Missing Mean SD Minimum Maximum

Job Statisfaction Score 40 28 78.3 24.5 10 100

As shown in the table, the mean job satisfaction score was 78.3 (SD = 24.5), indicating a

moderately high level of job satisfaction on average. The scores ranged from 10 to 100,

reflecting considerable variability in satisfaction levels, with some employees reporting very low

satisfaction and others reporting high satisfaction. The standard deviation of 24.5 further

suggests significant diversity in employee experiences, underscoring the need for organizations

to address both the positive and negative factors influencing satisfaction (Harter, Schmidt, &

Hayes, 2023).

Recent research indicates that job satisfaction is a dynamic construct shaped by factors

such as organizational culture, management practices, and work-life balance (Smith et al., 2022).

Tannenbaum and Jassawalla (2023) noted that satisfaction levels vary across industries, with

employees in some sectors experiencing dissatisfaction due to factors like job insecurity. Patel

and Kumar (2023) found similar satisfaction scores (78.1) in the tech industry, suggesting that

employees in dynamic industries report moderate satisfaction levels. Singh and Rana (2023)

emphasized the importance of managerial support and career development opportunities in

enhancing job satisfaction, though variability in satisfaction indicates that organizational

practices may not be equally effective for all employees. These findings highlight the need for

tailored strategies to address individual differences and improve satisfaction across diverse

employee groups.

5. The extent of the job Performance

 N Missing Mean Median SD Minimum Maximum

Job Performance 40 28 107 110 29.8 50 150

Score

Job performance is a key factor influencing organizational outcomes such as productivity

and employee retention. As shown in the table, the mean job performance score was 107 (SD =

29.8), with scores ranging from 50 to 150, indicating moderate performance and significant

variation among employees. The median score of 110 suggests that most employees scored near

this value.

Harter, Schmidt, and Hayes (2023) note that factors such as motivation, training, and

organizational support influence job performance. Similarly, Smith et al. (2022) emphasize that

performance levels vary based on industry, organizational culture, and available resources. Patel

and Kumar (2023) found a similar mean score of 108 in the tech industry, highlighting that

dynamic work environments contribute to varying performance levels. Singh and Rana (2023)

further suggest that regular feedback and career development opportunities improve

performance. These findings suggest the need for organizations to address individual factors that

affect job performance and adopt strategies to enhance employee outcomes.

6. Test on the relationship between socio-demographic

profile and HRM Practices
 Statu Educa Mont Perfor
s of Ran tional hly Recrui Selec Place mance
Age
Empl k Attain Salar tment tion ment Manag
oyee ment y ement

Age Spear —
man's
rho
df —
p- —
value

Status Spear 0. —
of man's 00
Emplo rho 1
yee
df 38 —
p- 0. —
value 99
6

Rank Spear 0. 0.22 —

man's 12 1
rho 6
df 38 38 —
p- 0. 0.17 —
value 43 1
9

Educat Spear - 0.16 0. —

ional man's 0. 6 08
Attain rho 21 3
ment 0
df 38 38 38 —
p- 0. 0.30 0. —
value 19 7 60
4 9

Month Spear 0. 0.08 - - —

ly man's 15 8 0. 0.10
Salary rho 9 10 8
0
df 38 38 38 38 —
p- 0. 0.58 0. 0.50 —
value 32 8 53 6
7 9

Recrui Spear 0. - 0. - - —
tment man's 19 0.06 18 0.01 0.0
rho 8 4 1 1 31
df 38 38 38 38 38 —
p- 0. 0.69 0. 0.94 0.8 —
value 22 4 26 7 49
1 3
 Selecti Spear - - 0. - 0.2 0.083 —
on man's 0. 0.00 29 0.02 57
rho 00 9 0 6
5
df 38 38 38 38 38 38 —
p- 0. 0.95 0. 0.87 0.1 0.611 —
value 97 6 07 4 09
7 0

Place Spear 0. - - - 0.1 0.035 0.0 —

ment man's 27 0.00 0. 0.07 38 93
rho 7 7 11 3
4
df 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 —
p- 0. 0.96 0. 0.65 0.3 0.832 0.5 —
value 08 5 48 2 97 67
4 4

Perfor Spear - 0.03 - 0.05 0.1 - 0.0 0.04 —

mance man's 0. 7 0. 8 14 0.026 63 2
Manag rho 03 02
ement 3 7

df 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 —

p- 0. 0.82 0. 0.72 0.4 0.872 0.7 0.79 —

value 83 0 86 0 84 01 6
8 6

The above table reveals that the correlations between socio-demographic factors and

HRM practices are generally weak, with all Spearman's rho values being low. The p-values are

all above 0.05, indicating that there are no significant relationships between these variables in

this sample. For instance, the correlation between age and HRM practices is 0.996, suggesting

age has no impact on how HRM practices are implemented. Similarly, other factors such as

educational attainment, salary, and rank show weak or no significant associations with HRM

practices, with p-values ranging from 0.094 to 0.977.

The correlation between rank and selection is the highest (0.290), but it is still not

statistically significant (p = 0.070). This suggests a slight, but weak, trend where higher-ranking

employees may experience selection practices differently, though the relationship is not strong

enough to be considered meaningful.

 As shown on the table in the next page shows no significant relationship between HRM

practices (recruitment, selection, placement, performance management) and job performance

scores, as all p-values are greater than 0.05. The Spearman's rho values are low, suggesting that

changes in HRM practices do not directly impact job performance in this sample. This finding

aligns with recent research highlighting the complexity of employee performance. It suggests

that factors like individual differences, job context, and organizational culture can play a

significant role in determining performance, making it challenging for HRM practices alone to

drive performance outcomes (Devaro, 2022).

7. Test on Significant Relationship between HRM Practices and Job

Satisfaction level of Employees
Correlation Matrix
Performanc
Job
Recruitme Selecti Placeme e
Performanc
nt on nt Managemen
e Score
t

Recruitment Spearman —
's rho
df —
p-value —

Selection Spearman 0.083 —

's rho
df 38 —
p-value 0.611 —

Placement Spearman 0.035 0.093 —

's rho
df 38 38 —
p-value 0.832 0.567 —

Performance Spearman -0.026 0.063 0.042 —

Managemen 's rho
t
df 38 38 38 —
p-value 0.872 0.701 0.796 —

Job Spearman -0.164 -0.255 -0.210 -0.184 —

Performance 's rho
Score
df 38 38 38 38 —
 p-value 0.311 0.112 0.193 0.255 —

8. Test on Significant relationship between job satisfaction and job performance of the
employees

Job Statisfaction Score Job Performance Score

Job Statisfaction Score Pearson's r —

df —
p-value —
N —

Job Performance Score Pearson's r 0.233 —

df 38 —

p-value 0.148 —

N 40 —

The above data shows a weak positive relationship between job satisfaction and job

performance (Pearson’s r = 0.233), but the p-value of 0.148 suggests that this connection is not

strong enough to be considered statistically significant. In other words, while there's a slight

correlation between the two, it isn't strong enough to conclude that higher job satisfaction leads

to better performance. Previous research has found that the link between job satisfaction and

performance is complex and shaped by other factors, such as individual traits and the work

environment (Judge et al., 2001). Additionally, studies suggest that the impact of job satisfaction

on performance can vary depending on the specific industry or role (Wright & Cropanzano,

2000).
9. Test of significant difference in job performance when grouped according to educational
attainment

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p

Educational Attainment 4243 2 2122 2.58 0.090

Residuals 30467 37 823

The above finding is in line with previous studies that have raised doubts about the direct

connection between education and job performance. Although we often think of education as a

sign of job competence, other factors, like work experience, personality, and company culture,

often have a much stronger influence on how well someone performs at work.

The above table has a p-value of 0.090, meaning we cannot reject the null hypothesis. In

simpler terms, the data doesn't show a strong enough link between educational attainment and

job performance. While the F-value of 2.58 does suggest some differences between the groups,

they aren’t large enough to point to a clear or significant relationship.

10. Test of significant difference in the level of achievement in terms of Salary

Kruskal-Wallis
χ² df p

Achievement 0.279 3 0.964

Restatement of Null Hypothesis:

H01: There is no significant relationship between the socio-demographic profile of the

respondents and the HRM practices.

H02: There is no significant relationship between HRM practices and the job satisfaction level of
employees.

H03: There is no significant relationship between job satisfaction of employees.

H04: There is no significant difference in job performance when grouped according to their
educational attainment.

H05: There is no significant difference in the level of achievement in terms of salary as

influenced by the socio-demographic profile of the respondents.