Next Article in Journal
Shielding without a Shield—Older People under COVID-19: A Comparison of Four Cities
Previous Article in Journal
Exploring Intersectional Variations in Sexual Pleasure, Sexual Autonomy, and Important Correlates
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Social Sciences
Volume 11
Issue 11
10.3390/socsci11110497
socsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Exploring Job Satisfaction and Intentions to Quit among Security Officers: The Role of Work Hygiene and Motivator Factors

by
Tania Nagpaul
1,*,
Chan-Hoong Leong
1,
Chin-Seng Toh
1,
Ardi Bin Amir
2,
Raymond Chin
2 and
Steve Tan
2
1
Centre for Applied Research, Singapore University of Social Sciences, Singapore 599494, Singapore
2
Union of Security Employees, Singapore 199018, Singapore
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Soc. Sci. 2022, 11(11), 497; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11110497
Submission received: 16 September 2022 / Revised: 19 October 2022 / Accepted: 21 October 2022 / Published: 27 October 2022
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Amidst the pandemic, the work of many security personnel increased due to the additional requirements of checking vaccination records, temperature-taking, and contact-tracing procedures. There is ample research linking work hygiene and motivator factors (from Herzberg’s two-factor theory) to both job satisfaction and intentions to quit in various types of work settings. However, little is known about what keeps security officers on the job despite the exacerbated challenges posed by the pandemic. We examine how distinct hygiene and motivator factors predict intentions to quit among security officers. One thousand security officers in Singapore participated in a cross-sectional survey that assessed their current job experiences. The findings of this study revealed that job satisfaction plays a mediating effect in the positive relationship between four out of five poor hygiene factors and intentions to quit. Furthermore, the negative mediating effect of job satisfaction between all three motivator factors and intentions to quit was significant. Specifically, the intrinsic motivation for the work itself was the most significant predictor of intentions to stay. Interventions targeted at enhancing work commitment among security officers should highlight the value of security work and its role in maintaining public safety.

1. Introduction

Although an individual’s work has immense pragmatic value, as it affords the person a certain level of financial security and helps to meet basic needs and maintain a certain quality of life, it is also one of the most emotionally laden aspects of human life. If an individual is unable to derive emotional satisfaction from his/her work, it is very likely that the individual will develop intentions to quit thereby defeating the practical value of engaging in work in the first place. This pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences is defined as job satisfaction (Locke 1976). Given the research evidence that validates the relationship between intentions and actual behavior (Webb and Sheeran 2006), intentions to quit one’s job, i.e., employee’s intention to voluntarily leave the organization (Redondo et al. 2021), has immense economic significance for employers, as it may be a precursor to actual quitting. High turnover is inevitably an unfavorable outcome for any employer. Hence, where job satisfaction is an important determinant of an optimal working experience, intentions to quit may interfere with that very experience. It is clear that both job satisfaction and intentions to quit bear important implications for the employee as well as the organization.
The purpose of the current study is to utilize the two-factor theory proposed by Herzberg (1959) as a framework to understand job satisfaction and intentions to quit in the context of private security officers. Broadly, the theory postulates that there are certain job content factors (the nature of the work itself, opportunities for growth, sense of responsibility) that promote job satisfaction and job context factors (salary, working conditions, company policies) that prevent job dissatisfaction (Serbenya et al. 2022). There is ample empirical evidence that examines these important variables in a variety of work settings. These include healthcare professionals (Gonzales et al. 2016; McVicar 2016), private sector industries (Yadav 2022), the hospitality industry (Grobelna et al. 2016), university faculty and researchers (Ashraf 2020), and even millennials (Bhatt et al. 2022). However, very few studies have attempted to test how these variables manifest in the work of security personnel. For instance, one study focused exclusively on airport security personnel’s emotional exhaustion (Baeriswyl et al. 2016). Demirci and Ergen (2020) examined the effect of a single variable (wages) on security officers’ job satisfaction and intentions to quit. Paek (2021) comprehensively examined how job satisfaction of contract and in-house security personnel is predicted by work and organizational characteristics and socio-demographic variables. However, this study was conducted in the unique Korean context where private security businesses are regulated by their National Police Agency. Hence, there is a clear research gap in testing the premises of a classical theory of motivation and job satisfaction among security personnel in a single study. The security sector plays an important role in maintaining the safety and security of both our public and private spaces. This underscores the need to examine these variables in this highly indispensable group of community workers.

1.1. Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Intentions to Quit

Several studies have shown the negative relationship between job satisfaction and intentions to quit (Masum et al. 2016; Stummer et al. 2018). It is not surprising that when an individual is dissatisfied with his/her working conditions, it would engender thoughts about leaving the job. This is because people are motivated to maintain optimal functioning and consistency in their personal and professional lives. For example, if an employee experiences low job satisfaction (has a negative evaluation of the job), but continues to stay in the job, the person’s attitude and behavior about the job are inconsistent. In order to overcome the discomfort that arises due to this inconsistency, the employee will be motivated to quit the job. Therefore, the theoretical basis of this negative association between job satisfaction and turnover intentions is rooted in theories of cognitive dissonance and balance (Amah 2009).
However, focusing attention only on the impact of job satisfaction on intentions to quit does not provide a comprehensive picture of the mechanism by which this relationship works. It is equally important to delve into the key antecedents of job satisfaction and intentions to quit, as these might indicate the presence of other relationships that enhance understanding of the link mentioned above.

1.2. Antecedents of Job Satisfaction and Intentions to Quit

Broadly, previous studies have examined the antecedents of job satisfaction among nurses (McVicar 2016), hotel employees (Grobelna et al. 2016), telecom employees (Riaz and Ramay 2010), and government employees (Chung et al. 2010). Taken together, these studies converge on some common determinants of job satisfaction such as job stress, supervisor support, role conflict, and intrinsic motivation.
According to Herzberg’s (1959) two-factor theory, there are two categories of factors that influence a worker’s job satisfaction. The first category includes motivators or intrinsic factors such as the work itself, avenues for growth and advancement, and a sense of achievement. These factors focus on the content of the job. The second category includes hygiene or extrinsic elements such as salary, policies, administration, and working conditions. These factors focus on the contextual variables of the job. Herzberg noted in his original conception that both sets of factors have a unique influence on job satisfaction such that hygiene factors when present prevent job dissatisfaction and motivators when present lead to satisfaction (Alshmemri et al. 2017). This implies that hygiene factors may mitigate job dissatisfaction but not necessarily motivate employees. However, Herzberg (1966) himself mentioned later that satisfaction of hygiene and motivator factors can motivate employees to stay committed to their jobs. A number of previous studies have shown that motivator and hygiene factors have differential effects based on the differences in industry, sector, or profession. For example, public sector employees tend to value hygiene factors much more than their private sector counterparts (Maidani 1991). Sales personnels’ job satisfaction was dominated by hygiene factors as compared to motivators (Hong and Waheed 2011). Even among university teachers, motivation was found to be more dependent on hygiene factors (Ghazi et al. 2013). More recently, the presence of hygiene factors favorably influenced job satisfaction among hospitality industry employees (Valk and Yousif 2021) and motivator factors had the same or lower effect on employee motivation than financial rewards among government employees (Soumar et al. 2021). However, there are other studies which recommend an optimal blend of hygiene and motivator factors as essential ingredients for job satisfaction and work motivation (Kotni and Karmuri 2018; Alrawahi et al. 2020). Hence, we hypothesized that:
H1a. 
Poor hygiene factors negatively predict job satisfaction.
H1b. 
Motivator factors positively predict job satisfaction.
Similar to the findings on the antecedents of job satisfaction, the precursors of intentions to quit seem to center around job satisfaction, conflictual workplace relationships, and low engagement among call center employees (Iwu et al. 2021), financial services employees (Van der Merwe et al. 2020), and IT professionals (Krishnan and Singh 2010). In one study, hospital pharmacists reported higher intentions to quit if they experienced poor work hygiene such as job stress associated with work climate and overload (Yeh et al. 2010). Conversely, for healthcare providers, extrinsic work hygiene factors such as salary/income were among the least important factors determining their intentions to quit (Ganjgah et al. 2020). Another recent study showed that both motivator and hygiene factors are important for long-term persistence among teachers of mathematically gifted students (Lv et al. 2022). Given the inconsistent findings around the role of hygiene and motivator factors, it seems logical to test the influence of a combination of both these factors to ascertain their effects on intentions to quit. Further, it is noteworthy that the literature has not paid adequate attention to understanding these effects among an under-studied group of workers: security officers. Thus, we propose the following hypotheses:
H2a. 
Poor hygiene factors positively predict intentions to quit.
H2b. 
Motivator factors negatively predict intentions to quit.

1.3. Job Satisfaction as a Mediator

We propose that job satisfaction is a subjective manifestation of a worker’s contentment with hygiene factors such as wages, policies, and workplace abuse as well as motivator factors such as avenues for growth, sense of achievement, etc. This is because job satisfaction cements the sense of certainty and financial security that is often associated with good hygiene factors at work. We reckon that job satisfaction is plausibly among the most direct outcomes of optimal working conditions and is experienced on a daily basis by individuals while at work. In the presence of poor hygiene factors, is it reasonable to expect that a worker may have thoughts about quitting the job. However, the conversion of these thoughts into a firm intention to quit is often preceded by the subjective experience of dissatisfaction with the work environment. Similarly, if the motivator factors outlined in the two-factor theory are not met, it is plausible to expect that a worker feels demotivated. For instance, if the content of a person’s job is not interesting to him/her, the person will likely experience a sense of dissatisfaction. Conversely, if the person derives intrinsic value and enjoyment from his/her work, the most direct outcome would be a sense of emotional satisfaction with one’s work. Previous research based on Herzberg’s theory has demonstrated that job satisfaction can serve as a mediating mechanism be-tween the work environment and employee retention (Halim et al. 2021).
Hence, in the current study, we set out to examine two more proposals: (a) that poor hygiene factors encourage intentions to quit through their effect on job satisfaction and (b) that motivator factors discourage intentions to quit through their effect on job satisfaction (see Figure 1). This is important from the perspective of organizational effectiveness and business continuity. Interventions aimed at promoting organizational commitment would be more effective if they directly address the antecedents of the mediator (in this case, hygiene and motivator factors), which would then have salutary effects on the mediator (in this case, job satisfaction). Thus, we hypothesized:
H3. 
Job satisfaction mediates the positive relationship between poor hygiene factors and intentions to quit.
H4. 
Job satisfaction mediates the negative relationship between motivator factors and intentions to quit.

1.4. Rationale for the Current Study

The above review shows that there is ample research that examines job satisfaction and intentions to quit among workers in diverse fields and sectors.
However, there is scanty research attention to these variables in the area of security employees. The security sector plays an integral part in the safety of private and public spaces in any country. Security employees carry out important law enforcement duties and act as a distinct sector that supports the government’s security governance machinery such as the police or civil defense officials. Few studies have focused attention on security officers’ job satisfaction specifically. Baeriswyl and colleagues (Baeriswyl et al. 2016) found support for supervisor support and workload as strong predictors of job satisfaction and emotional exhaustion, respectively, among airport security officers. Demirci and Ergen (2020) found that wage was a significant predictor of job satisfaction among private security employees. Paek (2021) showed that positive relationship with supervisor, self-efficacy, and intrinsic reward, not financial reward, determined security officers’ job satisfaction.
In Singapore, there are about 50,000 active and working full-time security officers (Chew 2020). Amidst the current deployment trends, the industry might be facing a shortfall of about 10–15,000 officers, as the majority work six days a week instead of the usual five or five and a half. The COVID-19 pandemic has increased the demand for security services in order to ensure implementation of safe management measures (Ministry of Manpower 2020). Hence, it is imperative to understand the factors that influence security officers’ satisfaction with their jobs and their intentions to quit their jobs.
To our knowledge, only one previous study has examined the job satisfaction among security guards in Singapore (Nalla et al. 2017). This study utilized data collected in 2010 from a small sample of 251 security guards and supervisors. Its novel contribution was that it was the first study to examine job autonomy among security officers. The researchers found that job autonomy, pay and benefits, and co-worker support are strong predictors of job satisfaction.
However, the industry has undergone several changes and improvements since this study. For example, the Security Association Singapore and the Union of Security Employees jointly published the Workplace Safety and Health Guidelines for the Security Industry in 2021 to cultivate good safety and health practices among security agencies and manage their security officers on site. Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the guidelines include a section on measures to be taken during a pandemic. Hence, it is timely to re-examine the job satisfaction of security employees and assess their intentions to quit given the additional pressures they faced during the recent pandemic. The current study provides empirical data collected from over 1000 security officers assessing both motivator (work itself, advancement, and responsibility) and hygiene factors (compensation, rank, job security, and abuse at the workplace) and how they influence job satisfaction and intentions to quit.

2. Methodology

2.1. Participants

The study participants consisted of 1000 security employees working in Singapore. The mean age of the participants was 47.3 years (SD = 14.3) and 22.8% were women. The sample comprised 31.7% Chinese, 17.7% Malays, and 50.6% Indians and other races/ethnicities. Participants were security officers (SOs) who renew their licenses every five years and obtain their new security ID card at the Union of Security Employees Customer Service Centre. SOs were approached to answer survey questions while waiting for their ID cards. Trained undergraduate students conducted the surveys at the site such that the interviewers read out each question and its response options to the respondent. The interviewers entered the security officer’s response into the pre-loaded survey hosted on an online survey platform. The fieldwork took around three months to complete (September–November 2020). All participants received a supermarket voucher as a token of appreciation for their participation. An inclusion criterion existed during the data collection process: officers who had worked for at least one month were eligible to complete the survey. This ensured that interviews were not conducted with officers who came to the center for fresh license application/collection (i.e., those who were yet to embark upon their security officer career and had no current experience). The study was conducted with adherence to the ethical guidelines prescribed for research with human participants. Thus, participation in the study was voluntary and informed consent was sought from the security officers before the commencement of the survey interview and they could decline to answer any question or quit the survey altogether without any penalty. Confidentiality of responses was maintained.

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Job Satisfaction

To determine the job satisfaction levels of the respondents, a four-item scale adapted from the Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) (Hackman and Oldham 1975) was used. This scale assesses overall job satisfaction experienced by the respondents as well as satisfaction in other related domains such as pay, growth opportunities, co-workers, and job security. In the current study, we selected 4 items that measured general satisfaction (“I feel satisfied with my present job”), satisfaction with current pay (“I feel that I am receiving a fair salary for what I am doing”), prospects for promotion (“I am satisfied with my chances for promotion”), and salary increase (“I feel satisfied with my chances for salary in-creases”). The items were rated on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Dawes (2008) furnished experimental evidence to show that 5-, 7-, or 10-point scales are comparable formats for obtaining data for regression analysis.

2.2.2. Intentions to Quit

Intentions to quit were assessed by the English version of a Spanish scale used by Omar et al. (2020). This scale is composed of two items rated on a Likert-type format of five points (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The items are, “I often think about quitting my present job” and “I would probably look for a new job in the near future”. According to the authors of the scale, usage of a 5-point scale posed no difficulties for respondents in the validation sample.

2.2.3. Job Hygiene and Motivator Factors

Based on Aydın’s (2012) classification, survey items were categorized into hygiene and motivator factors. Under the hygiene category, five factors were included. These were wages, delay in payment of wages, job security, rank, and physical/verbal abuse. Under the motivator category, three factors were included: the work itself, advancement possibility, and responsibility. Table 1 shows the kind of factor and the survey item that was used to measure it.

3. Results

Table 2 shows the inter-correlations between all key variables used in the study. Since the correlation between enjoyment in the work itself and job satisfaction was fairly high (r = 0.75), we checked for multicollinearity. The variance inflation factor (VIF) was calculated and the VIF score was 1. It is suggested that a VIF value of 10 or above should be a cause for concern (Myers 1990). Thus, multicollinearity was not a problem in the current analysis.
There was linearity as assessed by partial regression plots and a plot of studentized residuals against the predicted values. The residuals were independent, as assessed by a Durbin–Watson statistic of 1.53. There was homoscedasticity, as assessed by visual inspection of the plot of studentized residuals versus unstandardized predicted values. No leverage values greater than 0.2, and values for Cook’s distance above 1 were found. The assumption of normality was met, as assessed by a Q-Q Plot. All correlations were in the expected direction and significant. For instance, job satisfaction was negatively related to the intention to quit and positively with all the motivator factors and one hygiene factor (rank). On the other hand, the intention to quit was positively related to abuse at the workplace and to job insecurity.
We used the bootstrapping approach developed by Hayes and Preacher (2014) to estimate the direct and indirect effects of hygiene and motivator factors on intentions to quit. Age and gender of the participants were used as covariates in the analysis.

3.1. Direct Effects (Regression Analysis: Hypothesis 1a, 1b and 2a, 2b)

The direct effect of hygiene and motivator factors on intentions and job satisfaction were tested using multiple regression. Table 3 provides a summary of the regression results. The results indicate that poor hygiene negatively predicts job satisfaction, as shown in the second column of Table 3. Further, motivator factors positively predict job satisfaction except the responsibility factor. For intentions to quit, poor hygiene is a positive predictor and motivator factors are negative predictors. Hence, H1a, H1b, H2a, and H2b are all supported. However, the variance in job satisfaction (59.7%) and intentions to quit (19.5%) explained by motivator factors is greater than the variance explained by hygiene factors (9.4% and 6.2%, respectively).

3.2. Indirect Effects (Mediation Analysis: Hypothesis 3 and 4)

The indirect effect of certain hygiene and motivator factors on intentions to quit via job satisfaction was significant. Beta coefficients for all of the paths in these models appear in Table 4 and Table 5. The strength of the mediated effect of a factor on intention to quit via job satisfaction is significant if the 95% confidence interval of the product of (axb) by bootstrapping does not include zero.
We found that only for basic wage (first row in Table 4), job satisfaction was not a significant mediator from the hygiene/motivator factor on intentions to quit, whereas all other factors were significantly mediated by job satisfaction. Further, if the total effect (path c in Figure 1 not controlling for job satisfaction) is significant and the direct effect (path c’ in Figure 1) is not statistically significant, a full mediation is said to occur between a factor and intention to quit. For all three motivator factors along with rank and abuse at the workplace among the hygiene factors, there was evidence of job satisfaction fully mediating the effect of the factor on intentions to quit. Notably, the total effect of the motivator factor (the work itself) not controlling for job satisfaction was statistically significant (−0.76), but the direct effect controlling for job satisfaction was not significant (−0.13). This implies that the work itself has a negative effect on intentions to quit, but this effect is explained by the influence that the work itself has on the worker’s job satisfaction. The total R2 denotes the amount of variance in intentions to quit that can be accounted for by the predictors. For instance, 18% of the variance in intentions to quit was accounted for by the ‘work itself’ motivator predictor (R2 = 0.18). In addition, the Sobel test was used to test the significance of a mediation effect. The Sobel test provides means to determine whether the reduction in the effect of the independent variable, after including the mediator, is a significant reduction and therefore whether the mediation effect is statistically significant (Sobel 1982). The Sobel test was significant for all the mediation models. In the case of wage, where the Sobel test is significant but the bootstrapping indirect effects are not significant, we followed the latter, as it is known to overcome the limitations of the Sobel test (Hadi et al. 2016).

4. Discussion

The current study set out to test the idea that the detrimental effects of poor hygiene and motivator factors on intentions to quit among security officers may be explained by their effect on job satisfaction. In other words, the study attempted to apply Herzberg’s two-factor theory to a differentiated set of community workers. While previous research has demonstrated the application of this theory among retail salesforce (Kotni and Karmuri 2018), clinical laboratory staff (Alrawahi et al. 2020), and university faculty (Schulz 2009), the current study makes a novel contribution by testing the premises of the theory among security officers. Overall, the findings lent evidence for the role of job satisfaction as a fully mediating mechanism between several hygiene/motivator factors and intention to quit and a partially mediating mechanism between job insecurity and intentions to quit.

4.1. Role of Hygiene and Motivator Factors through Job Satisfaction

To test the mediation hypotheses, we first tested the direct effects of hygiene and motivator factors in job satisfaction and intentions to quit. We found evidence that poor hygiene does predict intentions to quit as well as lower job satisfaction levels. The motivator factors predicted job satisfaction and were associated with lower levels of intentions to quit. This is in line with previous research where the presence of good hygiene factors did predict higher job satisfaction and lower intentions to quit (Valk and Yousif 2021; Yeh et al. 2010). Similarly, the predictive effects of motivator factors on job satisfaction and intentions to quit have been documented in previous research (Alrawahi et al. 2020; Ganjgah et al. 2020).
With respect to the hygiene factors included in the current study, only wage, i.e., the basic monthly salary drawn by the security officers, did not significantly predict turnover intentions via job satisfaction. We posit that this may be a result of using the actual pay amount (in dollars) as a measure of the salary hygiene factor. Previous research has shown that it is not only the actual payment amount but also the worker’s evaluation of whether he/she is satisfied with the salary that accounts for intentions to quit (De Gieter et al. 2012). Furthermore, compared to base pay, which is found to be related to increased work effort and decreased turnover intention, variable pay for performance-type salary benefits is positively related to increased work effort, but also positively related to increased turnover intention (Kuvas et al. 2016). Therefore, future studies may consider including measures of pay satisfaction to achieve a more comprehensive assessment of the salary hygiene factor.
The remaining four hygiene factors (delay in payment of wages, job insecurity, verbal and/or physical abuse at the workplace, and the rank held by the security officer) all significantly predict intentions to quit via job satisfaction. It is reasonable to expect that a worker who is not paid on time, or who believes that there is a real likelihood of losing the job or has also experienced physical or verbal abuse at the workplace, will harbor intentions to quit his/her job. However, the channel through which these poor hygiene factors encourage intentions to quit is by their more direct impact on the worker’s subjectively experienced level of job dissatisfaction. As mentioned before, an individual’s work is not only a financially driven pursuit but also an emotionally laden one. The worker inevitably feels emotionally let down when work hygiene factors are not optimal, resulting in the development of turnover intentions. The findings of the current study support this contention, as the link between hygiene factor and intention to quit was mediated by job satisfaction. Hence, Hypothesis 3 was supported.
Next, we also examined the effects of three motivator factors (the work itself, opportunities for advancement, and assignment of responsibility) on intentions to quit via job satisfaction. The findings revealed that the effects of all three motivator factors on intentions to quit were fully mediated by job satisfaction. The intrinsic enjoyment in the work itself accounted for the highest amount of variance (18%) in intentions to quit among all other predictor variables. These results are consistent with earlier findings that emphasize the importance of intrinsic motivation factors to bring about several positive individual and organizational outcomes (Manganelli et al. 2018; Dahiya and Raghuvanshi 2021). However, these positive effects of the presence of good motivator factors on the commitment to stay are channeled via their salutary effects on the emotional experience of job satisfaction. Hence, Hypothesis 4 was also supported. Thus, the results of the current study support the contention that both hygiene and motivator factors work synergistically to affect job satisfaction and intentions to quit among security officers.

4.2. Practical and Theoretical Implications

As far as intentions to quit are important determinants of actual turnover and turnover related to both direct and indirect costs to an individual and his/her hiring organization, it is of critical importance to examine the factors that act as precursors to these intentions. An understanding of the mechanism that precedes turnover intentions may provide employers with practical opportunities for interventions that may prevent the incidence of turnover. The current study clearly shows that it is not just lower levels of job satisfaction that fully explain its detrimental effects on intentions to stay. Job satisfaction is enhanced or diminished based on the existence of several hygiene and motivator factors.
This has pertinent implications for human resource management. If organizations wish to retain their security personnel for the long haul, they must ensure that work hygiene and work motivation are dealt with first. Furthermore, poor hygiene and motivator factors are risk factors for intentions to quit but more so due to their impact on an employee’s sense of job satisfaction that places workers at a higher risk for developing turnover intentions. Policies and programs that seem to instill a commitment to stay in employment such as higher wages, rank, opportunities for advancement or higher responsibilities, etc., do so by their effect on the emotional experience of satisfaction with one’s job. Hence, policymakers and employers must take a holistic approach that pays attention to both the emotional experience of satisfaction with one’s work as well as factors that influence this sense of satisfaction. This requires an acute awareness of the effect of their initiatives on workers’ emotional appraisal of the job. Each initiative (such as timely payments, promotion incentives, subsidies, and redressal channels for abuse) must be carefully linked to how it enhances workers’ job satisfaction. This may be achieved by regular opinion checks or perception surveys among security officers where they may openly share their views about certain policies and programs. Lending a voice to security officers to articulate which job-related factor enhances their job satisfaction might render greater effectiveness to the initiative in mitigating intentions to quit.
Another important implication of the current study stems from the revelation that among the motivator factors, the intrinsic value of the work performed by security officers seems to have the strongest effect. This suggests that by validating the valuable and unique contribution of security officers’ work, policymakers and employers may accrue the greatest advantage in attempting to build their work commitment. The context of the security sector bears national significance for any country, as these workers are important adjuncts to the law enforcement machinery in the country.
Apart from the practical implications, the current study extends the job satisfaction and intentions to quit literature by examining these constructs among security officers. This lends to the robustness of the two-factor theory as a nearly universal framework for understanding the job satisfaction and intentions to quit link. Furthermore, the data for the study are drawn from a nationally representative sample of security employees in Singapore, which further enhances the reliability of the findings.

4.3. Limitations and Directions for Future Research

However, the limitations of the study need to be acknowledged as well. The most important limitation of the current study is the usage of single-item measures for many of the predictor variables. This was necessitated by the optimal length of the survey that had to be maintained in order to recruit participants during their waiting period window at the license renewal center. This was a practical consideration that we had to adhere to so that data may be collected expeditiously without causing any disruption to the ongoing renewal activities. Future studies may benefit from the use of validated measures to have a fuller coverage of the hygiene and motivator factors. Relatedly, we recognize that other hygiene factors such as optimal working hours may have a significant impact on security employees’ job satisfaction and intention to quit, but the current study did not examine this potential variable. Owing to the shortage of labor in the sector, security employees work long shifts (12 h, 6 days per week), leaving them little time for attending to familial or social matters. Future studies may attempt a broader exploration of such contextual factors. Another shortcoming is the cross-sectional design, which precludes any causal interpretations. In order to increase the validity of the conclusions drawn in the current study, longitudinal investigations that follow the same security officers over an extended period may help to cement the longevity of these effects.

5. Conclusions

Despite its limitations, the current study provides employers and policymakers with practical tools that might mitigate the likelihood of turnover intentions among security officers. Specifically, they could improve security officers’ job satisfaction by creating awareness among them about the relevance of their work in maintaining the safety of public spaces and private premises in the country. This would encourage the officers to take pride in their job and work towards engendering intrinsic forms of motivation. Further, educating the public about the importance of treating security employees with respect and dignity and the legal repercussions of any form of abuse may go a long way in making this important section of the workforce feel appreciated and recognized. After all, many of them stay awake so that others may sleep peacefully.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.-H.L., Funding acquisition, C.-H.L.; Investigation, C.-H.L., C.-S.T.; Writing—original draft, T.N.; Writing—review & editing, T.N., C.-H.L., A.B.A., R.C. and S.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by a grant awarded to Chan-Hoong Leong by Union of Security Employees, Singapore. The APC was funded by Singapore University of Social Sciences.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study, since written informed consent was obtained for the survey before each face-to-face survey administration and all ethical principles for research with humans were strictly adhered to. No personally identifying information was collected from the participants.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Alrawahi, Samira, Stina Fransson Sellgren, Salem Altouby, Nasar Alwahaibi, and Mats Brommels. 2020. The application of Her-zberg’s twofactor theory of motivation to job satisfaction in clinical laboratories in Omani hospitals. Heliyon 6: e04829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Alshmemri, Mohammed, Lina Shahwan-Akl, and Phillip Maude. 2017. Herzberg’s two-factor theory. Life Science Journal 14: 12–16. [Google Scholar]
  3. Amah, Okechukwu E. 2009. Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intention Relationship: The Moderating Effect of Job Role Centrality and Life Satisfaction. Research and Practice in Human Resource Management 17: 24–35. [Google Scholar]
  4. Ashraf, Mohammad Ali. 2020. Demographic factors, compensation, job satisfaction and organizational commitment in private university: An analysis using SEM. Journal of Global Responsibility 11: 407–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Aydın, Oya Tamtekin. 2012. The Impact of Motivation and Hygiene Factors on Research Performance: An Empirical Study from a Turkish University. International Review of Management and Marketing 2: 106–11. [Google Scholar]
  6. Baeriswyl, Sophie, Andreas Krause, and Adrian Schwaninger. 2016. Emotional Exhaustion and Job Satisfaction in Airport Security Officers—Work-Family Conflict as Mediator in the Job Demands-Resources Model. Frontiers in Psychology 7: 663–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Bhatt, Nishant, Jaya Chitranshi, and Mita Mehta. 2022. Testing Herzberg’s two factor theory on millennials. Cardiometry 22: 231–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chew, Hui Min. 2020. Changes Afoot to Cut Long Working Hours of Security Officers but Manpower Crunch Remains. Channel News Asia (CNA). Available online: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/security-guards-working-hours-manpower-crunch-progressive-wage-676901 (accessed on 20 October 2022).
  9. Chung, Jin Y., Chang Su Jung, Gerard T. Kyle, and James F. Petrick. 2010. Servant leadership and procedural justice in the U.S. national park service: The antecedents of job satisfaction. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration 28: 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  10. Dahiya, Rinki, and Juhi Raghuvanshi. 2021. Do values reflect what is important? Exploring the nexus between work values, work engagement and job burnout. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Dawes, John. 2008. Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An experiment using 5-point, 7-point and 10-point scales. International Journal of Market Research 50: 61–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. De Gieter, Sara, Rein De Cooman, Joeri Hofmans, Roland Pepermans, and Marc Jegers. 2012. Pay-Level Satisfaction and Psychological Reward Satisfaction as Mediators of the Organizational Justice-Turnover Intention Relationship. International Studies of Management & Organization 42: 50–67. [Google Scholar]
  13. Demirci, Uğur, and Banu Ergen. 2020. The effect of wage on private security officers job satisfaction and intention to quit: An empirical study in turkey. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 19: 1314–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ganjgah, Masoumi Pooneh, Mehrnaz Geranmayeh, and Shima Haghani. 2020. The Influential Factors in the Job Motivation among Midwives as the Healthcare Providers in the Iranian Health Sector Evolution Plan. Nashriyyah-i Parastārī-i Īrān 33: 13–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ghazi, Safdar Rehman, Gulap Shahzada, and M. Shuaib Khan. 2013. Resurrecting Herzberg’s two factor theory: An implication to the university teachers. Journal of Educational and Social Research 3: 445–51. [Google Scholar]
  16. González, Francisco, Sandra María Sánchez, and Tomás López-Guzmán. 2016. The effect of educational level on job satisfaction and organizational commitment: A case study in hospitality. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration 17: 243–59. [Google Scholar]
  17. Grace, James. 2006. The anatomy of models II: Latent variables. In Structural Equation Modeling and Natural Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 77–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Grobelna, Aleksandra, Marta Sidorkiewicz, and Anna Tokarz-Kocik. 2016. Job satisfaction among hotel employees: Analysing selected antecedents and job outcomes. Case study from Poland. Argumenta Oeconomica 2: 281–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hackman, J. Richard, and Greg R. Oldham. 1975. Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology 60: 159–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Hadi, Noor Ul, Naziruddin Abdullah, and Sentosa Ilham. 2016. Making Sense of Mediating Analysis: A Marketing Perspective. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research 5: 62–76. [Google Scholar]
  21. Halim, Haslina, Tengku Mohd Asrulhaidar Tengku Radin, Farah Lina Azizan, and Nazrul Shazleen Nazri. 2021. Workplace environment, leader communication and hotel employee retention: Job satisfaction as a mediator. Jurnal Komunikasi: Malaysian Journal of Communication 37: 384–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hayes, Andrew F., and Kristopher J. Preacher. 2014. Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 67: 451–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Herzberg, Frederick. 1959. The Motivation to Work. New York: Wiley and Sons. [Google Scholar]
  24. Herzberg, Frederick. 1966. Work and the nature of man. Cleveland World 290: 339–41. [Google Scholar]
  25. Hong, Teck, and Amna Waheed. 2011. Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory and Job Satisfaction in the Ma-laysian Retail Sector: The Mediating Effect of Love of Money. Asian Academy of Management Journal 16: 73–94. [Google Scholar]
  26. Iwu, Chux Gervase, Abdulah Promise Opute, Olayemi Abdullahteef Aliyu, Chukuakadibiya Eresia-Eke, Tichaona Buzy Musikavanhu, and Afeez Olalekan Jaiyeola. 2021. A Structural Equation Modelling Evaluation of Antecedents and Interconnections of Call Centre Agents’ Intention to Quit. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 14: 179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kotni, V. V. Devi Prasad, and Venkateswarlu Karumuri. 2018. Application of Herzberg two-factor theory model for motivating retail salesforce. IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior 17: 24–42. [Google Scholar]
  28. Krishnan, Sandeep K., and Manjari Singh. 2010. Outcomes of intention to quit of Indian IT professionals. Human Resource Management 49: 421–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kuvaas, Bard, Robert Buch, Marylene Gagne, Anders Dysvik, and Jacques Forest. 2016. Do you get what you pay for? Sales incentives and implications for motivation and changes in turnover intention and work effort. Motivation and Emotion 40: 667–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Locke, Edwin A. 1976. The nature and consequences of job satisfaction. In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Edited by Marvin D. Dunnette. Chicago: Rand-McNally. [Google Scholar]
  31. Lv, Sunzhong, Yong Zhang, Peiyao Lei, and Bin Xiong. 2022. Internal Persistence and External Support—What Makes Chinese Teachers of the Mathematically Gifted Stick to Their Post? Frontiers in Psychology 13: 833372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Maidani, Ebrahim A. 1991. Comparative Study of Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction among Public and Private Sectors. Public Personnel Management 20: 441–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Manganelli, Lara, Anais Thibault-Landry, Jacques Forest, and Joelle Carpentier. 2018. Self-Determination Theory Can Help You Generate Performance and Well-Being in the Workplace: A Review of the Literature. Advances in Developing Human Resources 20: 227–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Masum, Abdul Kadar Muhammad, Md. Abul Kalam Azad, Kazi Enamul Hoque, Loo-See Beh, Peter Wanke, and Özgun Arslan. 2016. Job Satisfaction and Intention to Quit: An Empirical Analysis of Nurses in Turkey. PeerJ 4: e1896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. McVicar, Andrew. 2016. Scoping the common antecedents of job stress and job satisfaction for nurses (2000–2013) using the jobs-resources model of stress. Journal of Nursing Management 24: E112–E136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Ministry of Manpower. 2020. Labour Force in Singapore: Impact of COVID-19 on the Labour Market. Ministry of Manpower. Available online: https://stats.mom.gov.sg/iMAS_PdfLibrary/mrsd_2020LabourfForce.pdf (accessed on 9 September 2022).
  37. Myers, Raymond H. 1990. Classical and Modern Regression with Applications, 2nd ed. Boston: Duxbury. [Google Scholar]
  38. Nalla, Mahesh K., Seung Yeop Paek, and Sylvia S. Lim. 2017. The influence of organizational and environmental factors on job satisfaction among security guards in Singapore. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 50: 548–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Omar, Alicia G., Solana Salessi, and Alexandro Luiz de Andrade. 2020. Generic Job Satisfaction Scale: Psychometric Qualities of the Version Adapted to Portuguese. Avaliação Psicologica 19: 361–70. [Google Scholar]
  40. Paek, Seung Yeop. 2021. Correlates of private security officers’ job satisfaction in South Korea. International Journal of Com-Parative and Applied Criminal Justice 46: 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Redondo, Raquel, Paul Sparrow, and Gabriela Hernández-Lechuga. 2021. The effect of protean careers on talent retention: Examining the relationship between protean career orientation, organizational commitment, job satisfaction and intention to quit for talented workers. International Journal of Human Resource Management 32: 2046–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Riaz, Adnan, and Muhammad Ramay. 2010. Antecedents of job satisfaction: A study of telecom sector. Perspectives of Innovations, Economics & Business 4: 66–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Schulz, Steven D. 2009. Predicting Job Satisfaction Among Iowa Community College Adjunct Faculty Members: Use and Application of Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory. Ph.D. dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA. Available online: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/10994/ (accessed on 20 October 2022).
  44. Segbenya, Moses, Angela D. Akorsu, Debdulal Saha, and Francis Enu-Kwesi. 2022. Exploring Gendered Perspectives on Working Conditions of Solo Self-Employed Quarry Workers in Ghana. Cogent Social Sciences 8: 2098624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sobel, Michael. E. 1982. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology 13: 290–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Soumar, Bashaer, Mohammed Alnahhal, Muataz Al Hazza, Ahmad Sakhrieh, and Mosab I. Tabash. 2021. Factors motivating governmental employees in the United Arab Emirates. Problems and Perspectives in Management 19: 248–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Stummer, Harald, Silvia Angerer, Caroline Jamnig, and Elisabeth Nöhammer. 2018. Job satisfaction and intention to quit among young physicians—Evidence from Austria. European Journal of Public Health 28: cky213.130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Valk, Reimara, and Lina Yousif. 2021. “Going beyond to deliver hip hospitality”: Exploring motivation and job satis-faction of hospitality workers in Dubai. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Van der Merwe, Bahia, Johan Malan, and Ronel Bruwer. 2020. Intention to quit in the financial services industry: Antecedents and managerial implications. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences 23: e1–e12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Webb, Thomas Llewelyn, and Paschal Sheeran. 2006. Does Changing Behavioral Intentions Engender Behavior Change? A Meta-Analysis of the Experimental Evidence. Psychological Bulletin 132: 249–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Yadav, Radha. 2022. A formative measurement model and development of quality of work-life scale based on two-factor theory: Evidence from Indian private industries. Benchmarking: An International Journal. ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Yeh, Ying-Chen, Blossom Yen-Ju Lin, Wen-Hung Lin, and Thomas. T. H. Wan. 2010. Job Stress: Its Relationship to Hospital Pharmacists’ Insomnia and Work Outcomes. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine 17: 143–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Socsci 11 00497 g001 550
Figure 1. Diagrammatic representation of proposed model. Note: the hypothesized connection between hygiene and motivator factors and job satisfaction is denoted a; the hypothesized association between job satisfaction and intention to quit is denoted b. The strength of the mediated association (i.e., the extent to which the effect of hygiene and motivator factors on intentions to quit may be mediated by job satisfaction) is found by multiplying ‘a’ with ‘b’. The path denoted c’ represents the direct association between work hygiene/motivator factors and intentions to quit when the indirect or mediated path involving job satisfaction is statistically controlled. The c coefficient in parenthesis represents the total relationship between hygiene/motivator factors and intentions to quit (not controlling for job satisfaction).
Figure 1. Diagrammatic representation of proposed model. Note: the hypothesized connection between hygiene and motivator factors and job satisfaction is denoted a; the hypothesized association between job satisfaction and intention to quit is denoted b. The strength of the mediated association (i.e., the extent to which the effect of hygiene and motivator factors on intentions to quit may be mediated by job satisfaction) is found by multiplying ‘a’ with ‘b’. The path denoted c’ represents the direct association between work hygiene/motivator factors and intentions to quit when the indirect or mediated path involving job satisfaction is statistically controlled. The c coefficient in parenthesis represents the total relationship between hygiene/motivator factors and intentions to quit (not controlling for job satisfaction).
Socsci 11 00497 g001
Table
Table 1. Items used to measure hygiene and motivator factors.
Table 1. Items used to measure hygiene and motivator factors.
Type of Factor:Survey ItemScale
Hygiene Factor
Wages:Base salary earnedBasic wage in SGD
Delay in payment: How often does your employer pay late wages?1 = Not at all, 3 = Most of the time
Job insecurity: How likely do you think you will lose this job?1 = Very unlikely, 5 = Very Likely
Rank: What job rank are you currently employed at?1 = Security Officer, 5 = Chief Security officer
Abuse:Have you experienced verbal/physical abuse at work?0 = No, 3 = Yes, both verbal and physical abuse
Motivator Factor
Work Itself: I find real enjoyment in my work.1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree
Advancement: How likely would you expect an increase in salary in the next 12 months?1 = Very Unlikely, 5 = Very Likely
Responsibility:How likely would you expect to take on a greater level of responsibilities in the next 12 months?1 = Very Unlikely, 5 = Very Likely
Note. Variables in an SEM type of analysis do not need to be on the same scale (Grace 2006).
Table
Table 2. Means, SDs, and inter-correlations of key study variables.
Table 2. Means, SDs, and inter-correlations of key study variables.
ABCDEFGHIJ
A. Intention to Quit(0.62)
B. Job satisfaction−0.52 **(0.83)
C. Base Wage0.000.08 **-
D. Wage delay0.05−0.09 **0.03-
E. Job Rank−0.07 *0.13 ** 0.33 **0.00-
F. Abuse0.14 *−0.24 **0.010.050.06-
G. Job insecurity0.19 **−0.14 **−0.000.04−0.07 *0.08 *-
H. Work itself−0.42 **0.75 **0.04−0.020.07 *−0.19 **−0.13 **-
I. Advancement−0.22 **0.08 **0.04−0.020.35 **−0.08 **−0.15 **0.22 **-
J. Responsibility−0.09 **0.07 *0.04−0.000.18 **0.04−0.021.13 **0.36 **-
Mean3.9815.701553.521.051.730.492.073.973.513.75
SD1.673.357340.230.890.741.220.931.291.18
Note. N = 1000, ** Correlations are significant at 0.01 level, * correlations are significant at 0.05 level; reliability coefficients are given on the diagonal in parenthesis. Single-item measures do not have Cronbach alphas.
Table
Table 3. Summary of regression results.
Table 3. Summary of regression results.
PredictorsJob SatisfactionR2FIntention to QuitR2F
βt-Valueβt-Value
Hygiene Factors
Wage Delay−0.07 *−2.260.094 ***25.8 ***0.0321.030.062 ***16.3 ***
Job insecurity−0.11 ***−3.580.182 ***5.88
Abuse−0.24 ***−7.740.130 ***4.21
Motivators
Work Itself0.71 ***34.170.597 ***491.8 ***−0.39 ***−13.510.195 ***80.8 ***
Responsibility0.021.130.0030.115
Advancement0.19 ***8.48−0.14 ***−4.36
Note: *** p < 0.001, * p < 0.05, β = standardized beta co-efficient, R2—coefficient of determination.
Table
Table 4. Results of mediation analysis of job satisfaction between intentions to quit and job hygiene indicators.
Table 4. Results of mediation analysis of job satisfaction between intentions to quit and job hygiene indicators.
Job Hygiene Factor (X)Total Effect of X on YDirect Effect of X on YMediation by Job Satisfaction
Indirect Effect		95% CISobel’s Test
cc’a b a × bLL–ULtTotal R2
Wage0.000.00 ns0.004 *−0.27 ***−0.00−0.00–0.00−3.91 ***0.00 ns
Wage Delay0.33 ns0.04 ns−1.05 *−0.26 ***0.280.05–0.562.05 *0.01
Job Insecurity0.27 ***0.18 ***−0.37 ***−0.26 ***0.090.05–0.143.94 **0.04
Rank−0.14 *−0.02 ns0.46 ***−0.27 **−0.12−0.19–(−0.06)−3.82 ***0.01
Abuse0.49 ***0.10 ns−1.45 ***−0.27 ***0.390.27–0.516.29 ***0.02 ***
Note. N = 1000, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, X = hygiene factor, Y = intention to quit, a = path from job characteristic to job satisfaction, b = path from hygiene factor to intention to quit, path c denotes the strength of the total relationship between hygiene factor and intention to quit (not controlling for the effect of job satisfaction), c’ denotes the direct effect of hygiene factor on intention to quit controlling for job satisfaction, ns = non-significant, CI = confidence interval, LL = lower limit, UL = upper limit, R2 denotes the proportion of variance in intention to quit predictable from the overall model.
Table
Table 5. Results of mediation analysis of job satisfaction between intentions to quit and job motivator indicators.
Table 5. Results of mediation analysis of job satisfaction between intentions to quit and job motivator indicators.
Job Motivator Factor (X)Total Effect of X on YDirect Effect of X on YMediation by Job Satisfaction
Indirect Effect		95% CISobel’s Test
cc’a b a × bLL–ULtTotal R2
Work itself−0.76 ***−0.13 ns2.63 ***−0.24 ***−0.64−0.77–(−0.51)−11.15 ***0.18 ***
Advancement−0.28 ***−0.07 ns0.83 ***−0.26 ***−0.22−0.27–(−0.17)−7.52 ***0.05 ***
Responsibility−0.13 *−0.02 ns0.44 ***−0.27 ***0.09−0.17–(−0.06)−4.45 ***0.01 ***
Note. N = 1000,* p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001, X = motivator factor, Y = intention to quit, a = path from motivator to job satisfaction, b = same as above, path c denotes the strength of the total relationship between motivator and intention to quit (not controlling for the effect of job satisfaction), c’ denotes the direct effect of motivator on intention to quit controlling for job satisfaction, ns = non-significant.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nagpaul, T.; Leong, C.-H.; Toh, C.-S.; Amir, A.B.; Chin, R.; Tan, S. Exploring Job Satisfaction and Intentions to Quit among Security Officers: The Role of Work Hygiene and Motivator Factors. Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 497. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11110497

AMA Style

Nagpaul T, Leong C-H, Toh C-S, Amir AB, Chin R, Tan S. Exploring Job Satisfaction and Intentions to Quit among Security Officers: The Role of Work Hygiene and Motivator Factors. Social Sciences. 2022; 11(11):497. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11110497

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nagpaul, Tania, Chan-Hoong Leong, Chin-Seng Toh, Ardi Bin Amir, Raymond Chin, and Steve Tan. 2022. "Exploring Job Satisfaction and Intentions to Quit among Security Officers: The Role of Work Hygiene and Motivator Factors" Social Sciences 11, no. 11: 497. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11110497

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop