SCHOOL OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION,

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT (MBA)

Determinants Of Labor Productivity And The Mediating Role Of Labor Productivity On

Employee Job Satisfaction in building constraction The Case Of Project Located Akaki
Kality Sub City, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia.

Thesis Submitted To Addis Ababa Science and Technology University, College Of Natural and
Social Science, In Partial Fulfillment Of Masters of Business Administration in construction
mangement .

By: - Samuker Hussen

Advisor: -Afework Getachew,(PhD)

july-23-2021
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
ii
iii
 Acknowledgment

First and foremost, my unreserved gratitude goes to Almighty God for his gracious provision of
knowledge, wisdom, inspiration and diligence required for the successful completion of this paper
and for bringing my dreams into reality.
First, I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation to my advisor Afework G. Kassa (PhD) whose
valuable comments and counsel guided the entire study to reach its current state. Thank you for being
understanding and supportive. Special thanks go to all respondents who have sacrificed their valuable
time to provide me with the vital information needed to complete the study. I thank them all for their
patience and understanding. Special thanks also go to projects managers and site engineers who help
me to acquire the labors response from their busy schedule.
Finally, my utmost gratitude goes to my family, Thank you very much to your kind support in every
aspect of this study and may God bless you. Dear friends thank you very much for being there
whenever I needed your support and input.

iv
 Table of Contents
Abstract .............................................................................................................................................................. xii

CHAPTER ONE ....................................................................................................................................................... 1

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY ........................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................................................ 3

1.3 Research Questions ..................................................................................................................................... 5

1.4. Objective of the Study ............................................................................................................................... 6

1.4.1 General objective ................................................................................................................................. 6

1.4.2 Specific objectives ............................................................................................................................... 6

1.5 Significance of the study ............................................................................................................................. 6

1.6 scope of the study........................................................................................................................................ 7

1.7. Organization of the Thesis ......................................................................................................................... 8

CHAPTER TWO ...................................................................................................................................................... 9

LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................................................ 9

2.1 Theoretical Review ..................................................................................................................................... 9

2.1.1 Determinant of Labor Productivity ...................................................................................................... 9

2.1.2 Labor Productivity ............................................................................................................................. 15

2.1.3. Productivity Measurement ................................................................................................................ 16

2.2 Empirical Review...................................................................................................................................... 17

2.2.1 Labor productivity.............................................................................................................................. 17

2.2.2 Determinant of Labor productivity .................................................................................................... 19

2.2.3 Employee job satisfaction .................................................................................................................. 20

2.3 Conceptual Frame work ............................................................................................................................ 20

CHAPTER THREE.................................................................................................................................................. 23

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................... 23

v
 3.1 Research Design........................................................................................................................................ 23

3.2 Research Approach ................................................................................................................................... 24

3.3 Population ................................................................................................................................................. 24

3.4 Sample Method ......................................................................................................................................... 24

3.4.1 Sample Size ........................................................................................................................................ 24

3.4.2 Sampling Technique .......................................................................................................................... 25

3.4.3Sources of data`................................................................................................................................... 26

3.5 Data Collection instrument ....................................................................................................................... 26

3.5.1 Methods of Data Collection ............................................................................................................... 27

3.5.2 Variable Measurement ....................................................................................................................... 27

3.6 Method of Data Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 28

3.7 Validity Test and Reliability ..................................................................................................................... 28

3.8 Ethical Considerations .............................................................................................................................. 30

3.9 Model specification ................................................................................................................................... 30

CHAPTER FOUR ................................................................................................................................................... 31

DATA ANALYSIS, AND PRESENTATION .............................................................................................................. 31

4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 31

4.2 Survey Response Rate............................................................................................................................... 31

4.3 Demographic Profile of Respondents ....................................................................................................... 32

4.4. Descriptive Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 34

4.5 Determinant of productivity ...................................................................................................................... 35

4.5.1 Design and specification related factors with respect to level of effect ............................................. 35

4.5.2 Supervision related factors with respect to level of effect ................................................................. 36

4.5.3 Labor related factors with respect to level of effect ........................................................................... 36

4.5.4 Client related factors with respect to level of effect........................................................................... 37

vi
 4.5.5 Natural / environmental factors with respect to level of effect .......................................................... 38

4.5.6 Safety factors with respect to level of effect ...................................................................................... 39

4.5.7 Material/ Equipment factors with respect to level of effect ............................................................... 40

4.5.8 Organization (contractor) and Management related factors with respect to level of effect ............... 40

4.6 Employee job satisfaction ......................................................................................................................... 41

4.7 Labor productivity measurement .............................................................................................................. 42

4.4.11 Ranked Labor productivity Analysis ............................................................................................... 43

4.8 Relationships between determinant of labor productivity and job satisfaction ........................................ 44

4.7 The Relationship of Demographic Variables with employee job satisfaction .......................................... 46

4.9 Relationship between determinant of labor productivity frequency of occurrence and labor productivity
Measurement ................................................................................................................................................... 47

4.10 Regression Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 49

4.10.1 Tests of Assumptions of Regression Analysis ..................................................................................... 49

4.11. Multiple Regressions .............................................................................................................................. 53

4.11.1 Effect of determinant of labor productivity on Employee job satisfaction ...................................... 53

4.11.2 Effects of determinant of labor productivity on labor productivity ................................................. 55

4.11.3 Effects of labor productivity on Employee job satisfaction ............................................................. 57

4.11.4 Mediating effective of labor productivity on the relationship between determinant of labor
productivity and job satisfaction ................................................................................................................. 58

4.12 Hypothesis Testing.................................................................................................................................. 60

CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................... 62

5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 62

5.2 Summary of Findings ................................................................................................................................ 62

5.3 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 65

5.4 Recommendation ...................................................................................................................................... 67

5.5 Future research .......................................................................................................................................... 68

vii
References .......................................................................................................................................................... 69

Questionnaire ..................................................................................................................................................... 72

Annex -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------73

viii
 List of Figures
Figure 1 conceptual framework .......................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 3 Histogram, Normality test .................................................................................................................... 51
Figure 4 Normality P-P plot ................................................................................................................................ 52
Figure 5 Scatter plot as test of linearity .............................................................................................................. 52

ix
 List of Tables

Table 4. 1 Reliability Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 29

Table 4. 2 Demographic of respondent .............................................................................................................. 32
Table 4. 3 Design and specification related factors level of effects ................................................................... 35
Table 4. 4 Supervision related factors level of effects ....................................................................................... 36
Table 4. 5 Labor related factors with respect to level of effect .......................................................................... 37
Table 4. 6 Client related factors with respect to level of effect ......................................................................... 38
Table 4. 7 Natural/ environment factors level of effects .................................................................................... 39
Table 4. 8 Safety factors level of effects ............................................................................................................ 39
Table 4. 9 material/ equipment factors level of effects ...................................................................................... 40
Table 4. 10 Organization material/ equipment factors level of effects .............................................................. 41
Table 4. 11 Employee job satisfaction survey ................................................................................................... 42
Table 4. 12 Labor productivity measurement .................................................................................................... 42
Table 4.13 Multicollinearity diagnosis ............................................................................................................... 50
Table 4. 14 R square study determinant of labor productivity on employee job satisfaction ............................ 53
Table 4. 15 ANOVA of determinant of labor productivity on employee job satisfaction ................................. 53
Table 4. 16 Regression Coefficients of determinant of labor productivity on employee job satisfaction ......... 54
Table 4. 17 R square study determinant of labor productivity on labor productivity ........................................ 55
Table 4. 18 ANOVA of determinant of labor productivity on labor productivity ............................................. 56
Table 4. 19 Regression Coefficients of determinant of labor productivity on labor productivity ..................... 56
Table 4. 20 R square of labor productivity on Employee job satisfaction ......................................................... 57
Table 4. 21 ANOVA of labor productivity on Employee job satisfaction ......................................................... 57
Table 4.22 Regression Coefficients of labor productivity on Employee job satisfaction ................................... 57
Table 4. 23 Standardized path coefficients of the model ................................................................................... 59

x
 List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

MoWUD ............................................ Ministry of Works and Urban Development

UNC................................................... United Nations Committee on Housing, Building, and Planning

OECD................................................ Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

SPSS .................................................. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

LP ...................................................... Labor productivity

DLP ................................................... Determinant of labor productivity

EJS .................................................... Employee job satisfaction

VIF .................................................... Variable inflation factors

xi
 Abstract
 The main objective of this study is to investigate the mediating effect of labor productivity on the
relationship between determinant of labor productivity and employee job satisfaction of Building
Construction project located at Akaki Kality Sub City, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia. The study had used
both primary and secondary data. The primary data is collected by a means of questionnaire and
secondary date through different source like books, reports, Journals and different articles
from the internet. It is collected from110 respondents from client, consultant and
contractor employees. The data collected were analyzed using descriptive statistics,
correlation, regression analysis and Andrew F. Hayes process model. There are different
determinants of labor productivity some of which are design and specification related
factors, supervision related factors, labor related factors, client related factors, natural
related factors, safety related factors, material related factors and organization and
management related factors. Labor productivity is mediator variable between determinant
of labor productivity and employee job satisfaction. The results indicated that determinant
of labor productivity and employee job satisfaction have a positive and significant
relationship. There is also positive and significant relationship between determinant of
labor productivity and labor productivity. There is also positive relationship between
labor productivity and employee job satisfaction. Finally the researcher recommends that
,This study focused only the relationship between factors affecting labor productivity,
Employee Job Satisfaction and labor productivity in bulding construction .

Key Words: labor productivity, employee job Satisfaction, determinant of labor productivity,

xii
 CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

The construction industry is the tool through which a society achieves its goals of urban and rural
development (Enshassi et al.2006). It has a great effect on the economy of all countries
(Leibing2001).

It is one of the sectors that provide important ingredients for the development of an economy.
However, it is becoming more complex because of the sophistications of the construction process
itself and the large number of parties involved in the construction process, i.e. clients, users,
designers, regulators, contractors, sup-pliers, subcontractors, and consultants (Enshassi et al. 2006).
Cost, time, and quality have their proven importance as the prime measures for project success.
The construction industry remains one of the few most labor intensive industries in the developing
countries. It is therefore very important to understand the concept of construction labor productivity.

A project may not be regarded as a successful endeavor until it satisfies the cost, time, and quality
limitations applied to it. However, it is not uncommon to see a construction project failing to achieve
its goal within the specified cost, time, and quality (Fetene Nega 2008).

The construction sector in Ethiopia, like other developing countries has made a significant
contribution to the growth of the economy according to Ministry of Works and Urban Development
(MoWUD, 2006) report that, public construction projects consume an average annual rate of nearly
60% of the government’s capital budget. However, construction sector in Ethiopia face many
problems to finish successfully.

Productivity denotes the efficiency with which the various inputs are converted into goods and
services. Productivity is said to be high when more output is delivered with same input or same
output is obtained with less input (a. v. Thomas and j. Sudhakumar, 2014)

Productivity is measured concerning outcome achieved against per unit time. It is an established
phenomenon that the construction works consumes a significant amount of labor resource. Hence, the

1
performance of labor has a direct effect on the construction cost. Hence, productivity in construction
is often measured regarding labor productivity (a. v. Thomas and j. Sudhakumar, 2014).

Achieving better labor productivity requires detailed studies of the actual labor cost. Various labors
have different variables affecting their productivity levels. For every project, productivity, cost,
quality, and time have been the main concern. Better productivity can be achieved if project
management includes the skills of education and training, the work method, personal health,
motivational factors, the type of tools, machines, required equipment and materials, personal skills,
the workload to be executed, expected work quality, work location, the type of work to be done, and
supervisory personnel (Rowlinson and Proctor, 1999).

In the construction industry, many external and internal factors are never constant and are difficult to
anticipate. This factor leads to a continuous variation in labor productivity.

It is necessary to make sure that a reduction in productivity does not affect the plan and schedule of
the work and does not cause delays. The consequences of these delays could result in serious many
losses. Further, considerable cost can be saved if productivity is improved because the same work can
be done with less manpower, thus reducing overall labor cost (Thomas, 1991).

Increased productivity in the construction industry benefits the two Contracting parties; the Client
and the Contractor of the project. From the Client’s perspective, increased productivity lowers costs,
shortens construction schedules and achieves better returns on investments. From the contractor’s
perspective, increased productivity leads to a more satisfied customer, leads to faster turnover and
increased profits.

According to Mcsahene and Glinow (2010), job satisfactions best view collection of attitudes about
different aspects of the job and work context. They defined as an appraisal of perceived job
characteristics, work environment, and emotional experiences at work. Similarly, RobinsandJudge
(2013) termed job satisfactions a positive feeling about his or her job whereas a person with a low
level holds negative feelings.

Job satisfaction can be considered as one of the main factors when it comes to efficiency and
effectiveness of business organizations. In fact, the new managerial paradigm, which insists that
employees should be treated and considered primarily as human beings that have their own wants,

2
needs, personal desires, is a very good indicator for the importance of job satisfaction in
contemporary organizations or companies. When analyzing job satisfaction, the logic that a satisfied
employee is a happy employee and a happy employee is a successful employee. Locke cited in
Sempane et al., (2002) defines job satisfaction as "a pleasurable or a positive emotional state resulting
from the appraisal of one's job or job experience.

Therefore, this study investigated the relationship between determinant of labor productivity,
employee job satisfaction and labor productivity on building construction in the case of project
located at Akaki Kality Sub City, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia. The study illustrated the competing factors
of labor productivity (design and specification related, supervision related, labor related, client
related, nature related, safety related, material related, organization and management related)
practices in the building construction industry and its role in labor productivity (performance) and to
provide essential information about labor productivity to the project management teams to enable the
project’s success ,Because it is certainly based in the construction environment practitioners of the
Ethiopian construction industry had take account of the above listed factors at an early stage in order
to minimize the time and cost overrun Besides the investigated factors can serve as a checklist
(specification) for construction practitioners to give attention to enhance the productivity of labors so
as to make the project to be completed as per the plan.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

In the construction industry productivity has a great impact. Labor productivity constitutes a
significant part of production input for construction projects. In most countries, experience and
literature have revealed that construction labor costs account for 33%- 50% of the entire project cost
(language Hanna et al., 2005), Because labor is more variable and unpredictable than other project-
cost components, it becomes necessary to understand the effects of different factors on labor
productivity. Therefore, construction labor productivity is a critical importance to the profitability of
most construction projects.
Many researchers have identified these problems as factors that affect the productivity of construction
and will subsequently affect the performance of a company and the overall economy of the country.
The construction industry is also the highest recipient of the government budget in terms of

3
government development programmers’. Hence a little improvement in this sector will undoubtedly
generate a lot of benefit. (Cox et al, 1998, cited in Madi, 2003)

Efforts to produce better performance and increasing productivity in construction requires an

understanding of the various indicators of productivity as a path to understanding the performance of
the project (Atkinson et al. 1997). Besides that, efforts to improve productivity in construction
industry can essentially be done by reducing project cost overrun and also project completion delay
(Kaming et al.1998). Identification and evaluation of determinant of labor construction productivity
have become a critical issue facing project managers for a long time in order to increase productivity
in construction (Motwani et al. 1995).

Understanding critical determinant of productivity of both positive and negative can be used to
prepare a strategy to reduce inefficiencies and to improve the effectiveness of project performance.

Evans (1997) views job satisfaction as a state of mind encompassing all those feelings determined by
the extent to which the individual perceives his/her job-related needs to be meeting. In similar vein,
Schmidt (2007) stated that job satisfaction refers to the degree of understanding the attractiveness of a
given job to an individual. On top of this, it is an affective reaction to a job that results from the
person’s comparison of the actual outcomes with those that are desired, anticipated or deserved
(Okpara, 2006). Job satisfaction is the attitudes and feelings people have about their work. Positive
and favorable attitudes towards the job indicate job satisfaction. Negative and unfavorable attitudes
towards the job indicate job dissatisfaction (Armstrong, 2006).

The Ethiopian construction industry suffers from factor affacting productivity ,which are indicators of
productivity problems. Maintaining employee job satisfaction by understanding their basic need and
carrying out their expected output is one of a key factor to improve labor productivity.
In an effort to try and advance this situation, the study carried out assessment of determinant of labor
productivity. Knowing the determinant of Labor Productivity and considering employee job
satisfaction can be used in improving labor productivity in construction sites and determines the
required resources to execute the activities of the projects and required duration which is in
conformity with specifications contracted time of the project.

Employees are one of the most important determinants and leading factors that determine the success
of an organization in a competitive environment. (Ahmed Shah et al; 2011). Employee’s job

4
satisfaction has a positive influence on labor productivity; employees who are dissatisfied with their
job by the cause of different factors may show different favorable behaviors and could not be
productivity on their job.

There are plentiful researches done in the field of investigating determinant of labor productivity on
building construction across the world, like Thomas, (1991). But the researchers did not give
attention to the relationship between determinant of labor productivity, Employee Job Satisfaction
and labor productivity on building construction. However, these three construction determinant of
labor productivity, employee job satisfaction and improving labor productivity are interrelated.

Therefore, this study initiated to fill the research gap; in addition to that there is no research study
specific to project located Akaki Kality Sub City, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia, and the construction
industry related to this topic.

1.3 Research Questions

This research aim is to address the following research questions:
 What is the effect of determinant of labor productivity on employee job satisfaction
 What is the effect of determinant of labor productivity on labor productivity
 What is the effect of labor productivity on employee job satisfaction
 What is the mediating effect of labor productivity on the relationship between determinant
of labor productivity and employee job satisfaction

5
1.4. Objective of the Study

1.4.1 General objective

The general objective of this study is dedicated to investigate the mediating effect of labor
productivity on the relationship between determinant of labor productivity and employee job
satisfaction of Building Construction project located Akaki Kality Sub City, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia.

1.4.2 Specific objectives

Specific objectives seek to examine; -

 To investigate the effect of determinant of labor productivity on employee job satisfaction

 To investigate the effect of determinant of labor productivity on labor productivity
 To investigate the effect of labor productivity on employee job satisfaction
 To investigate the mediating effect of labor productivity on the relationship between
determinant of labor productivity and Employee job satisfaction

1.5 Significance of the study

The study assesses the relationship between determinant of labor productivity, Employee Job
Satisfaction and labor productivity on building construction.

 The study helps to identify and examine the labor productivity performance of building
construction.
 The investigation gives a new dimension on what to consider most to improve labor
productivity and also it helps as the area of reference in crafting of a suitable Labor
Productivity Plan with its characteristic and condition.
 The study is helpful for further research studies on construction management on building
construction in other areas of Ethiopia.
 The study is gives an in depth understanding of the relationship that exists between the labor
productivity and employee job satisfaction. By identifying the determinant of labor
productivity, it is possible to know which ones affect the labors outputs more than others.
Through a critical analysis of the relationship between determinant of labor productivity,

6
 Employee Job Satisfaction and labor productivity, the study hopes to identify the gaps left in
previous studies.
 The study emphasized on the value to the stakeholders about determinant of labor
productivity in building construction in Akaki Kality Sub City, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia. This
enlightens the way to solve problems related to poor labor performance and low productivity
of labor. For the Construction Companies this gives guidance and an overview on Labor
Productivity in building construction projects. This serves as a wake-up call about the main
determinant of to the fluctuation of labor productivity in the construction project and they can
practically manage Labor Productivity more effectively.

1.6 scope of the study

The scope of the study was focused on building construction projects .due to the fact that
construction of buildings uses many labors with various positions.

Due to the difficulty to manage and access this study was undertaken specific to building construction
project located to Akaki Kality Sub City, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia. For this research grade three and
above building & general contractors was selected by taking in to consideration these contractors
have more experience on many projects related to the study area. This study considered the
construction professionals (engineers and forman) and skilled labor (man power) that are currently
working on the projects. There are different factors that have a relation with labor productivity and
determinant of labor productivity. The purpose of this study to consider determinat of labor productivity and
invistigating relationship exist between lobar productivity and employee job satisfaction and

Determinant of labor productivity competency can be measured using different parameters and
competencies. Hence, the study has covered eight clusters of determinant of labor productivity (design and
specification related, supervision related, labor related, client related, natural related, safety related,
material related, organization and management related) point of view. There are plenty types of skilled
labors, among which this study focuses only on bar bender, carpentry, concerting work, mason and plastering
productivity measurements.

7
1.7. Organization of the Thesis

The study comprised five chapters. Chapter one is introduction to the study. It contains background
of the study, problem statement, research questions, and objective of the study, and scope of the
study, significance of the study and organization of the paper. Chapter 2 deals about the literature
review which mainly constitutes the theoretical and empirical reviews, conceptual framework model
of the study and research hypothesis. Chapter three presents the methodology of the study. This
includes research design ,research approach, population, sampling method, sampling technique,
source data, method of data collection, variable measurement, method of data analysis ,validity test
,ethical consideration, Chapter four covers data analysis and interpretation; whiles Chapter five
contains the summary of findings, conclusions and recommendations of the study.

8
 CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Theoretical Review

In order to construct a research framework, relevant studies have been thoroughly reviewed and
presented to first elaborate the conceptual framework of all three constructs examined in the study.
Attention is then focused on exploring the relationship among them from the perspective of labor
productivity in building construction industries. Subsequently, the directional flows of the
relationships are discerned through literature search and review. These steps then provide theoretical
framework for the study and the research objectives to be formed.

2.1.1 Determinant of Labor Productivity

Construction project time performance has long been identified, together with cost, quality and safety
as one of the four main critical success factors in any construction project (Johansen and Wilson,
2006).

Construction production lies largely on the performance of labor (I. A. Rahman, A. H. 2019.)
Improving productivity is a major concern for any profit oriented organization, as representing the
effective and efficient conversion of resources into marketable products and determining business
profitability (S. Wilcox, B. Stringfellow, R. Harris, and B. Martin2000).

It can be affected by different factors. The study was understands the various determinant of labor
productivity perceptions in different dimension. Identification and evaluation of determinant of labor
construction productivity have become a critical issue facing project managers for a long time in
order to increase productivity in construction (Ameh, O.J and Osegebo, E.E2011). Understanding
critical determinant of productivity of both positive and negative can be used to prepare a strategy to
reduce inefficiencies and to improve the effectiveness of project performance. Knowledge and
understanding of the various determinant of construction labor productivity is needed to determine
the focus of the necessary steps in an effort to reduce project cost overrun and project completion
delay, thereby increasing productivity and overall project performance. This study has identified
determinant of labor productivity or contributing to the delay of projects completion .The results
provide useful information to improve construction productivity in Ethiopia

9
Different researchers have studied the factors that affect construction productivity and the key factors
are summarized and categorized based on their characteristics as stated bellow; According to Carl
T.et al., 1999, the factors are summarized and categorized in to six groups according to their
characteristics, namely: 1. Project Uniqueness, 2. Technology, 3.Management, 4, Labor Organization,
5. Real Wage Trends and Construction Training.

David Stiedl, 1998, groups the factors as; 1.Motivation and experience of the workforce,
2.Organization of the work, 3. Type and condition of tools and equipment provided to the worker,
and 4. Continual monitoring of performance. Allison L. et al., 2009, categorize the factors as: 1.
skilled labor availability, 2. Technology utilization, 3. Offsite fabrication and modularization and 4.
Use of industry best practices.

The casual factors for low productivity is critically reviewed from the above researches are
summarized and categorized in to eight groups according to their characteristic; 1. Design and
specification related factors, 2. Supervision related factors, 3. Labor related factors, 4. Client related
factors, 5. Natural /environmental factors, 6. Safety factors, 7.Material/ Equipment factors 8.
Organization (contractor) and management related factors these factors are discussed in the following
sections.

2.1.1.1 Design and specification Related Factors

If drawings or specifications are with errors and unclear productivity is expected to decrease since the
engineers and laborers in the field are uncertain about what needs to be done. As a result, task may be
delayed, or have to be completely stopped and postpone it until clear instruction. As it is studied in
different researches, there is a 30% loss of productivity when work changes are being performed
Thomas, H. R. (1991),

 Design changes
 Incomplete drawing
 Inaccurate design

10
2.1.1.2. Supervision Related Factors

Work inspection by the supervisor is an essential process to precede the work. For example, the
contractor cannot cast concrete before an inspection of the formwork and steel work, thus affecting
labor productivity (Zakeri et al., 1996). With non-completion of the required work according to the
specifications and drawings, supervisors may ask for the rework of a specific task. Unclear
instruction given by supervisors, change of supervisors, incompetence of supervisors and supervisor’s
absenteeism are some of the major contributing factors for low labor productivity.

2.1.1.3 Labor Related Factors

Literature shows that a lack of labor experience is the factor which negatively affects labor productivity
and proves that, to achieve good productivity, labor plays a significant role. Contractors should have
sufficiently skilled laborers employed to be productive. If skilled labor is unavailable and a contractor is
required to complete specific task with less-skilled labor, it is possible that productivity was affected.

The absence of any crew member may impact the crew’s production rate because workers will, typically,
be unable to accomplish the same production rate with fewer resources and with a different crew member.
Misunderstanding among laborers creates disagreements about responsibilities and the work bounds of
each laborer, which leads to a lot of work mistakes and decreases labor productivity. Lack of
compensation and increased laborer age negatively affect labor productivity because labor speed,
agility, and strength decline over time and reduce productivity (Heizer and Render, 1990).

2.1.1.4 Client Related Factors

Preconditions are factors which affect the productivity of a construction site by the action of
external bodies. They are not controllable by the project management; however, the consultant
project manager can control them to some extent by applying integration management.

Client: These are one of the most important bodies which influence the productivity of the project
site by changing their requirement; the project scope. This action causes change and additional
design to be produced causing temporary shortage of design information to the contractor unless
prior design revision and engineering control is done in before the execution of works. Studies
made in other countries shows that the increase in percentage of change orders is directly

11
proportional to loss of productivity. At other time clients may limit the project completion time but
providing design changes in such a case the contractor may be forced to use overtime works which
has also similar effect in reducing productivity. The following are some of the factors lay under
this category;

 Financial difficulties of the owner/Payment delay

 End user interference
 Lack of communication between the client, Consultant and Contractor

2.1.1.5 Natural /environmental Factors

Weather conditions are factors to consider for completion of any construction project but in Addis
Abeba winter weather, have heavy rains, reduces productivity, particularly for external work such as
excavation, formwork, T-shape work, concrete casting, external plastering, external painting, and
external tiling. Adverse weather sometimes stops the work totally (Sanders and Thomas, 1991).

Various natural determinant of labor productivity collected from previous study are weather
conditions of the job-site and geographical conditions.

Others factors such as fuel, water, and minerals also affect productivity to certain extent.
Productivity is found to be highly affected if weather recorded are too be extreme (too cold, heavy
rainfall, too hot) the following are some of the factors lays under this category;

 Bad weather (rain, hotness, etc.)

 Unforeseen conditions (ground condition)

2.1.1.6 Safety Related Factors

At construction projects Accidents have high impacts on labor productivity. Various accident types occur
at the site, such as an accident causing death and resulting in a total work stoppage for a number of days.
An accident that causes an injured person to be hospitalized results in a work decrease of the crew for
which the injured employee worked. Small accidents resulting from nails and steel wires can stop work
and, thus, decrease productivity (Sanders and Thomas, 1991). Even insufficient lighting shows decreased
productivity because sufficient lighting is required to work efficiently and because insufficient lighting

12
has negative effects. Employing a safety officer helps labors to recognize the required safety regulations
and to follow them, which can reduce the number of accidents, thus increasing productivity.

2.1.1.7 Material/ Equipment factors

Poor material management Material management is one of the most important factors in construction
industry. Productivity can be affected if required materials, tools, or construction equipment for the
specific are not available at the correct location and time. Selection of the appropriate type and size of
construction equipment often affects the required amount of time it is, therefore, essential for site
managers to be familiar with the characteristics of the major types of equipment most commonly used in
construction. In order to increase job-site productivity, it is beneficial to select equipment with the proper
characteristics and a size most suitable for the work conditions at a construction site.

Laborers require a minimum number of tools and equipment to work effectively to complete the assigned
task. If the improper tools or equipment is provided, productivity may be affected (Alum and Lim, 1995;
Guhathakurta and Yates, 1993). The size of the construction site and the material storage location has a
significant impact on productivity because laborers require extra time to move required materials from
inappropriate storage locations, thus resulting in productivity loss (Sanders and Thomas, 1991).

2.1.1.8 Organization (contractor) and management Related Factors

Management complicates progress in productivity within the construction industry. Past studies
found that poor management was responsible for over half of the time wasted on a job site
(Business Round Table, 1983). Good management is required for profitability and success.

Proper planning and scheduling is obligatory task for a project if the planning is not done or if it is
inappropriate it will negatively affect the labor productivity. Project managers lack of leadership is
seriously harm the labor productivity. Poor communications between engineers and Forman have
a critical effect on labor productivity.

2.1.1.9 Employee job satisfaction

Different authors have different approaches towards defining job satisfaction. Some of the most
commonly cited definitions on job satisfaction are analyzed in the text that follows. Hop Pock (1935)

13
defined job satisfaction as any combination of psychological, physiological and environmental
circumstances that cause a person truthfully to say I am satisfied with my job. According to this
approach although job satisfaction is under the influence of many external factors, it remains
something internal that has to do with the way how the employee feels. That is job satisfaction
presents a set of factors that cause a feeling of satisfaction.

Vroom (1964) in his definition on job satisfaction focuses on the role of the employee in the
workplace. Thus he defines job satisfaction as affective orientations on the part of individuals toward
work roles which they are presently occupying. One of the most often cited definitions on job
satisfaction is their one given by Spector according to whom job satisfaction has to do with the way
how people feel about their job and its various aspects. The extent to which people like or dislike
their job. That why job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction can appear in any given work situation. Job
satisfaction is closely linked to that individual's behavior in the work place Davis et al., (1985).

Job satisfaction can be defined also as the extent to which a worker is content with the rewards he or
she gets out of his or her job, particularly in terms of intrinsic motivation (Statt, 2004). Job
satisfaction is more of an attitude, an internal state. It could, for example, be associated with a
personal feeling of achievement, either quantitative or qualitative (Mullins, 2005 cited in Abebe,
2016).The term job satisfactions refer to the attitude and feelings people have about their work.
Positive and favorable attitudes towards the job indicate job satisfaction. Negative and unfavorable
attitudes towards the job indicate job dissatisfaction (Armstrong, 2006).

Job satisfaction further implies enthusiasm and happiness with one’s work. Job satisfaction is the key
ingredient that leads to recognition, income, promotion, and the achievement of other goals that lead
to a feeling of fulfillment (Kaliski, 2007). Job satisfaction is the collection of feeling and beliefs that
people have about their current job. People’s levels of degrees of job satisfaction can range from
extreme satisfaction to extreme dissatisfaction.

In addition, to have attitudes about their jobs as a whole, people also can have attitudes about various
aspects of their jobs such as the kind of work they do, their coworkers, supervisors or subordinates
and their pay George,J.M.and Jones,G.R.(2008). Job satisfaction can be considered as one of the
main factors when it comes to efficiency and effectiveness of business organizations. Infect, the new
managerial paradigm, which insists that employees should be treated and considered primarily as

14
human beings that have their own wants, needs, personal desires, is a very good indicator for the
importance of job satisfaction in contemporary organizations or companies.

When analyzing job satisfaction, the logic that a satisfied employees a happy employee and a happy
employee is a successful employee .Locke cited in Sempaneetal. (2002)defines jobs satisfactions a
pleasurable or appositive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one's job or job experience.

2.1.2 Labor Productivity

The concept of productivity relates to a real process that takes place among purely physical
phenomena. Productivity is also seen as a relationship between output and input. Productivity is a
fairly specific concept related to the ratio between output quantity (i.e. produced products) and input
quantity (i.e. resources that are consumed in the operation process).Increase of productivity was
calculated prior to mid-1906’s, in the construction industry (Stall, 1983). Later, decline in
productivity has remained of great concern issue in the construction industry all over the world. In
1968, the Construction Roundtable was established due to concern about the increased cost of
construction resulting from an increase in the inflation rate and a significant decline in construction
productivity.

(Thomas and Kramer, 1988)Also in 1965, the United Nations Committee on Housing, Building, and
Planning (UNC) published a significant manual concerning the effect of repetition on building
operations and processes (UNC, 1965).

The research discovered the necessity for a rise in productivity was perhaps more severe in the
construction sector compared to any other sector. It was necessary to implement, as far as possible,
industry-wide principles of production throughout the construction process. Though, it was known
that careful adaptation would be required to implement the knowledge and experience gained in the
manufacturing industry to the building construction industry (Alarcon and Borcherding 1991).

Past studies and research show the number of determinant of productivity, there are still
anonymous factors needed to be further studied even in developed countries (Makulsawatudom and
Emsley 2002). A study by (Polat and Arditi 2005) stated that policies to raise productivity are not
always similar in each country. Their study identified different determinant of labor productivity
and grouped them according to their characteristics such as, design, execution plan, equipment,

15
labor, health and safety, working time, project factor, quality, leadership and coordination,
organization, owner/consultant, and external factors.

2.1.3. Productivity Measurement

While each contractor or owner is free to use its own system to measure labor productivity at a site,
it is a good practice to set up a system which can be used to track productivity trends over time and
in varied locations. Considerable efforts are required to collect information regionally or nationally
over a number of years to produce such results. The productivity indices compiled from statistical
data should include parameters such as the performance of major crafts, effects of project size, type
and location, and other major project influences.

In order to develop industry-wide standards of performance, there must be a general agreement on

the measures to be useful for compiling data. Then, the job site productivity data collected by
various contractors and owners can be correlated and analyzed to develop certain measures for
each of the major segment of the construction industry. Thus, a contractor or owner can compare
its performance with that of the industry average (A.A.Attar, A.K.Gupta and D.B. Desai (2012).

2.1.3.1 Approaches of Productivity Measures

The basic concept of measuring productivity in construction is the ratio of input to output
according to a research conducted by the Federal Government of United States. There are two basic
approaches to measuring productivity, single factor or partial and multifactor or total productivity
measures. The searcher Choose between them usually depends on the purpose of the productivity
measurement and the availability of data.

2.1.3.2 Single/Partial Factor Measures

Single/Partial factor measures use only one input in the denominator. Most commonly used single
factor measure of productivity is the labor productivity, the ratio of output to either employment or
labor hours.
Labor Productivity = Total Output/Total input …………………….…………. [Eq. 2.1]

Labor productivity can be measured as:

• Expected labor out of the Persons employed (the most available)

16
 • Hours worked (the most accurate)
• Labor cost

In general, the value of labor productivity is important for the front line supervisor to improve the
productivity of its crew; the administrator manager in controlling costs and schedules and the site
manager for managerial decisions in his/her environment. Labor productivity is also very important
for the head company for many decision involving alternatives between labor and machine and to
estimate competitive bid. However unlike other resources the determination of accurate labor
productivity is highly uncertain if it is not supported with a continuous work measurement system. A
work measurement system is a management system designed to analyze the touch labor content of
operations, establish labor standards for that operation, measure an analyze variances from those
standards and continuously improve both the operation and labor standards used in that operation.

2.2 Empirical Review

2.2.1 Labor productivity

In spite of the numerous researches on labor productivity there is no consensus among scholars and
practitioners regarding the dentition and measurement of construction labor productivity. The
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) define productivity as a ratio of
a volume measure of output to a volume measure of input use (OECD2001). While there is no
disagreement on this general notion, the OECD argued that a look at the productivity literature and its
various applications reveals that there is neither a unique purpose for, nor a single measure of,
productivity.

According to Alwi (2003) measuring productivity for construction projects is a complex problem. In
construction; productivity is usually taken to mean labor productivity (Attar et al. 2012). This stems
from the fact that construction projects are mostly labor based with basic hand tools and equipment.
Attar et al. (2012) asserted that productivity sign the measurement of how well an individual entity
uses available resources to produce outputs from inputs.

The American Association of Cost Engineers define productivity as a “relative measure of labor
efficiency, either good or bad, when compared to an established base or norm” (Intergraph
Corporation 2012) Labor productivity rejects how anciently labor is combined with other factors of

17
production, how many of these other inputs are available per worker and how rapidly embodied and
disembodied technical change proceed (OECD 2001). Mojahed (2005) distinguishes between
industry level and project level productivity.

Thus the definition of productivity at the industry level is utilized by an economist to determine the
economy’s health, trends, and growth rate. The definition of productivity at project level applies to
the areas of construction planning and scheduling, cost estimating, accounting, and cost control
(Proverbs et al. 1999). Project level productivity may also be “equated” to labor productivity. Whilst
there are many factors that affect productivity; their impact may be measured relative to labor
productivity.Dozzi and AbouRizk (1993)identified two most important measures of labor
productivity as: the effectiveness with which labor is used in the construction process and the relative
efficiency of labor doing what it is required to do at a given time and place.

However, they argued that contractors are more concerned with the latter, that is, the relative
efficiency of labor. Labor efficiency is the basis of most tender estimates, as well as the yardstick by
which performance is measured and monitored (Dozzi and AbouRizk 1993). The prevailing trend to
improve labor productivity has been preoccupied with ascertaining the factors that affect the
productivity level. These kinds of studies have been regarded as prerequisites for any productivity
improvement attempt. That is because it is only after recognizing the truly significant factors that we
can enhance the positive factors and consequently moderate or eliminate the factors that have an
adverse effect (Lema, 1995, cited in Ghoddousi et al., 2012).

The necessity of identifying determinant of labor productivity and the importance of conducting the
research in every country due to the effect of context on productivity factors (Olomolaiye et al., 1998)
is the reason behind the large number of available studies on the topic mentioned. Hence, as
productivity has been treated as a context-reliant phenomenon, studies have limited their area of
investigation to one country and, in some cases, to one section of the construction industry (Abdel-
Razek, 2004; Ghoddousi et al., 2012; Mojahed and Aghazadeh, 2008). Some studies have
investigated labor productivity factors from the vantage points of different stakeholders in the same
context (Dai et al., 2009).

18
2.2.2 Determinant of Labor productivity

Studies over the years have identified a myriad of factors that affect construction labor productivity
in developed countries such as: Canada (Jergeas 2009), UK (Chan 2002), New Zealand (Durdyev and
Mbachu 2011) and developing countries such as Nigeria (Olomolaiye et al. 1987; Ameh and Osegbo
2011; Adamu et al. 2011), Indonesia (Kaming et al. 1997; Alwi 2003), Malaysia (Kadir et al. 2005),
Palestine (Enshassi et al. 2007), Kuwait (Jarkas and Bitar 2012); Thailand (Makulsawatudom and
Emsley 2001), and Uganda (Alinaitwe et al. 2007).

Broadly, labor productivity is affected by external and internal factors, representing those outside the
control of the firm’s management and those originating within the firm respectively. In a study of 45
factors negatively affecting labor productivity in the Gaza strip, Enshassi et al. (2007) noted that the
10 most important factors negatively affecting labor productivity are: material shortages; lack of
labor experience; lack of labor surveillance; misunderstanding between labor and superintendents;
drawings and specification alterations during project execution; payment delay; labor disloyalty;
inspection delay; working seven days per week without holiday; and tool/equipment shortages.

In Thailand, Makulsawatudom and Emsley (2001) identified six key factors impinging on labor
productivity as follows: lack of material; supervision delays (instruction time); lack of tools and
equipment; rework; absenteeism; and interference.

In a study of craftsman productivity in Indonesia, Kaming et al. (1997) identified lack of materials,
rework, absenteeism, interference due to work mismanagement and lack of equipment and tools as
the main productivity problems. In a comparative assessment of labor productivity problems in
Indonesia, Nigeria,

United Kingdom and the United States, Kaming et al. (1997) observed that lack of materials is a
common problem in the four nations. In Nigeria, a study by Olomolaiye et al. (1987) identified the
following problems in flocking craftsmen’s productivity in order of rank: lack of materials, lack of
tools,

Duplicated efforts (repeated work), instruction delays, inspection delays, absenteeism, incompetency
of supervisor, and changing crew members. A later study on determinant of productivity in Nigeria

19
revealed that low wages ranked top closely followed by lack of materials and unfriendly working
atmosphere (Adamu et al. 2011).

Late arrival of materials or labor, equipment break-downs, poor lay out of work plan, and inability to
provide information will lead to non-productive or down time (Thomas and Raynar, 1997 in Mojahed
2005). In New Zealand, Durdyev and Mbachu (2011) reported on the constraints with the highest
impact on productivity as reworks, level of skill and experience of the workforce, adequacy of
method of construction; build ability issues, and inadequate supervision and coordination.

2.2.3 Employee job satisfaction

Research conducted by Tanjeen (2012) indicates most employees are satisfied with their job. The
variables that lead to higher level of satisfaction are suitable working condition, pay, job security, and
relationship with co-worker.

Job satisfaction is an individual’s subjective viewpoint encompassing the way he/she feels about
his/her job and the employing organization. Moreover, job satisfaction is the pleasurable emotional
state that results from the achievement of job values (Courtney &Younkyoung, 2017).

Each individual has different criteria for measuring job satisfaction. Influencing factors are payment,
working hours, schedule, benefits, level of stress, and flexibility. Job satisfaction has been linked to
productivity, motivation, performance, and life satisfaction (Landy, 1978),

2.3 Conceptual Frame work

The conceptual framework of presented below serves as a guideline as well the structure for the
overall research study. It is developed by the researcher based on the literatures (theories and
empirical results) discussed above as it can be seen below in figure2.1, the logical structure shows
that, as there is a theoretical as well as empirical relationship and influence between variables.

The framework shows that the study will examine the relationship between determinant of labor
productivity, Employee Job Satisfaction and labor productivity on building construction in the case of
project located to Akaki Kality Sub City, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia.

20
In addition, it investigates the influence of demographic variable on Employee Job Satisfaction. Each
arrow in a path diagram representing a causal relationship between two variables to which a
coefficient or weight is assigned. These coefficients are nothing but the regression coefficients
showing the direction and magnitude of the effect of one variable on the other.
Figure 1 conceptual framework

In a light of the objectives and the above conceptual framework regarding the degree employee job
satisfaction, labor productivity and factor affect labor productivity. The following three hypotheses
were developed or investigated. Alternative hypothesis was used for developing the hypothesis.

Alternative hypothesis was used for developing the hypothesis.

H1: There is a positive relationship between determinant of labor productivity and employee job
satisfaction.

H2: There is a positive relationship between determinant of labor productivity and labor productivity.

21
H3: There is positive relationship between labor productivity and Employee job satisfaction

H4: Labor productivity mediates the relationship between determinant labor productivity and Job
satisfaction.

22
 CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In this chapter the practical method is used in order to answer the research questions and fulfill the
purpose of the research are presented. What is more, the research methodology deals with the
descriptions of the methods applied in carrying out the research study. Accordingly, the chapter
presents research design and approach, data source, data collection, target population, sampling
method sampling size, and Sampling techniques, and Variable Measurement.

3.1 Research Design

Saunders (2007) defines research design as the general plan of how the research questions would be
answered. Thus, a research design is viewed as the functional plan in which certain research methods
and procedures are linked together to acquire a reliable and valid body of data for empirically
grounded analyses, conclusions and theory formulation. The research design thus provides the
researcher with a clear research framework; it guides the methods, decisions and sets the basis for
interpretation (Babbie, 2008).

It is the conceptual structure within which research is conducted. It constitutes a blue print for the
collection, measurement, and analysis of data. In addition, the study will be co relational design
because there is intended to establish the relationship between the variables of the study. Co relational
research aimed to ascertain if there is a significant correlation between two variables (Reid, 1987).

The type of research design undertake in this study was explanatory. The nature of the study leads
towards correlation research, investigating the relationship of employee job satisfaction on the
relationship between labor productivity and determinant of labor productivity in building construction
project located Akaki Kality Sub City, Addis Abeba Ethiopia. The study is also a cross sectional and
used two stage of analogies:- the first stage is to predict job satisfaction with demographic variables
and created predicted job satisfaction then the second stage is used it to control employee job
satisfaction effect on the relationship between labor productivity and determinant of labor
productivity in the sense that relevant data was collected at one point in times which is useful to
assess practices, attitudes, knowledge and beliefs of a population in relation to a particular topic.

23
3.2 Research Approach

There are two research approaches that provide in the research method such as Quantitative and
Qualitative, where one of them is not better than the others, all of this depends on how the researcher
want to do a research of study (Ghauri and Kjell , 2005). To achieve the mentioned objectives, the
study adopted a purely quantitative approach, where it used a questionnaire provided predominantly
descriptive and quantified data. Quantitative method is study involving analysis of data and
information that are descriptive in nature and qualified (Sekaran, 2003).

The study used the quantitative approach to examine the effect of determinant of labor productivity
on employee job satisfaction and labor productivity, because it is at technique or approach used
to explore, present, describe and investigate the causal associations and trends within data using
percentages, frequencies and numerical analysis.

3.3 Population

The target population of the study is engineers and skilled labors who are working in building
construction project location at Akaki Kality Sub City, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia. The population is
composed of people with various demographic backgrounds

3.4 Sample Method

A sample is a part of the population which is studied in order to make inferences about the whole
population (Alvin C. Burns, 2010).

3.4.1 Sample Size

Sample size has an effect on how the sample findings accurately represent the population (Alvin C.
Burns, 2010).If the sample is adequate it has the same characteristics of the population (Zikmund.,
2003) and the findings are usually used to make conclusions about the population. So, a good sample
is minuscule version of the population.

The study has to draw conclusions on the basis of a sample and, therefore, sample size determination
is an important element in any research, although it is a difficult one. Exact tests to check whether
sample size is adequate for the analysis required can be carried out by using statistical methods such

24
as significance tests. To determine the sample size for the study, the study used the following
simplified formula to calculate sample sizes. According to Yamane (1967), with 95% confidence
level and 0.05 sampling error are assumed for the equation.

𝑛=___N__

1+(𝑒)²

n=_ 170_ =120

1+170 (0.05) ²

Where n is the sample size, N is population size and e is the percentage of allowance in accuracy for
making sampling errors. The level of precision or sampling error to the study is assumed to be ±5%.

3.4.2 Sampling Technique

In view of the fact that, the aim of the study is to get relevant information about the relationship
between determinant of labor productivity, Employee jobs Satisfaction and labor productivity on
building construction in the case of Project located to Akaki Kality Sub City, Addis Abeba Ethiopia .

The study used probability sampling techniques. For probability sampling techniques stratified sampling
technique was applied to identify representative sample based on their type trade profession Stratified
sampling technique was used if a population from which a sample is to be drawn does not constitute a
homogenous group. Using stratified sampling technique and two stage of analog , The first stage is to
predict job satisfaction with demographic variables and created predicted job satisfaction. The second
stage is use it to control employee job satisfaction effect on the relationship between labor
productivity and determinant of labor productivity in the sense that relevant data was collected at one
point in times which is useful to assess practices, attitudes, knowledge and beliefs of a population in
relation to a particular topic.

25
After stratifying them based on their trade profession random sampling technique (lottery
method) is used to identify representative from each grade level and to distribute questionnaire to
randomly selected respondents because random sampling is most important to give every
population e(qual chance to be representative sample of the study (Kothari, 2004).

In two parts of the questionnaire, a five point Likert scale is used to reduce the level of
frustration among respondents, and to increase the rate and quality of the responses. According
Das M.(2009) it is very easy to construct and administer. Moreover, it helps respondents to easily
understand how to use scale and this scale is more suitable for mail and personal interview.

3.4.3Sources of data`

The study used primary and secondary data source. Primary source of data is obtained from
currently performed building construction. The secondary source of data is collected from
different source like books, reports, Journals and different articles from the internet.

3.5 Data Collection instrument

The data collecting instrument to this study is structured questionnaires. Questionnaire is a

structured technique for data collection that consists of a series of questions, written or verbal
that a respondent answer. Questions in questionnaire are the key to the survey research so they
must be developed with caution and to be vital to the survey Das M.(2009). The questionnaire
was prepared in four parts.

The first part; - of the questionnaire consists of personal information of the respondent. It
includes demographic factors like age, trade profession, and educational background and so on.

The second part;-concerned with the questions used to measure labor productivity which
contains 5item that question about the expected out puts labor and 5 items that question about the
actual out puts labor, And some other information about the projects.

The third part:- contains the various aspects of productivity affecting factors to be rated by the
respondents with respect to their frequency of occurrence and level of impact which

26
corresponding to the reliability eight dimensions and respondents were asked to indicate their
degree of agreement with each of the items on five and four consecutively.

The fourth part; - of the questionnaire addresses job satisfaction which contains six questions
to measure the level of satisfaction.

3.5.1 Methods of Data Collection

Data collection method was conducted through questionnaire to be filled by the respondents
then; the researcher contacted with each contractor’s project manager or site engineer in order to
get necessary data and permission to interview the skilled labors. All respondents were asked to
indicate their degree of agreement with each of the items on five point Likert scale and for the
labor productivity measurement, they were asked to give an answer on the blank space. The
questionnaire was submitted to the professional respondents while they are working and for the
UN skilled labor the searcher read the questionnaire for the respondents and acquired their
answer while they are working.

3.5.2 Variable Measurement

To test the hypothesized relationships, the main constructs measured in the study are labor
productivity, employee job satisfaction and determinant of labor productivity. Instruments
used to measure these variables are adapted from existing literature and measurements are
based on primary data. The factors which are identified from previous research was used as a
basis for preparing a questionnaire to investigate its influence on the productivity of building
construction industry Independent Variables determinant of labor productivity was measured
in eight factors. These eight factors are namely.

1. Design and specification related factors,

2. Supervision related factors,

3. Labor related factors,

4. Client related factors,

5. Natural /environmental factors,

6. Safety factors,

27
 7. Material/ Equipment factors

8. Organization (contractor) and management related factors.

Responses to these items is made on a five-point of rate of level effect ranged from 5 –critical
effect to 1–low and with on four -point of frequency of occurrence ranged from 4 –very often
to 1–none and the scores is averaged for each determinant of labor productivity. Employee job
satisfaction was measured by questionnaire adapted from (Oliver R. , 1999)’s multi – item
scale of 7 items by using 5 items Likert Scale thus, 1 strongly disagrees and 5 strongly agree.
Dependent variable Labor productivity measurement was measured by ratio of the expected
outputs and actual outputs of the labors.

3.6 Method of Data Analysis

The study is designed to examine the relationship between determinant of labor productivity,
Employee Job Satisfaction and labor productivity on building construction in the case of Akaki
Kality sub city, Addis Abeba Ethiopia.

After the data is collected through structured questionnaire, computation and analysis is done by
using SPSS 25 (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) and is a software package used to
manage the most preferable and frequently used program by many researchers.

Among the different descriptive statistics such as mean, frequency, percentage, standard
deviation a n d inferential analysis used to address the initial research question of the study.

3.7 Validity Test and Reliability

Validity refers to the extent to which the concept one wishes to measure is actually being
measured by a particular scale or index. According to Kothari (2004), validity aims establishing
the results which are linked with the condition. It is concerned with the extent that the scale
accurately represents the construct of interest.

In order to assure the validity of the measurement instrument of the study is conducted based on
the literally accepted associated with conceptual framework that clearly indicate the theoretical
construct and associated with the measurements valid to evaluate the relationship between
determinant of labor productivity, Employee Job Satisfaction and labor productivity. Where

28
possible this should be supported and consideration given to practical things. So that pre-
questionnaire is distributed to check the validity of questions to further data collection process.

Reliability refers to is whether an instrument can be interpreted consistently across different

situations. Reliability differs from validity in that it relates not to what should be measured, but
instead to how it is measured. Hair et al. (2007) defines reliability as the extents to which a
variable or a set of variables is consistent in what it is intended to measure. Duffy, Duffy, and
Kilbourne (2001) asserted, Cronbach’s α measure the consistency with which participants
answers items within a scale. Duffy et al. (2001) further stated, a high α (greater than .60)
indicates that the items within a scale are measuring the same Construct.

Table 4. 1 Reliability Analysis

Variable No of item Cronbach’s alpha

Job Satisfaction 6 0.841

Design and Specification Related Factors 4 0.781

Supervision Related Factors 6 0.812

Labor Related Factors 6 0.721

Client Related Factors 3 0.863

Natural/environmental Factors 2 0.791

Safety factors 3 0.912

Material/Equipment Factor 4 0.784

Organization(Contractor) and Management 4 0.881

Related Factors
Source: Own computation from survey data 2021

As we see on above tale all items of the questionnaire are greater than 0.70 these means the
reliability analysis are good. Overall reliability analysis of cronbach’s alpha value is 0.82.

29
3.8 Ethical Considerations

There are certain considerations which are made in this study. Primarily, study subjects are
included upon their consent. Once this is done, the information they provided through the data
collection instruments is kept confidential. Furthermore, their identity also kept confidential and
only the aggregated results obtained from the data they provide was duplicated where required.
Confidentiality of the information also guaranteed by informing respondents not to write their
names or anything that makes them is identified by others. Finally, the researcher provided the
research output to decision makers ethically with relevant recommendations.

3.9 Model specification

Model specification can be defined as the exercise of formally stating a model i.e. the explicit
translation of theory into mathematical equations and involves using all the available relevant
theory research and information and developing a theoretical model regress and which has more
than two outcomes in the form of Likert scale questions are importantly regressed through
ordinal logistic regression (Gujarati, 2004).

Step1: On accounts of the theoretical relevance, the study formulates the following regression
equation (relationships) to identify the determinants determinant of labor productivity eight
predetermined explanatory variables:

Y(Employee job satisfaction)= α+ βx1+ βx2+ βx3 + βx4+ βx5+ βx6+ βx7+ βx8

Y = α+ β (design and specification factors) + β (Supervision Related Factors) + β (labor related

factor) + β (client related factor) + β (Natural/environmental Factors) + β (Safety factors) + β
(Material/Equipment Factor) + β (Organization and Management Related Factors) + e
Step 2: To address the determinants of labor productivity, the following regression model was
formulated:
LP= α+ β design and specification factors + β Supervision Related Factors + β labor related
factor + β client related factor ++ β Natural/environmental Factors + β (Safety factors) + β
(Material/Equipment Factor) + β (Organization and Management Related Factors)+ e
Step 3: To examine the effect of labor productivity on employee job satisfaction, the following
simple linear regression was formulated:
EJS =α+ β LP +e

30
 CHAPTER FOUR
DATA ANALYSIS, AND PRESENTATION

4.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the data analysis and discussion of the research findings obtained from data
collected from the survey questionnaire. Responses for the measures on the questionnaire are
summarized and presented using tables and charts to facilitate easy understanding.

4.2 Survey Response Rate

One hundred twenty questionnaires were distributed to the respondents and 110 returned. Among
these 10 respondents were eliminated because of incomplete answer and one hundred
respondents were filled effectively. That makes the response rate 92%. According to Mugenda,
(1999) a response rate of 50% is adequate for analysis and reporting; a rate of 60% is good and a
response rate of 70% and over is excellent. According to this perspective the response rate of
study was excellent and enough for data analysis and interpretation.

31
4.3 Demographic Profile of Respondents

This section summarizes the demographic characteristics of the sample, which includes age of
the respondent, trade profession, and type of organization, marital status and work experience.
The purpose of the demographic analysis in this research is to describe the characteristics of the
sample such as the proportion of males and females in the sample, range of age, and education
level, so that the analysis could be more meaningful for readers.

Table 4. 2 Demographic of respondent

NO Demographic of respondent Frequency Percentage Cumulative

(%) Percentage
project manger 12 10.9 10.9
1 Trade
site engineer 32 29.1 40.0
Profession

resident engineer 10 9.1 49.1

Forman 6 5.5 54.5

Carpenter 4 3.6 58.2

Mason 8 7.3 65.5

Bar bender 5 4.5 70.0

Plasterer 9 8.2 78.2
Offices engineer 19 17.3 95.5
Construction engineer 5 4.5 100.0
Total 110 100.0
Client 7 6.4 6.4
contractor 49 44.5 50.9
2
Type of
consultant 13 11.8 62.7
organization
subcontractor 41 37.3 100.0
Total 110 100.0

32
 Marital Single 66 60.0 60.0
status Married 44 40.0 100.0
3 Total 110 100.0

0 up to 2years 8 7.3 7.3

work 2 up to 5years 31 28.2 35.5
4 experience 5 up to10years 31 28.2 63.6
10 up to 20years 33 30.0 93.6
Greater than 20years 7 6.4 100.0
Total 110 100.0

work 0-3 Month 16 14.5 14.5

duration 3-6 Month 27 24.5 39.1
5 current 6-12 Month 25 22.7 61.8
project Above 12 Month 42 38.2 100.0
Total 110 100.0

age 15 up to 20 years 3 2.7 2.7

20 up to 30 years 48 43.6 46.4
6 30 up to 40 years 30 27.3 73.6
40 up to 50 years 24 21.8 95.5
Greater than 50 years 5 4.5 100.0
Total 110 100.0

Source: Own computation from survey data 2021

As we see on above table In terms of trade profession, the distribution is not very equally
distributed, the sample population is largely dominated by 29.1% of site engineer respondents,
17.3%offices engineer , 10.9% project Manager ,9.1% assistance resident engineer, 8.2%
plasterer, ,7.3% mason,, 5.5% of Forman, 4.5% bar bender, ,4.5% construction engineer and
3.6% carpentry,

33
In terms of type of organization, the sample population categorized in to four groups. 44.5 %
from contractor ,37.3% from sub-contractor , 11.8 % from consultant, , and 6.4% from client

In terms of marital status, the sample population categorized in to two groups. 60% single and
40% are married.

As table 4.1 shows those respondents whose experience is between 10 to 20 years consists 30%
of the total sample size and 28.2 % is consisted by those whose experience is between 2- 10
years and 5-10 years . Of the total respondents 7.3% is covered by those respondents who
worked from 0- 2 years. The remaining 6.4% is covered by respondents who work above 20
years in construction industry.

As we have seen the above work duration of current project the largest in terms of percent is
above 12 month is 38.2% next to those 3-6 months 24.5%. A month 0-3 Month is 14.5% and 6-
12 months 22.7%.

Regarding the age of respondents, the sample population is largely dominated by the age group
of 20-30 (43.6%) followed by the group comprise age of 30-40 (27.3%) third group comprise
age of 40-50 (21.8%)fourth group comprise age of greater than 50 (4.5%) fifth group comprise
age of greater than 15-20 (2.7%). This indicates that most of the sample populations are
youngsters and the second groups are at the middle ages. Referring to the data we can say that
the projects are dominated by younger and middle age group of labors and educated workforce
group who can transform their organization to the future.

4.4. Descriptive Analysis

Descriptive statistics describe data in terms of measures of central tendency. According to Aaker
et al. (2004), a frequency is a report of the number of responses that a question has received. The
arithmetic mean (the mean) is defined as the sum of the values in the data group divided by the
number of values. The square root of the variance is called the standard deviation, the variance
being similar to the average deviation in that it is based on the difference between each value in
the data set and the mean of the group (Kaizmier, 1988). The standard deviation records the
extent to which scores deviate from the mean. According to (Jabatan Pendaftar Latihan Jude

34
Sondoh, 2017)the mean and standard deviation values for all of the study variables/construct
based upon the scale of 1 to 5, the mean scores can be explained as:

 A mean score that is less than 2 is rated as low,

 A mean score between 2 to 4 is rated as average, and
 A mean score of greater 4 is rated as high.

4.5 Determinant of productivity

4.5.1 Design and specification related factors with respect to level of effect

Design refers sketch with technical dimension and data to provide graphic representation of what
is to be built. Specification is a detailed document providing a list of points regarding product or
process. Accordingly, the mean value of Design and specification related factors rate of level of
effect is 2.96 and standard deviation (1.271) is which imply that average mean score.

project located Akaki Kality have more or less design changes, delivery and ambiguous
specification and those factors are ranked in first place from all the labor productivity factors and
as it can be seen from table 4.3 from the 4 questions asked under design and specification related
factors of rate of level of effect the highest mean score is obtained on the design changes, this
shows that majority of the respondent’s agree that the design changes could affect labor
productivity and . The lowest mean score for design and specification related factors rate of level
of effect is obtained on the statement which asks having ambiguous and incomplete
specification.
Table 4. 3 Design and specification related factors level of effects

NO Design and specification related factors level of N Mean Std.

effects
Deviation
1. Design changes 110 3.08 1.182
2. Incomplete and Inaccurate drawings 110 3.01 1.260
3. Delay Preparation and delivery of drawings 110 2.92 1.235
4. Ambiguous and incomplete Specification 110 2.83 1.407
Grand Mean score and std.dev 2.96 1.271
Source: Own computation from survey data 2021

35
4.5.2 Supervision related factors with respect to level of effect

Supervision is a process that involves overseeing and controlling the construction activities that
take place on the worksite. Accordingly, the mean value of supervision related factors of rate of
level of effect is 2.89 and standard deviation (1.2418) which imply that the labors needs day to
day follow up, provide decision on time when it is needed and it is mandatory to hire
experienced supervisor and those factors are ranked in second place from all the labor
productivity factors and as it can be seen from the table 4.4 from the 6 questions asked under
Supervision related factors of rate of level of effect the highest mean score is obtained on the
delays in decision making, this shows that majority of the respondent’s agree that the delays in
decision making could have impact on labor productivity. The lowest mean score for Supervision
related factors of rate of level of effect is obtained on the statement which asks having change of
supervisor.

Table 4. 4 Supervision related factors level of effects

NO Supervision related factors level of effects N Mean Std.

Deviation
1. Delays in decisions making 110 3.15 1.485
2. Change of work order /variation 110 3.03 1.079
3. Change of supervision 110 2.66 1.461
4. Incompetence of supervisors 110 2.88 1.269
5. Supervisors absenteeism 110 2.78 1.160
6. Inspection and instruction delay 110 2.89 1.035
Grand Mean score and std.dev 2.89 1.2418
Source: Own computation from survey data 2021

4.5.3 Labor related factors with respect to level of effect

Laborers in construction are employed to perform physical, manual work and any other
necessary work on the construction sites. Accordingly, the mean value of labor related factors of
rate of level of effect is 2.69 and standard deviation 1.383,which imply that labors experience,
motivation and age has moderate effect on their productivity and even their relationship between
labors really matters and have major influence on their productivity. And those factors are
ranked in fourth place from all the labor productivity factors and as it can be seen from the table

36
4.4 from the 6 questions asked under labor related factor of rate of level of effect the highest
mean score is obtained on the Motivation of labor, this shows that majority of the respondent’s
agree that the Motivation of labor is a very critical factors for labor productivity. The lowest
mean score for Labor related factors of rate of level of effect is obtained on the statement which
asks Increased Labor Age.
Table 4. 5 Labor related factors with respect to level of effect

NO Labor related factors with respect to level of effect N Mean Std.

Deviation
1. High absenteeism of labor 110 2.72 1.503
2. Labor experience and skill 110 2.61 1.250
3. Overcrowded labor force 110 2.55 1.359
4. Mis understanding /poor relationship between labor 110 2.77 1.283
5. Increase labor age 110 2.49 1.339
6. Motivation of labor 110 3.05 1.564
Grand Mean score and std.dev 2.69 1.383
Source: Own computation from survey data 2021

4.5.4 Client related factors with respect to level of effect

Client refers to the entity, individual or organization commissioning and funding the project
directly or indirectly. The client’s main duty is to ensure that suitable management arrangements
are made for the projects. Accordingly, the mean value of client related factors of rate of level of
effect is 2.74 and standard deviation 1.445 which imply that the client (end user) should pay
payment on time so that the contractors can provide the wage for labors on time hence the labors
productivity can be affected if their salary delays. Besides the client should know their
boundaries when it comes to the work issues because they assigned the consultant on behalf of
their office. Those factors are ranked in third place from all the labor productivity factors and as
it can be seen from the table 4.6 from the 3 questions asked under Client related factors of rate of
level of effect the highest mean score is obtained on the Financial difficulties (payment delay) by
the client, this shows that the respondents have confidence in financial crisis can cause a serious
problem for the labors in addition to hammering the progress of the project. The lowest mean

37
score for Client related factors of rate of level of effect is obtained on the statement which asks
End User Interference.

Table 4. 6 Client related factors with respect to level of effect

NO Client related factors with respect to level of N Mean Std.

effect
Deviation
1. Financial difficulty of the client 110 2.93 1.560
2. End user interference 110 2.59 1.410
3. Lack of communication between parties 110 2.70 1.365
Grand Mean score and std.dev 2.74 1.445
Source: Own computation from survey data 2021

4.5.5 Natural / environmental factors with respect to level of effect

Natural /environmental factors state about weather and unforeseen condition. Especially the
tough season like rain, high temperature (very hot) affects the site works extremely.
Accordingly, the mean value of natural /environmental factors of rate of level of effect is 2.435
and standard deviation1.314, which imply that weather condition of Akaki Kality is not good for
construction industry during rainy season then this rainy season is not contented for the labors
so that it will interrupt the labors especially when there are external works. Those factors are
ranked in sixth place from all the labor productivity factors and as it can be seen from the table
4.7 from the 2 questions asked under natural /environmental factors of rate of level of effect the
highest mean score is obtained on the effect of Bad weather, this shows that all most all
respondents mentioned that it is a serious problem interrupt the work and decrease the
productivity of the labors. The lowest mean score for natural /environmental related factors of
rate of level of effect is obtained on the statement which asks unforeseen Conditions.

38
Table 4. 7 Natural/ environment factors level of effects

NO Natural/ environment factors level of effects N Mean Std.

Deviation
1. Effect of bad weather (rain, wind ,low temperature) 110 2.67 1.472
2. Unforeseen condition(E.g. Ground condition) 110 2.20 1.156
Grand Mean score and std.dev 2.435 1.314
Source: Own computation from survey data 2021

4.5.6 Safety factors with respect to level of effect

Safety in construction aims to ensure that a construction site/industry as a whole is not the cause
of immediate danger and the labors and any other worker at the construction site should meets
the required safety standard. Accordingly, the mean value of safety factors of rate of level of
effect is 2.413 and standard deviation 1.1846, which imply accidents occurs in construction site,
the common cause of thus accidents are working in high place and absent of protective safe
accident gear Those factors are ranked in seventh place from all the labor productivity factors
and as it can be seen from the table 4.8 from the 3 questions asked under Safety factors of rate of
level of effect the highest mean. Score is obtained on the absence protective safe gear; this shows
that it is very clear the labors and all other workers in the project site needs safety equipment in
order to get the required labor productivity. The lowest mean score for safety related factors of
rate of level of effect is obtained on the statement which asks Working in high places.

Table 4. 8 Safety factors level of effects

NO Safety factors level of effects N Mean Std.

Deviation
1. Accidents during construction 110 2.41 1.229
2. Working in high places 110 2.20 1.099
3. Absence protective safe gear 110 2.63 1.226
Grand Mean score and std.dev 2.4133 1.1846
Source: Own computation from survey data 2021

39
4.5.7 Material/ Equipment factors with respect to level of effect

Equipment means all equipment, tools, consumables, temporary structures or other items as may
be required for contractor to complete the work but which will not become a permanent part of
the facility. Material for construction is material which is used for construction purpose.
Accordingly, the mean value of Material/ Equipment of rate of level of effect is 2.38 and
standard deviation 1.39, which imply any equipment and tools that are required for the
construction work must be well-functioning and enough quantity for the given labors. Those
factors are ranked in eight place from all the labor productivity factors and as it can be seen from
the table 4.9 from the 4 questions asked under Material/ Equipment factors of rate of level of
effect the highest mean score is obtained on the Absence of technological advancements for
machineries, this shows that how technology could make the construction site safer and labors
can be more efficient as a result it will increase labors productivity. The lowest mean score for
Material/ Equipment related factors of rate of level of effect is obtained on the statement which
asks Dumping row material far away from the site location.

Table 4. 9 material/ equipment factors level of effects

NO material/ equipment factors level of effects N Mean Std.

Deviation
1. Old and inefficient equipment 110 2.35 1.288
2. Tools and equipment shortage 110 2.29 1.330
3. Dumping row material far away from the site 110
2.12 1.507
location due to the lack of access for dump truck
4. Absence of technological advancements for 110
2.79 1.472
machineries
Grand Mean score and std.dev 2.387 1.399
Source: Own computation from survey data 2021

4.5.8 Organization (contractor) and Management related factors with respect to level of
effect
Organization (contractor) Management is with the process of planning, coordinating and
providing monitoring and controlling of a construction project. It involves overseeing variety of
resource including labor, equipment materials and capital. Accordingly, the mean value of
Organization (contractor) and Management related factors of rate of level of effect is 2.525 and

40
standard deviation 1.1162 which imply that the internal structure of the contractor’s stuff
(engineering team) like planning(scheduling), team work (having good work communication),
avoiding mistakes which can cause rework that leads decreasing of labor productivity. Those
factors are ranked in fifth place from all the labor productivity factors and as it can be seen from
the table 4.10 from the 4 questions asked under Organization (contractor) and Management
related factors of rate of level of effect the highest mean score is obtained on the Mistakes during
construction(Rework), this shows that redoing or correcting work that was not done correctly for
the first time is a very difficult task for labors and could seriously decrease their moral for
work and their productivity too. The lowest mean score for Organization (contractor)
Management related factors of rate of level of effect is obtained on Poor communication and
coordination b/n Forman & engineers.
Table 4. 10 Organization material/ equipment factors level of effects
NO Organization material/ equipment factors level N Mean Std.
of effects
Deviation
1. Improper planning and scheduling of work 110 2.52 1.020
2. Construction a manager lack of leadership 110 2.43 1.223
3. Poor communication between and coordination 110
2.23 1.163
between the contractors engineers and Forman
4. Mistake during construction(rework) 110 2.92 1.059
Grand Mean score and std.dev 2.525 1.1162
Source: Own computation from survey data 2021

4.6 Employee job satisfaction

Employee job satisfaction describes whether employee is happy and fulfilling their desire and
needs at work. Employees become satisfied if the performance of their company good or service
is equivalent to, or even surpasses, the original expectation. Accordingly, the mean scored of
Employee job satisfaction is 2.91 and as it can be seen from the table 4.11 from the 6 questions
asked under Employee job satisfaction the highest mean score obtained on my co-workers at
work are friendly and supportive this shows that being in a good term with supervisor and co-
workers is appropriate way to be more productive. The lowest mean score for employee job
satisfaction is obtained on I am satisfied with the amount of pay receive.

41
Table 4. 11 Employee job satisfaction survey

NO Employee job satisfaction survey N Mean Std.Dev

1. I enjoy my work most days. 110 2.98 1.196
2. I am satisfied with my job. 110 2.85 1.127
3. The major satisfaction in my life comes from my job. 110 2.71 1.152
4. My co-workers at work are friendly and supportive. 110 3.80 1.099
5. My supervisor supports me enough at work. 110 3.15 .880
6. I am satisfied with the amount of pay I receive. 110 1.99 1.088
Grand Mean score and std.dev 2.91 1.09033

4.7 Labor productivity measurement

Labor productivity represents the volume of output (measured in terms of gross domestic
product) produced per unit of labor (measured in terms of the number of employed person)
during a given time of reference period. Accordingly, the mean scored and standard deviation of
Labor productivity measurement of bar bender, mason, concerting work, plasterer and carpentry
is (477) (0.462), (0.396) (0.4529) and (0.443) respectively. as it can be seen from the table 4.12
this shows that the labors actual output is less 55% from the expected output. The measured
labor type (man power) couldn’t attain the required output due to different reason. And this will
cause cost and time over run and so on. So it needs immediate attention.

Table 4. 12 Labor productivity measurement

NO Labor productivity measurement N Mean Std.Dev

1. ROBAR 110 .477529 .2024178
2. ROMAS 110 .462489 .2224319
3. ROCONC 110 .396950 .1796430
4. ROPLAS 110 .452284 .2130467
5. ROCARP 110 .443617 .2077624
Grand Mean score and std.dev 0.4465 0.205
Source: Own computation from survey data 2021

42
4.4.11 Ranked Labor productivity Analysis

Table 4. 13 Rank Analysis of labor productivity

No Variables Mean Std.Dev Rank

1. Design and specification 2.96 1.271 1
related factors level of effects
2. Supervision related factors 2.89 1.2418 2
level of effects
3. Client related factors with 2.74 1.445 3
respect to level of effect
4. Labor related factors with 2.69 1.383 4
respect to level of effect
5. Organization material/ 2.525 1.1162 5
equipment factors level of
effects
6. Natural/ environment factors 2.435 1.314 6
level of effects
7. Safety factors level of effects 2.4133 1.1846 7
8. material/ equipment factors 2.387 1.399 8
level of effects
Source: Own computation from survey data 2021

As we see on the above table 4.13 Design and specification related factors level of effects are
highest impacts related to others variables. There are many factors that can influence the design
process. The design process is influenced by the client’s needs and requirements, the finances
available, the timescale of the build, any design changes that take place, the approvals of
planning, the site access, existing services and adjacent buildings, the type of client and the
building use, the design of the building, the materials used, land suitability, topography, shape
and site conditions, the ownership of the land and the impact the build will have on the natural
environment. Employee job satisfaction surveys are second rank on labor productivity. The third
effect of labor productivity is Supervision related factors level of effects material factors,
execution plan factors, and design factors. In addition to these factors, for large companies
equipment factors have also high effect. While in small and medium companies,
owner/consultant factors also need special attention because it has high effect too. The fourth
factors of labor productivity are Client related factors with respect to level of effect. The fifth
factors are Labor related factors with respect to level of effect. Others are material/ equipment

43
factors level of effects, Natural/ environment factors level of effects, Safety factors level of
effects and material/ equipment factors level of effects respectively.

4.8 Relationships between determinant of labor productivity and job satisfaction

Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was used to determine the relationship
between Labor productivity and job satisfaction. Pearson correlation analysis was used in this
paper to provide evidence of construct validity. Pearson correlation coefficient reveal magnitude
and direction (either positive or negative) and the intensity of the relationship (-1.0 to +1.0).

Perfect: If the value is near ± 1, then it said to be a perfect correlation: as one variable increases,
the other variable tends to also increase (if positive) or decrease (if negative). High degree: If
the coefficient value lies between ± 0.50 and ± 1, then it is said to be a strong correlation.
Moderate degree: If the value lies between ± 0.30 and ± 0.49, then it is said to be a medium
correlation. Low degree: When the value lies below + .29, then it is said to be a small
correlation. No correlation: When the value is zero.

44
Table 4. 14 Correlation between determinant of labor productivity and job satisfaction

Employee Job satisfaction

Employee Job Satisfaction Pearson Correlation 1
Sig. (2-tailed)
N 110
Design and Specification Pearson Correlation 0.65
Related Factors Sig. (2-tailed) 0.00
N 110
Supervision Related Factors Pearson Correlation 0.41
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 110
labor related f-actors Pearson Correlation 0.84
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 110
Client related factors Pearson Correlation 0.68
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 110
Natural/environmental Factors Pearson Correlation 0.78
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 110
Safety factors Pearson Correlation 0.52
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 110
Material/Equipment Factor Pearson Correlation 0.65
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 110
Organization and Management Pearson Correlation 0.81
Related Factors Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 110
Source: Own computation from survey data 2021

The above table 4.14 show employee job satisfaction has a positive a positively and significant
relationship with factor affecting labor productivity. Highest correlation value is between
employee satisfaction and labor related factors. Next to that Organization and Management
Related Factors are second highest correlation values. The table shown below demonestrates the
rank of relationship between employee job satisfaction and labor productivity. The lowest
relationship is among employee job satisfaction and supervision factors.

45
Table 4. 15 Employee job satisfactions with labor productivity rank
NO Variables Correlation Rank Degree Of
values(r) relation
1. labor related factors 0.84 1 High
2. Organization and Management Related Factors 0.81 2 High
3. Natural/environmental Factors 0.78 3 High
4. client related factors 0.68 4 High
5. Design and Specification Related Factors 0.65 5 High
6. Material/Equipment Factor 0.65 6 High
7. Safety factors 0.52 7 High
8. Supervision Related Factors 0.41 8 Moderate
Source: Own computation from survey data 2021

4.7 The Relationship of Demographic Variables with employee job satisfaction

Employee job satisfaction (JSS) is found to be statistically related with demographic variables,
marital status, Age, and Experience. Accordingly, the result shows that the marital status has a
positive relationship with r value of (0.48) and statistically significant at (.000) on employee
job satisfaction. Age has positive relationship with r value of (0.78) and statistical significant
level at (.000) on employee job satisfaction. Experience has positive relationship with r value
of (0.81) and statistical significant level at (.000). Organizational type has negative and no
significant relationship with employee job satisfaction. Type profession has low degree of
relationship and statistical significant relationship with employee job satisfaction.

This indicates that employee’s job satisfaction does relate to demographic variables. Age has
strong relationship with employee’s job satisfaction, Work experience has very high relationship
with employee’s job satisfaction and marital status has moderate relationship with employee’s
job satisfaction.

46
Table 4. 16 Relationship between demographic variables and job satisfaction

Employee Job satisfaction

Employee Job Satisfaction Pearson Correlation 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 110
Organizational type Pearson Correlation .54
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 110
Trade profession Pearson Correlation 0.21
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 110
Marital status Pearson Correlation 0.48
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 110
Age Pearson Correlation 0.78
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 110
Work Experience Pearson Correlation 0.81
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 110
Source: Own computation from survey data 2021

4.9 Relationship between determinant of labor productivity frequency of occurrence and

labor productivity Measurement

Labor is one of the basic requirements in the construction industry. Labor productivity is
typically measured as output per worker or output per labor-hour. Understanding critical
determinant of productivity of both positive and negative can be used to prepare a strategy to
reduce inefficiencies and to improve the effectiveness of project performance. The different
factors, which assumed to have significant effect, are considered in the linear regression as
depicted in table 4.17 below. The mediator variable has been controlled.

47
Table 4. 17 relationships between labor productivity of occurrence with productivity measurement

Variables type bar mason concrete plasterer carpenter

bender
Coefficient beta .084 .214 .215 .241 .234
DSRFFM Sig .485 .079 .0000 .000 .000
SRFFM Coefficient beta .251 -.314 .212 .045 .242
Sig .000 .040 .000 .002 .000
LRFFM Coefficient beta .214 .141 -.145 .021 .241
Sig .000 .010 .000 .002 .000
CRFFM Coefficient beta -.249 .251 -.314 .025 .021
Sig .099 .000 .040 .000 .000
NFFM Coefficient beta -.001 .214 .141 .215 .241
Sig (.096) .000 .010 .0000 .000
SFFM Coefficient beta .210 .045 .242 .212 .045
Sig .000 .002 .000 .000 .002
MEFFM Coefficient beta -.301 .021 .241 .215 .241
Sig (.727 ) .002 .000 .000 .000
OMRFFM Coefficient beta -.359 -.249 .251 -.314 .211
Sig .063 .099 .000 .040 .000
Source: Own computation from survey data 2021

Design and specification related factors and Labor productivity in building construction the
regression coefficient result shown in the above table 4.17 confirmed that there was a positive
relationship between Design and specification related factors and productivity of bar bender
based on the above table of regression beta coefficient and significant values.

Supervision related factors and Labor productivity in building construction the regression
coefficient result shown in the above table 4.17 confirmed that there was a positive and negative
relationship between Supervision related factors and productivity measurement.

Labor related factors and Labor productivity in building construction the regression coefficient
result shown in the above table-4.17 confirmed that there was a positive and negative
relationship between Labor related factors and productivity measurement

Client related factors and Labor productivity in building construction the regression coefficient
result shown in the above table 4.17 confirmed that there was a significant negative relationship
between Clients related factors and productivity measurement.

48
Natural /environmental factors and Labor productivity in building construction the regression
coefficient result of shows in the above table 4.17 confirmed that there was a significant positive
and negative relationship between Natural /environmental factors and productivity measurement.

Safety factors and Labor productivity in building construction the regression coefficient result of
shows in the above table 4.17 confirmed that there was a significant positive relationship
between safety factors and productivity measurement.

Material/ Equipment factors and Labor productivity in building construction the regression
coefficient result shows in the above table-4.17 confirmed that there was a significant negative
and negative relationship between Material/ Equipment factors and productivity measurement.

Organization (contractor) and management related factors and Labor productivity in building
construction the regression coefficient result of shows in the above table-4.19 confirmed that
there was a significant negative and positive relationship between Organization (contractor) and
management related factors with productivity measurement.

4.10 Regression Analysis

4.10.1 Tests of Assumptions of Regression Analysis
Some tests were conducted in order to ensure the appropriateness of data to assumptions
regression analysis. In order to accept the regression results, most common assumptions such as
Multicollinearity problem, linearity and normality assumptions should be considered and
fulfilled. For this reason, the following tests were conducted to check whether the assumptions of
multiple linear regression analysis were violated or not.

4.10.1.1 Test of Multicollinearity

One of the assumptions of multiple linear regression analysis is that the independent variables
should not have very high association or correlation. When the independent variables are highly
correlated, it is regarded as a problem in the model and this problem is called Multicollinearity.
Damador N. Gujarati and porter (2010) stated that the existence of Multicollinearity can be
diagnosed by analyzing the values of tolerance and Variance Inflation Factors (VIF). A tolerance
of < 0.10 and/or a VIF > 10 indicates a Multicollinearity problem. Because, Variance Inflation

49
Factors (VIF) and tolerance all fall within the acceptance range (VIF = 1 - 10, or tolerance = 0.1
– 1.0). The information about the Multicollinearity analysis is displayed in table below.

Table 4.13 Multicollinearity diagnosis

Collinearity Statistics
Tolerance VIF
(Constant)
DSRFF .660 1.515
SRFF .655 1.528
LRF .947 1.056
CRF .872 1.146
NEF .926 1.080
SRF .924 1.082
MRF .858 1.165
OMRF .903 1.108
Source: Own computation from survey data 2021

The result shows that the tolerance value for each independent variable is (0.947, 0.926, 0.92,
0.903, 0.872, 0.858, 0660 and 0.655) respectively. Which is not less than 0.10; therefore, multi
Collinearity assumption is not violated. This is also supported by the VIF value, which are all
vales not greater than 10.

4.10.1.2 Test of Normality

The distribution of scores on the dependent variable should be normal ‘describing a symmetrical,
bell-shaped curve, having the greatest frequency of scores around the mean, with smaller
frequencies towards the extremes. In order to test normality of the data, observation on the shape
of the histogram was checked, kurtosis and skewness value was also checked using SPSS version
25. Skewness measures the degree to which cases are clustered towards one end of an asymmetry
distribution and kurtosis measures the peakedness of the distribution. For this research, the
histogram and the ratio of skewness to kurtosis were checked and the result indicates that data
used in the study is normally distributed.

50
Figure 2 Histogram, Normality test

Source: Own computation from survey data 2021

As the above figure shows, the frequency of distribution is normal curve, demonstrating that the
data witness to the normality assumption. Moreover, the histogram is bell shaped which lead to
infer that the residual (disturbance or errors) are normally distributed. Thus, no violations of the
assumption normally distributed error term.

The normal probability plots were also used to test the normality assumption as shown on the
normal p-plot figure. It shows the residuals were normally distributed around its mean of zero
which indicates that the data were normally distributed and it was consistent with a normal
distribution assumption. The p-plot figures confirmed the normality assumption.

51
Figure 3 Normality P-P plot

Source: Own computation from survey data 2021

4.10.1.3 Linearity test

Linearity assumption of multiple regressions was tested using scatter plot test and it was found
that there is linear relationship between independent and dependent variables. The linearity result
depicted the distribution of residuals near to the mean zero.

Figure 4 Scatter plot as test of linearity

52
Source: Own computation from survey data 2021

4.11. Multiple Regressions

After the study met the regression assumptions, next the researcher examined the effect of each
of variables on employee job satisfaction. The researcher tested the three hypothesis set out to be
tested at the beginning based on the regression analysis. The researcher believes that the Akaki
Kality projects can use the result of the regression analysis for future decision making via
identifying which factors got the highest effect on employee job satisfaction in Akaki Kality
projects. This will answer the research question of the effect of each variable (labor productivity,
determinant of labor productivity and employee job satisfaction) . This will answer the research
question of the effect of each independent variable on the dependent variable job satisfaction.

4.11.1 Effect of determinant of labor productivity on Employee job satisfaction

Table 4. 14 R square study determinant of labor productivity on employee job satisfaction

Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of Sig. F Change
Square the Estimate
a
1 .825 .680 .675 4.783 .021b
a. Predictors: (Constant), OMRF, NEF, LRF, SRFF, CRF, SRF, MRF, DSRFF
b. Dependent variable: Employee job satisfaction
Source: Own computation from survey data 2021

Table 4. 15 ANOVA of determinant of labor productivity on employee job satisfaction

ANOVAa
Model Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
1 Regression 9.201 8 .150 115.414 .021b
Residual 48.673 101 .482
Total 57.874 109
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Job Satisfaction
b. Predictors: (Constant), OMRF, NEF, LRF, SRFF, CRF, SRF, MRF, DSRFF
Source: Own computation from survey data 2021

53
Table 4. 16 Regression Coefficients of determinant of labor productivity on employee job
satisfaction

Coefficients
Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 1.718 .685 2.508 .014
DSRFF .123 .115 .119 1.063 .000
SRFF .493 .159 .350 3.102 .002
LRF .122 .118 .097 1.034 .020
CRF .147 .086 .168 1.714 .000
NEF .124 .088 .132 1.393 .007
SRF .297 .075 .122 1.288 .003
MRF .333 .079 .041 .419 .000
OMRF .232 .099 .031 .327 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Job Satisfaction
Source: Own computation from survey data 2021

Y(EJS)= 1.718+ .123X1 +.493X2 + 0.122X3+0.147X4+0.124X5+0.297X6+0.333X7+0.232X8

Y= 1.718+.123 (design and specification factors) +.493 (Supervision Related Factors) +
0.122(labor related factor) + 0.147(client related factor) + 0.124(Natural/environmental Factors)
+ 0.297(Safety factors) + 0.333(Material/Equipment Factor) + 0.232 (Organization and
Management Related Factors)

The result of regression analysis of the independent variables on the dependent variable
employee job satisfaction indicates existence of positive and statistically significant effect. The
model summary table Adjusted R-square value is 0.68 which means that 68% of the job
satisfaction is explained by the variation of the eight independent variables and the other 32% is
due to other independent variables not included in the model and the random error. Thus the
strength of the relationship between dependent and independent variables is moderately good, as
R-square is approach to 50%.

The above coefficients table shows the individual beta values of each independent variable. The
beta value shows the effect of each independent variable on the dependent variable. The beta
value of Work nature is (β = 0.123) which shows that by keeping other factors constant, 1 unit
change in design and specification factors will cause a 0.123 unit positive change in employee

54
job satisfaction. And it is statistically significant at p < 0.05. The beta value of Supervision
Related Factors is (β = 0.493) showing that 1 unit change in Supervision Related Factors will
cause a 0.493 units’ positive change in employee job satisfaction. And it is statistically
significant at p < 0.05, keeping other factors constant. The beta value of labor related factor is (β
= 122, p <0.05) and significant, showing that 1 unit change in labor related factor will cause a
0.122 units’ positive change in employee job satisfaction citrus paribus. The beta value of client
related factor is (β = 0.147) which shows that by keeping other factors constant, 1 unit change in
client related factor will cause a 0.147 unit positive change in employee job satisfaction. The
beta value of Natural/environmental Factors is (β = 0.124) which shows that by keeping other
factors constant, 1 unit change in client related factor will cause a 0.124 unit positive change in
employee job satisfaction. The beta value of Safety factors is (β = 0.297) which shows that by
keeping other factors constant, 1 unit change in Safety factors will cause a 0.297 unit positive
change in employee job satisfaction. The beta value of Material/Equipment Factor is (β = 0.333)
which shows that by keeping other factors constant, 1 unit change in Material/Equipment Factor
will cause a 0.333 unit positive change in employee job satisfaction. And it is statistically
significant at p < 0.05. The beta value of Organization and Management Related Factors is (β
=0.232, p <0.05) and significant, showing that 1 unit change in Organization and Management
Related Factors will cause a 0.232 units’ positive change in employee job satisfaction citrus
paribus.

4.11.2 Effects of determinant of labor productivity on labor productivity

Table 4. 17 R square study determinant of labor productivity on labor productivity

Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of Sig. F Change
Square the Estimate
1 .785a .616 .586 1.783 .000
a. Predictors: (Constant), DLP
b. Dependent variable: LP
Source: Own computation from survey data 2021

55
Table 4. 18 ANOVA of determinant of labor productivity on labor productivity

ANOVAa
Model Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
1 Regression 1.803 8 .225 .680 .000
Residual 40.328 73 .552
Total 42.132 81
a. Dependent Variable: DLP
b. Predictors: (Constant), LP
Source: Own computation from survey data 2021

Table 4. 19 Regression Coefficients of determinant of labor productivity on labor

productivity

Coefficients
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 2.170 .396 7.754 .000
DSRFF .512 .391 .148 1.310 .000
SRFF .100 .360 .031 .277 .002
LRF .588 .463 .146 1.270 .008
CRF .147 .369 .045 .398 .002
NEF .046 .389 .014 .118 .007
SRF .574 .104 .361 2.322 .000
MRF .235 .412 .321 .234 .000
OMRF .241 .423 .232 .235 .000
a. Dependent Variable: LP
Source: Own computation from survey data 2021

The result of regression analysis of the independent variables on the dependent variable
employee job satisfaction indicates existence of positive and statistically significant effect. The
model summary table Adjusted R-square value is 0.616 which means that 61.6% of the labor
productivity is explained by the variation of the independent variables of determinant of labor
productivity and the other 38.4 % is due to other independent variables not included in the
model and the random error. Thus the strength of the relationship between dependent and
independent variables is good, as R-square is greater than 50%.

56
LP= 2.170 + 0.512X1 +0.100X2 + 0.588X3+0.147X4+0.046X5+0.574X6+0.235X7+0.241 X8
LP= α+ β design and specification factors + β Supervision Related Factors + β labor related
factor + β client related factor ++ β Natural/environmental Factors + β (Safety factors) + β
(Material/Equipment Factor) + β (Organization and Management Related Factors)+ e

4.11.3 Effects of labor productivity on Employee job satisfaction

Table 4. 20 R square of labor productivity on Employee job satisfaction

Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Square Estimate
1 .851 .724 .722 .72845
a. Predictors: (Constant), carpenter , mason, bar bender , plasterer, concrete
Source: Own computation from survey data 2021

Table 4. 21 ANOVA of labor productivity on Employee job satisfaction

ANOVAa
Model Sum of Df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
1 Regression 1.803 5 .361 .680 .000
Residual 40.328 76 .531
Total 42.132 81
a. Dependent Variable: EJS
b. Predictors: (Constant), carpenter , mason, bar bender , plasterer, concrete
Source: Own computation from survey data 2021

Table 4.22 Regression Coefficients of labor productivity on Employee job satisfaction

Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Beta
Error
1 (Constant) 3.070 .396 7.754 .000
bar bender .512 .391 .148 1.310 .000
Mason .100 .360 .031 .277 .004
Concrete .526 .463 .146 1.270 .000
Plasterer .151 .369 .045 .398 .000
Carpenter .046 .389 .014 .118 .002
a. Dependent Variable: EJS
Source: Own computation from survey data 2021

57
The result of regression analysis of the independent variables on the dependent variable
employee job satisfaction indicates existence of positive and statistically significant effect. The
model summary table Adjusted R-square value is 0.724 which means that 72.4% of the labor
productivity is explained by the variation of the independent variables of employee job
satisfaction and the other 27.6 % is due to other independent variables not included in the model
and the random error. Thus the strength of the relationship between dependent and independent
variables is good, as R-square is greater than 50%.

EJS= α+ β (bar bender) + β (Mason) + β (concrete) + β (Plasterer) + β (Carpenter)

EJS=3.07+ .512X1+.100X2+.526X3+.151X4+.046X5+e

4.11.4 Mediating effective of labor productivity on the relationship between determinant of

labor productivity and job satisfaction

According to Baron and Kenny (1986) perfect mediation holds, the independent variable has no
effect when the mediator is controlled. However, partial mediation occurs when the independent
variable’s effect is reduced in magnitude, but is still significant when the mediator is controlled.
The significance of mediation effect was measured by using more convenient special PROCESS
macro developed by (Hayes A. F., 2012) Results were presented here under.

Mediation implies a situation where the effect of the independent variable on the dependent
variable can best be explained using a third mediator variable which is caused by the
independent variable and is itself a cause for the dependent variable. To test mediation effect a
multiple regression analyses were performed following the guidelines suggested by (Baron,
1986).

First, whether the independent variable determinant of labor productivity is significantly

predicted the mediator variable labor productivity was checked, when was regresses determinant
of labor productivity on the labor productivity the result showed that coefficient = .0215 t=.6458
Sig.000. This indicates that determinant of labor productivity is a significant predictor of
mediating variable labor productivity. Secondly, whether the determinant of labor productivity is
a significant predictor of the dependent variable employee job satisfaction was checked, when
we regressed the employee job satisfaction on the determinant of labor productivity. The result

58
showed that the coefficient = .1829, t=.6942 Sig.000. This indicates that that determinant of
labor productivity is significantly predicting dependent variable employee job satisfaction. Third,
whether the mediator variable labor productivity is a significant predictor of the job satisfaction
was checked, when we regressing the dependent variable employee job satisfaction on both
independent variable determinant of labor productivity and mediating variable labor
productivity. The result showed that the coefficient = .2106 t=.2493 Sig.000.This implies that the
mediator variable labor productivity is significantly predict dependent variable employee job
satisfaction. These conditions all hold in the predicted directions, then finally checked the effect
of the independent variable on the dependent variable has been less in the third equation than in
the second equation. And it was proved that the magnitude of the independent variable reduced
from .1829 to .6942 and sig. 000, in the third regression coefficient. According to Baron and
Kenny (1986) perfect mediation holds, the independent variable has no effect when the mediator
is controlled. However, partial mediation occurs when the independent variable’s effect is
reduced in magnitude, but is still significant when the mediator is controlled. The significance of
mediation effect was measured by using more convenient special PROCESS macro developed by
(Hayes A. F., 2012) Results were presented here under.

Table 4. 23 Standardized path coefficients of the model

Standardized t value Sig.

Variables relationship coefficient
(β)

DLP EJS .1783 .6823 .000

DLP LP .0215 .6458 .000
LP EJS .2106 .2493 .000
DLP LP EJS .1829 .6942 .000
Source: Own computation from survey data 2021

59
4.12 Hypothesis Testing
H1: There is a positive relationship between determinant of labor productivity and
employee job satisfaction.

There is statically positive and significant relationship between employee job satisfaction and
determinant of labor productivity. A statistical hypothesis is an assertion or conjecture
concerning one or more populations. To prove that a hypothesis is true, or false, with absolute
certainty, we would need absolute knowledge. The above coefficients table 4.16 shows the
individual beta values of each independent variable. The beta value shows the effect of each
independent variable on the dependent variable. The beta value of Work nature is (β = 0.123)
which shows that by keeping other factors constant, 1 unit change in design and specification
factors will cause a 0.123 unit positive change in employee job satisfaction. And it is statistically
significant at p < 0.05. The beta value of Supervision Related Factors is (β = 0.493) showing that
1 unit change in Supervision Related Factors will cause a 0.493 units’ positive change in
employee job satisfaction. And it is statistically significant at p < 0.05, keeping other factors
constant. The beta value of labor related factor is (β = .122, p <0.05) and significant, showing
that 1 unit change in labor related factor will cause a 0.122 units’ positive change in employee
job satisfaction citrus paribus. The beta value of client related factor is (β = 0.147) which shows
that by keeping other factors constant, 1 unit change in client related factor will cause a 0.147
unit positive change in employee job satisfaction. The beta value of Natural/environmental
Factors is (β = 0.124) which shows that by keeping other factors constant, 1 unit change in client
related factor will cause a 0.124 unit positive change in employee job satisfaction. The beta value
of Safety factors is (β = 0.297) which shows that by keeping other factors constant, 1 unit change
in Safety factors will cause a 0.297 unit positive change in employee job satisfaction. The beta
value of Material/Equipment Factor is (β = 0.333) which shows that by keeping other factors
constant, 1 unit change in Material/Equipment Factor will cause a 0.333 unit positive change in
employee job satisfaction. And it is statistically significant at p < 0.05. The beta value of
Organization and Management Related Factors is (β =0.232, p <0.05) and significant, showing

60
that 1 unit change in Organization and Management Related Factors will cause a 0.232 units’
positive change in employee job satisfaction citrus paribus.

H2: There is a Negative relationship between determinant of labor productivity and labor
productivity.

There is a positive and significant relationship between determinant of labor productivity and
labor productivity. The second hypothesis stated that there is positive relationship between
determinant of Labor productivity and labor productivity in building construction, Akaki Kality
subcity. The regression coefficient result of shows in the above table 4.19 confirmed that there
was a significant positive relationship between determinant of labor productivity and labor
productivity DSRF (cof = .512, p = 0.000) , SRFF (cof=0.100, p=0.002), LRF (cof=0.588,
p=0.008), CRF (cof = .147, p = 0.002), NEF (cof = .0046, p = 0.007), SRF (cof = .574, p =
0.000), MRF (cof = .235, p = 0.000) and OMRF (cof = .241, p = 0.000). Thus the study result
cannot be supports the hypothesis (H2).

H3: There is positive relationship between labor productivity and Employee job
satisfaction

There is a positive and significant relationship between labor productivity and employee job
satisfaction. The second hypothesis stated that there is positive relationship between Labor
productivity and employee job satisfaction in building construction, Akaki Kality subcity. The
regression coefficient result of shows in the above table 4.22 confirmed that there was a
significant positive relationship between labor productivity and employee job satisfaction Bar
bender (cof = .512, p = 0.000) , Mason (cof=0.100, p=0.004), Concrete (cof=0.526, p=0.000),
Plasterer (cof = .151, p = 0.000) and Carpenter (cof = 0.046, p = 0.002). Thus the study result be
supports the hypothesis (H2).

H4: Labor productivity mediates the relationship between determinant labor productivity
and Job satisfaction.

61
As indicated that, the indirect effect has a positive value (0.42) with a bootstrap confidence
interval (0.3296, 0.0098) zero is not within this interval value. This result is statistically different
from zero then this tells us that labor productivity is mediating the relationship between
determinant of labor productivity and job satisfaction. This finding is supported by the guidelines
suggested by (Baron, 1986).First, whether the independent variable determinant of labor
productivity is significantly predict the mediator variable labor productivity was checked, when
was regresses determinant of labor productivity on the labor productivity. The result showed that
coefficient = .0215 t=.6458 Sig.000. This indicates that determinant of labor productivity is a
significant predictor of mediating variable labor productivity. Secondly, whether the determinant
of labor productivity is a significant predictor of the dependent variable employee job
satisfaction was checked, when we regressed the job satisfaction on the determinant of labor
productivity. The result showed that coefficient = .1783 t=.6823 Sig.000. This indicates that
determinant of labor productivity is a significant predictor of dependent variable of employee job
satisfaction. . Third, whether the mediator variable labor productivity is a significant predictor of
the employee job satisfaction was checked, when we regressing the dependent variable employee
job satisfaction on both independent variable determinant of labor productivity and mediating
variable labor productivity. Therefore, labor productivity mediates the relationship between
determinant of labor productivity and employee job satisfaction.

CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction

The results of the questionnaire survey and discussion of the findings in line with the literature
review were presented in the previous section. Conclusions derived from the research findings
are made and the relevant recommendations & future research areas are forwarded.

5.2 Summary of Findings

The results bring to the fore important findings on the relationship between labor productivity
and employee job satisfaction examining relationships on building construction in the case of
project located Akaki Kality sub city, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia. The major objective of this thesis

62
to investigate Labor Productivity and Employee Job Satisfaction Examining Relationships on
Building Construction project located Akaki Kality Sub City, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia.

One hundred twenty questionnaires are distributed to respondent. The return rate of the
questionnaire is 83.3% that’s good. Trade Profession of respondent are 29.1% of site engineer
respondents, by 5.5% of Forman, 3.6% carpentry, 4.5% bar bender, 8.2% plasterer, .9.1%
assistance resident engineer, 9.1% resident engineer,10.9% project Manager,7.3% mason,
17.3%offices engineer ,4.5% construction engineer. In our thesis In terms of marital status, the
sample population categorized in to two groups. 60% single and 40% are married. respondents
whose experience is between 10 to 20 years consists 30% of the total sample size and 28.2 % is
consisted by those whose experience is between 5- 10 years and 5-10 years . Of the total
respondents as 7.3% is covered by those respondents who worked from 0- 2 years. The
remaining 6.4% is covered by respondents who work above 20 years in construction industry.

Descriptive statistics describe data in terms of measures of central tendency. A mean score that is
less than 2 is rated as low, a mean score between 2 to 4 is rated as average and a mean score of
greater 4 is rated as high. Accordingly, the mean value of Design and specification related
factors rate of level of effect is 2.96 and standard deviation (1.271) is which imply that average
mean score. The mean value of Supervision related factors of rate of level of effect is 2.89 and
standard deviation (1.2418) which imply that the labors needs day to day follow up, provide
decision on time when it is needed and it is mandatory hire experienced supervisor. The mean
value of Labor related factors of rate of level of effect is 2.69 and standard deviation 1.383,which
imply that labors experience, motivation and age has moderate effect on their productivity and
even their relationship between labors really matters and have major influence on their
productivity. The mean value of Client related factors of rate of level of effect is 2.74 and
standard deviation 1.445 which imply that the client (end user) should pay payment on time so
that the contractors can provide the wage for labors on time hence the labors productivity can be
affected if their salary delays. Accordingly, the mean value of Natural /environmental factors of
rate of level of effect is 2.435 and standard deviation1.314, which imply that weather condition
of Akaki Kality is not good for construction industry during rainy season then this rainy season
is not contented for the labors so that it will interrupt the labors especially when there is external
works. The mean value of Safety factors of rate of level of effect is 2.413 and standard deviation

63
1.1846, which imply accidents occurs in construction site, the common cause of thus accidents
are working in high place and absent of protective safe accident gear Those factors are ranked in
second place from all the labor productivity factors. Accordingly, the mean value of Material/
Equipment of rate of level of effect is 2.38 and standard deviation 1.39, which imply any
equipment and tools that are required for the construction work must be well-functioning and
enough quantity for the given labors. the mean value of Organization (contractor) and
Management related factors of rate of level of effect is 2.525 and standard deviation 1.1162
which imply that the internal structure of the contractor’s stuff (engineering team) like
planning(scheduling), team work (having good work communication), avoiding mistakes which
can cause rework that leads decreasing of labor productivity.
Accordingly, the mean scored of Employee job satisfaction is 2.91 and as it can be seen from the
table 4.11 from the 6 questions asked under Employee job satisfaction the highest mean score
obtained on my co-workers at work are friendly and supportive this shows that being in a good
term with supervisor and co-workers is appropriate way to be more productive. The lowest mean
score for Employee job satisfaction is obtained on I am satisfied with the amount of pay receive.
Accordingly, the mean scored and standard deviation of Labor productivity measurement of bar
bender, mason, concerting work, plasterer and carpentry is (477) (0.462), (0.396) (0.4529) and
(0.443) respectively. Employee job satisfaction are a positively and significant relationship
between factor affecting labor productivity. Highest correlation value is between employee
satisfaction and labor related factors. Accordingly, the result shows that the marital status has a
positive relationship with r value of (0.48) and statistically significant at (.000) on employee
job satisfaction. Age have positive relationship with r value of (0.78) and statistical significant
level at (.000) on employee job satisfaction. Experience has positive relationship with r value
of (0.81) and statistical significant level at (.000). Organizational type has negative and no
significant relationship with employee job satisfaction. Type profession has low degree of
relationship and statistical significant relationship with employee job satisfaction. The regression
result shows that there is negative and significant relationship of determinant of Labor
productivity with respect to frequency of occurrence and employee job satisfaction. Labor and
organization (contractor) and management related factors are found to have significant negative
correlation coefficient with employee job satisfaction. The results show when the factors increase
it will affect the labor in different ways so it would decrease their satisfaction level of job.

64
5.3 Conclusion

The major objective of this thesis to investigate Labor Productivity and Employee Job
Satisfaction Examining Relationships on Building Construction project located Akaki Kality Sub
City, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia. The study has been successful in accomplishing the five research
objectives. Thus, based on the finding of the study the following conclusions are drawn:

Therefore, the following conclusions were drawn based on summary of findings.

 Looking into the findings of descriptive analysis Design and specification related factors
rate is moderate mean score in order to minimize design and specification factors the
project stakeholders must be done for the future project. These means this shows that
majority of the respondent’s agree that the design changes could affect labor productivity.
Under supervision related factors obtained on the delays in decision making, this shows
that majority of the respondent’s agree that the delays in decision making could have
impact on labor productivity. Labor related factors have moderate impacts on
productivity. These imply that labors experience, motivation and age has moderate effect
on their productivity and even their relationship between labors really matters and have
major influence on their productivity. Client related factors are third place from all the
labor productivity factors. This means client (end user) should pay payment on time so
that the contractors can provide the wage for labors on time hence the labors productivity
can be affected if their salary delays. Natural /environmental factors state about weather
and unforeseen condition the sixth highest impact on productivity. These implies that
tough season like rain, high temperature (very hot) affect the site works extremely
specially weather condition of Akaki Kality is not good for construction industry during
rainy season then this rainy season is not contented for the labors so that it will interrupt
the labors especially when there is external works. Safety in construction aims to ensure
that a construction site/industry as a whole is not the cause of immediate danger and the
labors and any other worker at the construction site should meets. which imply accidents
occurs in construction site, the common cause of thus accidents are working in high place
and absent of protective safe accident gear Those factors are ranked in seventh place from
all the labor productivity factors. Material/ Equipment factors are ranked in eight places

65
 from all the labor productivity factors. This implies Absence of technological
advancements for machineries, this shows that how technology could make the
construction site safer and labors can be more efficient as a result it will increase labors
productivity. Organization (contractor) and Management related factors of rate of level
of effect the highest mean score is obtained on the Mistakes during
construction(Rework), this shows that redoing or correcting work that was not done
correctly for the first time is a very difficult task for labors and could seriously decrease
their moral for work and their productivity too.
 The correlation analysis result shows that, all the eight determinant of labor productivity
are positively and significantly related with both labor productivity and employee job
satisfaction. With regard to the correlation between determinant of labor productivity and
labor productivity,
 The study examined the influence of determinant of labor productivity in the relationship
between labor productivity and employee job satisfaction, whether the relationship was
influenced by a mediator effect. The result revealed that there was mediator effect for
labor productivity in the relationship between determinant of labor productivity and
employee job satisfaction. The result also indicated that there was significant direct effect
with both Goodman, and Aroian tests and bootstrapping. Those tests for indirect effect
are valid when the assumption of normality of the sampling distribution can be met.
Bootstrapping is powerful technique to calculate confidence interval for indirect effect
without any assumptions about sampling distribution.
 . In addition regarding correlation of each variable with employee job satisfaction,
determinant of labor productivity has the moderate correlation and labor productivity also
moderate relationship. In addition, in determining the relative contribution of each
influential component in explaining and predicting of employee job satisfaction logically,
employee job satisfaction respectively affected by “determinant of labor productivity”
and “labor productivity”, components that they are important to increase employee
satisfaction level.

66
5.4 Recommendation

This research has showed the relationship between determinant of labor productivity and labor
productivity and Employee job satisfaction in the case of Construction project located Akaki
Kality Sub City, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia. The results show that determinant of labor productivity
have positive and significant relationship with employee job satisfaction. Based on the findings
and conclusions of the study, the following recommendations were forwarded to the building
construction industry.

 Looking into the findings of descriptive analysis In Clients related factor are
fundamental needs and responsibilities in the construction process were analyzed and
ranked. Results indicate that the four most important needs are: functionality of the
building, safety of the building, quality of the building, and completion time. In order to
achieve project goal client must be participated in such activities. Contractors should
assign project managers with adequate managerial skills, consultants and client also
should assign construction supervisors with sufficient supervisory experiences so that
when there are problems, they would act and solve immediately at the project site. And
Needs to identify and implement rapidly finest method when there are financial
difficulties. Keeping workers safe should be the top priority on every jobsite. Site
conditions can change rapidly, and unexpected hazards can crop up at any time creating
unexpected project risks. Major accidents can result in serious injuries or fatalities to your
employees. Your goal on every project should be to be accident-free and ensure every
worker goes home safe to their family.
 In this study determinant of labor productivity has significant and positive relationship
with employees’ job satisfaction. This implies that, the more conducive determinant of
labor productivity, leading to the higher employee job satisfaction. Therefore,
Construction project located Akaki Kality Sub City, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia should give
more attention to inculcate and maintain determinant of labor productivity as important
tool to improve the level of employees’ job satisfaction.
 In this study labor productivity has significant and positive relationship with employees’
job satisfaction. This implies that, it should make efforts to increase in labor productivity
at the same time employees job satisfaction has increased. So working on increasing

67
 labor productivity will take employee’s job satisfaction one step ahead.

5.5 Future research

These thesis covers some of a variable which affect employee job satisfaction and labor
productivity in the construction industry, some other variable might be included in the future
projects like, organization (contractor) structure, wage, opportunity of growth etc.
Due to current pandemic disease the sample size might be smaller so in order increase our
accuracy the sample size may need to be increased.

68
 References
 A.A.Attar, A.K.Gupta and D.B. Desai (2012), ‘’A study of Various Determinant of
Labor Productivity and Methods to Improve it, India”
 Alarcon, L. F Borcherding, J. D., and. (1991). “Quantitative effects on construction
productivity.” The Construction Lawyer, American Bar Association, 11(1), 35-48.
 Aliw (2003) Factors Influencing Contractors performance in Indonesia.
 Alum, J., and Lim, E. C. (1995). "Construction productivity: Issues encountered by
contractors in Singapore." International Journal of Project Management, 13(1), 51-58.
 Ameh, O.J and Osegebo, E.E(2011) Study of relationship between time overrun and
productivity on construction sites. International Journal of construction supply chain
management
 Armstrong, M. (2006). “A handbook of human resource management practice. London:
Kogan”
 Atkinson A, Weterhouse J, and Wells R (1997). “A Stakeholder Approach to Strategic
Performance Measurement. Sloan Management Review, 38(3), p. 25–37.”
 Carl T. Haas, John D. Borcherding, Eric Allmon, Paul M. Goodrum (1999) “Construction
Labor Productivity Trends,U.S”.
 Das, M. (2009). Marketing Research - An Applied Oreintation. 5th edition, Pearson
Education Inc.
 David Stiedl,(1995), Productivity Norms for labour-based construction, Nairobi,Kenya.
 Dozzi, S.P. and AbouRizk, S.M. (1993), Productivity in Construction, Institute for
Research in Construction, National Research Council, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
 Emiroğlu et al., 2015) and (Victoria and Olalekan, 2016)
 Enshassi et al.2006 “cause of contractor’s business failure in developing countries the
case of Palestine”
 Fetene Nega 2008).“causes and effects of cost overrun on public building construction
projects in Ethiopia”
 George, J.M.and Jones,G.R.(2008).”Understanding and Managing Organizational behave
or, Fifth Edition, Pearson/Prentice Hall, New Yersey, p. 78.”
 H. R. Thomas, S. R. Sanders, “Determinant of masonry productivity ,”Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, vol.117(4), pp. 626–644, 1991
 Hanna, A. S., Taylor, C. S., and Sullivan, K. T. (2005), Impact of extended overtime on
construction labor productivity, ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering Management,
Canada
 Kaliski,2007.,EncyclopediaofBusinessandFinance,Secondedition,ThompsonGale,Detroit,
p.446
 Kaming Peter F, Olomolaiye P.O, Holt Gary D & Harris Frank C (1998),Factors
influencing Craftsmen productivity In Indonesia, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol 15, No.1,pp.21-30

69
 Kaya and Abdioğlu, 2010)Turnover Intention Influencing Factors of Employees
International Journal of Research in Business Studies and Management Volume 5, Issue
7, 2018, PP 23-31
 KothariR,(2004).ResearchMethodology:MethodsandTechniques(2ndreviseded.).NewDel
hi: New Age International Publishers.
 Lema, N. M., and Samson, M. (1995). “Construction of labor productivity modeling.”
University of Olomolaiye et al., 1998 , Problems influencing craftsmen’ productivity in
Nigeria, Journal of building & environment, Britain
 Makulsawatudom, A., and Emsley, M. (2002). Critical factors influencing construction
productivity in Thailand. Proceedings of CIB 10th International Symposium on
Construction.
 Makulsawatudom, A., and Emsley, M. (2002). Critical factors influencing construction
productivity in Thailand. Proceedings of CIB 10th International Symposium on
Construction
 Mc shane and Glinow,(2010) organizational behavior, emerging knowledge and practice
for the real world. 5th edition.
 Mojahed,S (2005) A project Improvement system for effective management of
construction projects .Lousinia State University Doctoral Dissertations.
 Motwani J, Kumar A, and Novakoski M (1995). Measuring Construction Productivity: a
Practical Approach. Work Study44 (8), p. 18–20.
 Mullins, L. J. (2004). Management and Organizational Behavior. (7th ed.). London:
Prentice Hall
 Okpara, J.O. (2006). Gender and the relationship between perceived fairness in pay,
promotion, and job satisfaction in a Sub-Saharan African economy. Women in
Management Review.
 Oliver, R. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of marketing , 33.
 Polat, G., and Arditi, P. (2005). “The JIT Management System in developing countries.”
Construction Management and Economics, 23(7), 697-712.
 Proverbs et al (1999), Factors impacting construction project duration: a comparison
between France, Germany and the u.k, building and environmental
 Reid,J.M (1987) Learning style preference style ESL,learners58. Ghauri and Kjell , 2005
 Rowlinson, M., and Proctor, S. (1999). ‘Organizational Culture and Business History’
Organization Studies 20(3) pp.369-96.
 S. Wilcox, B. Stringfellow, R. Harris, B. Martin, “Management and productivity,”
Transportation research board, committee on management and productivity. Washington,
USA, 2000.
 Saari,L. and Judge,T.,(2004).Employee attitudes and Job satisfaction, Wiley Periodicals,
Inc.
 Sekaran, U. (2003). Research Methods for Business: A sikill building approach. New
York: John Wiley and Sins,Inc

70
 Sempane, M., Rieger, H., & Roodt, G. (2002). Job satisfaction in relation to
organizational culture. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology
 Sempane, M., Rieger, H., &Roodt, G. (2002). Job satisfaction in relation to
organizational culture. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology
 Statt,D.(2004). The Rutledge Dictionary of Business Management, Third edition, Rout
ledge Publishing, Detroit.
 The Business Round table (1983), Scheduled overtime effects on construction projects,
Taskforce Report C-2.
 Thomas, H. R. (1991), “Labor productivity and work sampling” The bottom line, Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management, Texas
 Thomas, H. R., and Kramer, D. F. (1988). “The manual of construction productivity
measurement and performance evaluation.” Source Document 35, Construction Industry
Institute, the University of Texas at Austin.
 UNC, 1965 “the effect of repetition on building operations and processes”
 Vroom, V.H. (1964) Work and Motivation. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
 Yamane, T. (1967). Statistics, An Introductory Analysis, 2nd edition. New York:: Harper
and Row. York, McGraw-Hill.
 Zakeri et al., 1996A survey of constraints on Iranian construction operatives productivity
construction management and economics

71
 Questionnaire
Part One: General Information
1. What is your trade profession? --------------------------
2. State the type of your organization or company.
Client contractor others
Consultant Subcontractor
3. Marital status
Single married

4. For how much length of time have you been with the present employer?
0 up to2years 2 up to5years 5 up to 10years
`
10 p to20years Greater than 20years
`
5. For how much length of time have you been with this project?
0 up to3months 3 up to6months 6 up
to12 months Greater than 12months

6. How old are you?

15 up to20years 20 up to30years 30 up to 40years

40 up to50years Greater than 50years

7. How many years of experience do you have with this trade work?

0 up to2years 2 up to5years 5 up to 10years

10 up to20years Greater than 20years

72
 Part Two: Labor Productivity Measurement

1. What is the contract duration of the project? --------------------Months.

2. How many percent of the work is done now?--------------------- %
3. By how many percent the project is a head or lags from the expected time---------%
4. What is the average daily target (expected) output of your trade
per unit of man hour?

Steel bar bender and fixer: -----------------------kg/hour

Mason doing masonry wall: --------------------------- M2/hour

concreting work -------------------------------------- M3/hour

Plasterer: --------------------------- M2/hour

Carpenter: --------------------------- M2/hour

6. What is the average daily actual output of your trade per unit of man
hour?

Steel bar bender and fixer: -----------------------kg/hour

Mason doing masonry wall: --------------------------- M2/hour

concreting work -------------------------------------- M3/hour

Plasterer: --------------------------- M2/hour

Carpenter --------------------------- M2/hour

73
 Part Three: Job Satisfaction Survey

(Please put (“√”) to indicate your answer)

The response scale for the questions is as below:

1= Strongly Disagree (SD), 2= Disagree (D), 3= Neutral (N), 4= Agree (A),
5 = Strongly Agree (SA)

No Item SD D N A SA
1 I enjoy my work most days.
2 I am satisfied with my job.
3 The major satisfaction in my life comes from my job.
4 My co-workers at work are friendly and supportive.
5 My supervisor supports me enough at work.
6 I am satisfied with the amount of pay I receive.

Part Four: Determinant ofLabor Productivity.

Legend for Rate of level of Effects;

CE=Critical Effect= HE=High Effect=4 ME=Medium Effect=3 LE=Low Effect=2 NE=No

Effect=1

Legend; Frequency of occurrence

VO=Very Often=4, O=Often=3, ST=Some Times=2, No=None=1

1.2. Rate of level of 1.2. Frequency of
No Factors Effects occurrence
CE HE ME LE NE VO O ST No
=5 =4 =3 =2 =1 =4 =3 =2 =1
I. Design and Specification Related Factors
1 Design changes
2 Incomplete and Inaccurate drawings
3 Delay Preparation and delivery of drawings
4 Ambiguous and incomplete Specification
II. Supervision Related Factors

74
5 Delays in decisions making

6 Change of work order/Variation

7 Change of supervisor
8 Incompetence of supervisors
9 Supervisors absenteeism
10 Inspection and Instruction delay

III. Labor Related Factors

11 High absenteeism of labors

12 Labors experience and skill

13 Overcrowded labor force

14 Misunderstanding/poor relationship between

labors
15 Increased labor Age

16 Motivation of labor
IV. Client Related Factors

17 Financial difficulties of the owner /payment

delay (by the client)

18 End user Interference

19 Lack of communication between parties

(Client, Consultant and Contractor)
V. Natural/environmental Factors

20 Effect of Bad weather (rain, wind, low

Temperature, etc.)

21 Unforeseen Conditions (E.g. Ground

Condition)

VI. Safety factors

22 accidents during construction

75
 23 Working in high places

24 Absence protective safe gear

VII. Material/Equipment Factor

25 Old and inefficient equipment

26 Tools and equipment shortage

27 Dumping row material far away from the site

location due to the lack of access for dump truck

28 Absence of technological advancements for

machineries

VIII. Organization(Contractor) and

Management Related Factors
29 Improper planning and scheduling of work

30 Construction managers lack of Leadership

31 Poor communication and coordination

between the contractors engineers and Forman

32 Mistakes during construction(Rework)

Annex

Run MATRIX procedure:

**************** PROCESS Procedure for SPSS Version 3.5.3 ****************

Written by Andrew F. Hayes, Ph.D. www.afhayes.com

Documentation available in Hayes (2018). www.guilford.com/p/hayes3

**************************************************************************

Model: 4
Y: EJS
X: DLP
M: LP

Sample

76
Size: 89

**************************************************************************
OUTCOME VARIABLE:
LP

Model Summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
.0691 .0048 .0082 .4170 1.0000 87.0000 .5201

Model
Coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
Constant .3921 .0864 4.5392 .0000 .2204 .5638
DLP .0215 .0333 .6458 .0000 -.0447 .0878

**************************************************************************
OUTCOME VARIABLE:
EJS

Model Summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
.0777 .0060 .5095 .2614 2.0000 86.0000 .7706

Model
Coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
Constant 2.6535 .7569 3.5056 .0007 1.1488 4.1583
DLP .1829 .2634 .6942 .4894 .3407 .7065
LP .2106 .8447 .2493 .0000 1.8899 1.4687

************************** TOTAL EFFECT MODEL ****************************

OUTCOME VARIABLE:

EJS

Model Summary

R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p

.7310 .0053 .5040 .4656 1.0000 87.0000 .0000

Model

Coeff se t p LLCI ULCI

Constant 2.5709 .6769 3.7978 .0003 1.2254 3.9164

DLP .1783 .2613 .6823 .0000 -.3411 .6978

****************** DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF X ON Y *****************

Direct effect of X on Y
Effect se t p LLCI ULCI
.1829 .2634 .6942 .4894 -.3407 .7065

77
Indirect effect(s) of X on Y:
Effect BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI
LP .0045 .0314 -.0702 .0631

Partially standardized indirect effect(s) of X on Y:

Effect BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI
LP .0064 .0441 -.0963 .0887

Completely standardized indirect effect(s) of X on Y:

Effect BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI
LP .0019 .0127 -.0275 .0258

*********************** ANALYSIS NOTES AND ERRORS ************************

Level of confidence for all confidence intervals in output:

95.0000

Number of bootstrap samples for percentile bootstrap confidence intervals:

5000

------ END MATRIX -----

78