interpretation 21

7/31/2019 Interpretation 21

1/41

CHAPTER V

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

A structured pre-tested questionnaire was prepared to conduct the study. The

questionnaire was containing 40 questions. The questionnaire was developed based on a

discussion with the DGM HRD of TTK Health Care Ltd. There were 36 statements to

which the respondents were asked to rate on a five point scale starting from strongly agree,

agree, neutral, disagree and strongly disagree. This was done to identify the reasons for

dissatisfaction of employees that can be the main reason for the growing attrition rate at

TTK Health Care Ltd. Systematic random sampling was used to select the samples and the

respondents were contacted directly for administering the questionnaire. The filled

questionnaires were coded, edited and analyzed using SPSS software. The responses for the

classification questions are presented first to provide a clear picture about the respondents of

this study.

Table No 5.1 Showing the Distribution Based on the Ages of the employees

Source: Analysis of survey data

The above table shows the distribution of employees based on their age. Out of 75

respondents, 2.7% of respondents belong to the category of below 25 age group. 21.3 % of

respondents come under the age group of 26-35. 46.7% of respondents come under the age

category of 36-45 with 18 employees, 24% of respondents come under the age group of 46-

55 with employees, 5.3% of the respondents belong to the above 56 age group. From this it

is clear that maximum number of respondents belongs to the age bracket 46-55.

Age of the employees

Frequency Percent

Below 25 2 2.7

26-35 16 21.3

36-45 35 46.7

46-55 18 24.0

Above 56 4 5.3

Total 75 100.0


2/41

Table No 5.2 Showing the Distribution based on the Experience of the Employees


The above table shows the distribution of employees based on their experience. Out of 75

respondents, 13.3% of respondents have experience of below 10 years. 56 % of the

respondents come under the category of 5-10 year of experience. 20% of respondents have

experience of between 21-30 years and 10.7 % of respondents are included in the 31-40

years of experience. So it is seen that most of the respondents belongs to the experience

category of 11-20.

Experience of the employees

Frequency Percent

Valid Below 10 10 13.3

11-20 42 56.0

21-30 15 20.0

31-40 8 10.7

Total 75 100.0


3/41

Table No 5. 3 Showing Cross Tabulation of Age And Experience

Age * Experience Cross tabulation

Experience

TotalBelow 10 11-20 21-30 31-40

Age

Below 25 2 0 0 0 2

26-35 8 8 0 0 16

36-45 0 33 2 0 35

46-55 0 1 13 4 18

Above 56 0 0 0 4 4

Total 10 42 15 8 75


The total sample size of the study was 75. Among them, 2 were belong to the below 25 years

of age category. Both of these employees belong to below 10 years of experience. 16

employees belong to 26-35 age groups. Among them 8 of the employees have below 10

experience group and the rest 8 belong to the group of 11-20 years of experience. The total

number of employees belongs to the group of 36-45 is 35. Out of this, 33 of the employees

are included in 11-20 years of experience groups and the remaining 2 of the employees

belongs to the 21-30 years of experience group. The number of employees belonging to the

age group 46-55 years is 18. Among them 13 employees are belong to the year 21-30

experience group, 4 of them have 31-40 years of experience group and the remaining

respondents have 11-20 years of experience.. The total numbers of employees included in the

above 56 age group are 4. In this case all the 4 are included in the Experience group of 31-40

years.


4/41

Table No: 5.4 Factor Analyses

Rotated Component Matrix

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

This office has regular staff meetings to

plan and coordinate work and to make

announcements.

.844 -.133 -.052 -.021 -.225 .084 .071 .190 .115 .091 .169

This office reasonably accommodates

personal needs.

.844 -.133 -.052 -.021 -.225 .084 .071 .190 .115 .091 .169

I have a clear understanding of how my

job performance is measured.

-.694 .248 .023 -.458 -.145 .073 -.059 .325 .102 -.011 .203

I feel heard when I communicate with

others in my office

-.694 .248 .023 -.458 -.145 .073 -.059 .325 .102 -.011 .203

I feel supported by my office to

participate in various programs

conducted by my company

-.184 .935 .026 -.104 .052 .012 -.033 .017 .028 .024 -.081

The workload in this office is distributed

equitably.

-.184 .935 .026 -.104 .052 .012 -.033 .017 .028 .024 -.081

There is a spirit of cooperation among

staff in this office.

-.081 .008 .928 -.002 -.022 .049 .132 .012 -.032 -.210 .099

I received a thorough orientation to this

office and my job when I started

-.081 .008 .928 -.002 -.022 .049 .132 .012 -.032 -.210 .099

Ive a clear goal for my own career

progression.

-.255 -.007 -.689 .144 -.113 .305 .364 -.157 -.012 -.095 .068

Promoting respect and fair treatment

among all staff is a high priority of this

office.

.160 -.371 -.478 .259 -.047 .131 -.284 .066 -.077 .101 -.207

I feel encouraged by my office to pursue

professional development opportunities.

.096 -.108 -.064 .916 -.051 .001 -.029 .196 .001 .092 -.017

My workload and expected completion

times are reasonable

.096 -.108 -.064 .916 -.051 .001 -.029 .196 .001 .092 -.017

Disciplinary procedures in this office are

consistently enforced.

-.094 .009 .016 -.047 .920 .013 .065 -.103 -.033 -.180 .096

Overall, this office is run efficiently -.094 .009 .016 -.047 .920 .013 .065 -.103 -.033 -.180 .096

Communication between staff and this

offices upper leadership is effective

-.162 .323 .355 -.125 .484 .210 -.010 .089 .122 .145 -.068


5/41

I have a clear vision of the organization

growth

.018 .057 -.207 .250 .476 .060 .237 .203 .246 .193 .093

Conflict among staff in my office is

managed effectively

.090 .045 .006 -.029 .059 .932 -.162 -.006 -.088 .028 .072

This office has policies that are

supportive of its staff.

.090 .045 .006 -.029 .059 .932 -.162 -.006 -.088 .028 .072

I feel there are leaders in this office I can

trust

-.248 -.285 -.123 .097 -.005 .543 .253 .088 .033 .196 -.195

I like the people I work with .095 -.026 .087 -.041 .106 -.121 .945 .022 -.025 -.004 .031

I have a positive relationship with my

office leaders

.095 -.026 .087 -.041 .106 -.121 .945 .022 -.025 -.004 .031

Communication among staff in this office

is effective.

.128 -.444 .045 .001 .236 -.392 -.445 .051 .020 .178 -.290

Problems are managed effectively in this

office when they arise

.037 -.004 .047 .205 -.069 .030 .013 .882 -.067 .037 -.296

Policies in this office are clearly

articulated to its staff.

.037 -.004 .047 .205 -.069 .030 .013 .882 -.067 .037 -.296

Morale in this office is high -.053 -.511 -.042 .191 -.063 .170 -.045 -.531 -.021 .337 -.062

I know and interact with my office

leaders

.055 .058 -.008 -.030 .008 -.071 .002 -.020 .971 -.024 -.042

My office is one of the best places to

work

.055 .058 -.008 -.030 .008 -.071 .002 -.020 .971 -.024 -.042

I feel Im valued apart of this company -.075 -.183 -.007 .457 .031 -.030 -.197 -.210 .527 .193 -.022

I receive constructive feedback about the

quality of my work

.077 -.010 -.181 .103 -.127 .053 -.015 .002 .003 .932 .141

I like my job. .077 -.010 -.181 .103 -.127 .053 -.015 .002 .003 .932 .141

I feel fairly compensated for the work I

do in this office compared to other

similar positions across campus.

.065 -.059 .104 -.031 .109 .045 .054 -.244 -.055 .150 .908

My office leadership has a clear

understanding of the work I do

.065 -.059 .104 -.031 .109 .045 .054 -.244 -.055 .150 .908

Overall this office is working effectively .111 .035 .015 .144 -.095 .140 .038 -.046 .046 -.040 -.043

Others in this office trust me to perform

my job.

.111 .035 .015 .144 -.095 .140 .038 -.046 .046 -.040 -.043



6/41

Identification of Factors Determining the Reason for Attrition of the employees

The major objective of the present study was to identify the reason for the

dissatisfaction of the employees which made the reason for the rising level of attrition at

TTK Health Care Ltd. Only satisfied workforces cooperate and remain with the company. So

the study provided 36 closed ended statement to measure the employees satisfaction.

In order to study the factors contributing to the satisfaction level of employees at TTK

Health Care Ltd a factor analysis was attempted by using the employees responses to the 36

questions. Questions were framed in such a way that the answers reflect the ideas and

thoughts of the respondents with regard to reason for attrition and the various factors

influencing it. Likert scaling techniques has been used for measuring the responses. The scale

used was

5. Strongly agree

4. Agree

3. Neutral

2. Disagree

1. Strongly disagree

The columns under this heading are the rotated factors that have been extracted. As

we can see that eleven factors were extracted. As per the above table it can be identified that

the statements can be divided into 11 Factors such as:

Factor 1:

a) Regular staff meetings to plan and coordinate work

b) Accommodation of personal needs

c) Clear understanding regarding the measurement of job performance

d) Feeling heard when communicated

All these factors can be related to the general working environment in the organization

and hence has been profiled by the researcher as Work Environment

Factor 2:

a) Support to participate in various program conducted by the company

b) Support from the company in equally distributing the work loads


7/41

These factors given above were grouped and named as Support from the company it is

regarding the support given to the employees in TTK Health Care Ltd.

Factor 3:

a) Spirit of cooperation among the employees

b) Thorough orientation regarding job

c) Clear vision regarding career progression

d) Promoting respect and fair treatment

The factors above are related to the orientation of the company towards their employees

and also regarding growth aspect of the career; hence these statements were grouped as

Growth orientation

Factor 4:

a) Encouraged by the company to pursue professional as well as developmental

opportunities.

b) Reasonable workload and reasonable expected completion time.

The researcher has profiled the above statements as Encouragement because it shows how

the company encourages the employees in their profession

Factor 5:

a) Efficient disciplinary procedures

b) Efficient in running the office

c) Communication among the employee is efficient

The three statements shows how efficient is the company in various aspects; therefore the

factor was named as Efficiency

Factor 6:

a) Management of conflict in the company

b) Supportive policies

c) Superiors support

The given three statements are showing dependability or reliability hence the factor named as

Reliability


8/41

Factor 7:

a) I like the people I work with

b) Positive relationship with the company

c) Effectiveness of communication

The factors grouped above are named as Rapport between the employees because these

statements depict the communication as well as the rapport existing among the employee

Factor 8:

a) Effective management of problems in the company

b) Articulation of policies in the company

c) Morale of the company

The statements are indicating the business policy of the company, and hence the factor is

named as Business policy

Factor 9:

a) Knowing and interacting with the employees

b) My company is the best place to work

c) Valued apart of the company

The above statements are relating to the friendly attitude existing in the company, hence the

factor is named as Employee friendly attitude

Factor 10:

a) Feedback about the work

b) I like my job

The factor grouped above is named as Work itselfbecause the statements are signifying

about the work only.

Factor 11:

a) Fair compensation

b) Clear understanding regarding what employees do and recognizing their work

The above statements are related to rewards that the employees receiving and the recognition

received by the employee. Hence the factor is named as Rewards and recognition


9/41

Table 5.5 Showing Influence of Experience and Work Environment

N Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

95% Confidence

Interval for Mean

Minimum Maximum

Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

Below 10 10 9.8000 1.75119 .55377 8.5473 11.0527 8.00 12.00

11-20 42 10.6667 1.63299 .25198 10.1578 11.1755 8.00 14.00

21-30 15 10.1333 2.32584 .60053 8.8453 11.4213 8.00 16.00

31-40 8 9.7500 1.66905 .59010 8.3546 11.1454 8.00 12.00

Total 75 10.3467 1.81207 .20924 9.9297 10.7636 8.00 16.00


Table 5.6 Showing the Anova Test for Influence of Experience and Work Environment

Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 10.820 3 3.607 1.103 .354

Within Groups 232.167 71 3.270

Total 242.987 74


The above table shows mean value of the factor Work Environment among experience

group of employees. The experience group below 10 years shows a mean value of 9.8 with a

standard deviation of 1.75, the experience group 11-20 years is showing a mean value of

10.67 with a standard deviation of 1.63, 21-30 years of experience group showing a mean

value of 10.13 with a standard deviation of 2.33 and the experience group 31-40 years having

a mean value of 9.75 with a standard deviation of 1.67. Among the respondents, 11-20 years

of experience group is having highest mean value with 10.67and the lowest is the 31- 40

years of experience category with a mean value 9.75. The Significance Level is 0.354. Even

though there is a difference in mean it is not significantly valid at 95% confidence level. Thus

this analysis established that Experience group is not a significant parameter in determining

the work environment


10/41

Table 5.7 Showing Influence of Age and Work Environment

Descriptives

work environment

N Mean

Std.

Deviation Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for

Mean

Minimum MaximumLower Bound Upper Bound

Below 25 2 10.0000 2.82843 2.00000 -15.4124 35.4124 8.00 12.00

26-35 16 10.6250 1.74642 .43661 9.6944 11.5556 8.00 12.00

36-45 35 10.2857 1.69031 .28571 9.7051 10.8664 8.00 14.00

46-55 18 10.6667 2.05798 .48507 9.6433 11.6901 8.00 16.00

Above 56 4 8.5000 1.00000 .50000 6.9088 10.0912 8.00 10.00

Total 75 10.3467 1.81207 .20924 9.9297 10.7636 8.00 16.00


Table 5.8 Showing the Anova Test for Influence of Age and Work Environment

ANOVA

work environment

Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 17.094 4 4.273 1.324 .269


Total 242.987 74


The above table shows mean value of the factor Work Environment among Age group of

employees. The respondents belong to below 25 category is having a mean value of 10.00

with a standard deviation of 2.83, 26-35 age group having a mean value 10.63 with a standard

deviation of 1.75, 36-45 age category is having the mean value of 10.29 with a standard

deviation of 1.69, 46-55 age group is having a mean value 10.67 with a standard deviation of

2.06 and above 56 age group is having a mean value of 8.50 with a standard deviation of 1.00

The respondents belong to age group 46-55 is having highest mean value with 10.67 and the

age group above 56 showing the lowest mean value with 8.5. The Significance Level is


11/41

0.269. Even though there is a difference in mean it is not significantly valid at 95%

confidence level. Thus this analysis established that age group is not a significant parameter

in determining the Work Environment.

Table 5.9 Showing Sample Statics for Work Environment

One-Sample Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation

Std. Error

Mean

work

environment

75 10.3467 1.81207 .20924


One-Sample Test

Test Value = 16

t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean

Difference

95% Confidence Interval of

the Difference

Lower Upper

work

environment

-27.018 74 .000 -5.65333 -6.0703 -5.2364


From this table, the opinions regarding factor work environment among respondents shows a

mean value of 10.35 with a standard deviation is 0.21. Here the tested value of the factor is

16. It shows a significance value of 0.000 i.e. 80% of maximum score given in the response.

The difference in the tested value and mean value of respondent are statistically significant at

95% confidence interval. The mean value is less than test value. So it means that the

employees are not satisfied with the work environment.


12/41

Table 5.10 Showing the Influences of Experience and Growth Orientation

N Mean

Std.



Mean


Below 10 10 9.4000 1.83787 .58119 8.0853 10.7147 5.00 11.00

11-20 42 10.1190 1.45170 .22400 9.6667 10.5714 5.00 13.00

21-30 15 10.0667 1.43759 .37118 9.2706 10.8628 8.00 13.00

31-40 8 9.7500 1.38873 .49099 8.5890 10.9110 7.00 11.00

Total 75 9.9733 1.48845 .17187 9.6309 10.3158 5.00 13.00Source: Analysis of survey data

Table 5.11 Showing the Anova Test for Influence of Experience and Growth

Orientation

Sum ofSquares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 4.709 3 1.570 .700 .555


Total 163.947 74


The table shows mean value of the factor Growth Orientation among experience group of

respondents. The respondents belong to below 10 years of experience shows a mean value of

9.4 with a standard deviation of 1.84, respondents belong to 11-20 years of experience group

is showing a mean value of 10.12 with a standard deviation of 1.45, 21-30 years of

experience showing a mean value of 10.07 with a standard deviation of 1.44 and 31-40

having a mean value 9.75 with a standard deviation of 1.39. Among the respondents, 11-20

years of experience group is having highest mean value with 10.12 and the lowest is the 31-

40 years of experience category with the mean value 9.75. The Significance Level is 0.555.


13/41

Even though there is a difference in mean it is not significantly valid at 95% confidence level.

Thus this analysis established that Experience group is not a significant parameter in

determining the growth orientation.

Table 5.12 Showing the Influences of Age and Growth Orientation

Descriptives

Growth orientation

N Mean

Std.



Mean


Below 25 2 9.5000 .70711 .50000 3.1469 15.8531 9.00 10.00

26-35 16 9.6250 1.62788 .40697 8.7576 10.4924 5.00 11.00

36-45 35 10.1714 1.52404 .25761 9.6479 10.6950 5.00 13.00

46-55 18 10.0556 1.30484 .30755 9.4067 10.7044 8.00 13.00

Above 56 4 9.5000 1.91485 .95743 6.4530 12.5470 7.00 11.00

Total 75 9.9733 1.48845 .17187 9.6309 10.3158 5.00 13.00


Table 5.13 Showing the Anova Test for Influence of Age And Growth Orientation

ANOVA

Growth orientation

Sum of

Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 4.781 4 1.195 .526 .717


Total 163.947 74


The table shows mean value of the factor Growth Orientation among age group of

employees. The employees belongs to below 25 age group is having a mean value of 9.5 with

a standard deviation of 0.71, 26-35 category having a mean value of 9.63 with a standard

deviation of 1.63, 36-45 category of age having the mean value of 10.17 with a standard


14/41

deviation of 1.52, 46-55 age group is having a mean value of 10.06 with a standard deviation

of 1.30 and above 56 group is having a mean value of 9.50 with a standard deviation of 1.91.

The employees belongs to age group of 36-45 is having highest mean value with 10.17 and

both the age group below 25 & above 56 showing the lowest mean value with 9.5. The

Significance Level is 0.717. There is a difference in mean and it is not significantly valid at

95% confidence level. Thus this analysis established that Age group is not a significant

parameter in determining the Growth orientation

Table 5.14 Showing Sample Statics for Growth Orientation



Std. Error

Mean

Growth

orientation

75 9.9733 1.48845 .17187


One-Sample Test

Test Value = 16

t Df Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean

Difference

95% Confidence Interval ofthe Difference

Lower Upper

Growth

orientation

-35.065 74 .000 -6.02667 -6.3691 -5.6842


From this table, the opinions regarding the factor support from the company among

respondents shows a mean value of 8.03 with the standard deviation is 0.223. Here the tested

value of the factor is 16. It shows a significance value of 0.905 i.e. 80% of maximum score

given in the response. The difference in the tested value and mean value of respondent are

statistically significant at 95% confidence interval. The mean value is slightly higher than test

value. So it means that the employees are satisfied with the support from the company even

though it didnt show a significance level.


15/41

Table 5.15 Showing the Influences of Experience Support from the Company

N Mean

Std.



Mean


Below 10 10 8.8000 1.39841 .44222 7.7996 9.8004 6.00 10.00

11-20 42 8.0476 1.89932 .29307 7.4557 8.6395 4.00 10.00

21-30 15 7.6000 2.02837 .52372 6.4767 8.7233 4.00 10.00

31-40 8 7.7500 2.49285 .88135 5.6659 9.8341 2.00 10.00

Total 75 8.0267 1.93106 .22298 7.5824 8.4710 2.00 10.00


Table 5.16 Showing the Anova Test for Influences of Experience and Support from the

Company

Sum of


Between Groups 9.342 3 3.114 .829 .482


Total 275.947 74


The table shows mean value of the factor Support from the company among experience of

employees. The respondents belong to below 10 years of experience shows a mean value of

8.8 with a standard deviation of 1.398, respondents belong to 11-20 years of experiences is

showing a mean value of 8.05 with a standard deviation of 1.889, another set of respondentsbelong to 21-30 years of experience showing a mean value of 7.6 with a standard deviation of

2.03 and 31-40 years of experience group having a mean value 7.75 with a standard deviation

of 2.49. Among the respondents, below 10 year of experience group is having highest mean

value with 8.8 and the lowest is the 21- 30 category with the mean value 7.6. The

Significance Level is 0.482. Even though there is a difference in mean it is not significantly

valid at 95% confidence level. Thus this analysis established that Experience is not a

significant parameter in determining the Support from the company.


16/41

Table 5.17 Showing the Influences of Age and Support by the Company

Descriptives

Support from the company

N Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

95% Confidence

Interval for Mean

Minimum Maximum

Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

Below 25 2 10.0000 .00000 .00000 10.0000 10.0000 10.00 10.00

26-35 16 7.7500 1.61245 .40311 6.8908 8.6092 4.00 10.00

36-45 35 8.1714 2.02173 .34173 7.4769 8.8659 4.00 10.0046-55 18 7.7778 2.26367 .53355 6.6521 8.9035 2.00 10.00

Above 56 4 8.0000 .00000 .00000 8.0000 8.0000 8.00 8.00

Total 75 8.0267 1.93106 .22298 7.5824 8.4710 2.00 10.00


Table 5.18 Showing the Anova Test for Influence of Age and Support from the

Company

ANOVA

Support from the company

Sum of


Between Groups 10.864 4 2.716 .717 .583


Total 275.947 74


The table shows mean value of the factor Support by the company among age group of

employees. The respondents belong to below 25 age category is having a mean value of

10.00 with zero standard deviation, the respondent belong to 26-35 age category having a

mean value 7.75 with a standard deviation of1.61, 36-45 age group is having a mean value of

8.17 with a standard deviation of 2.02, 46-55 age group is having a mean value of 7.78 with

a standard deviation of 2.26 and above 56 group is having a mean value of 8.50 with a

standard deviation of 1.00 The respondents belongs to age group below 25 is having highest


17/41

mean value with 10.00 and the age group 26-35 showing the lowest mean value with 8.17.

The Significance Level is 0.583. There is a difference in mean. It is not significantly valid at

95% confidence level. Thus this analysis established that Age group is not a significant

parameter in determining the Support from the company.

Table 5.19 Showing Sample Statics for Support from the Company



Std. Error

Mean

Support from the

company

75 8.0267 1.93106 .22298


One-Sample Test

Test Value = 8

T Df Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean

Difference


the Difference

Lower Upper

Support from the

company

.120 74 .905 .02667 -.4176 .4710


The opinions regarding factor support from the company among respondents show a mean

value of 8.03 with a standard deviation 0.223. Here the tested value of the factor is 8. It

shows a significance value of 0.905 i.e. 80% of maximum score given in the response. The

difference in the tested value and mean value of respondent are statistically significant at 95%

confidence interval. The mean value is slightly higher than test value. So it means that the

employees are satisfied with the support from the company even though it didnt show a

significance level.


18/41

Table 5.20 Showing the Influences of Experience and Encouragement

N Mean

Std.



Mean


Below 10 10 5.0000 1.69967 .53748 3.7841 6.2159 2.00 8.00

11-20 42 4.9524 2.42902 .37481 4.1954 5.7093 2.00 10.00

21-30 15 5.3333 2.58199 .66667 3.9035 6.7632 2.00 10.00

31-40 8 4.0000 2.39046 .84515 2.0015 5.9985 2.00 8.00

Total 75 4.9333 2.35575 .27202 4.3913 5.4753 2.00 10.00Source: Analysis of survey data

Table 5.21 Showing the Anova Test for Influences of Experience and Encouragement

Sum of


Between Groups 9.429 3 3.143 .556 .646


Total 410.667 74


The table shows mean value of the factor Encouragement among experience group of

respondents. The respondents belong to the below 10 shows a mean value of 5.00 with a

standard deviation of 1.69, 11-20 years of experience is having a mean value 4.95 with a

standard deviation of 2.43, the respondents belong to the 21-30 years of experience is

showing a mean value of 5.33 with a standard deviation of 2.58 and 31-40 year of experience

group having a mean value 4.00 with a standard deviation of 2.39. Among the respondents

the 21-30 years of experience group is having highest mean value with 5.33 and the lowest is

the 31-40 years of experience group with the mean value 4.00. The Significance Level is

0.646. There is a difference in mean. It is not significantly valid at 95% confidence level.

Thus this analysis established that Experience is not a significant parameter in determining

the Encouragement.


19/41

Table 5.22 Showing the Influences of Age and Encouragement

Descriptives

Encouragement

N Mean

Std.



Mean


Below 25 2 5.0000 1.41421 1.00000 -7.7062 17.7062 4.00 6.00

26-35 16 4.5000 2.36643 .59161 3.2390 5.7610 2.00 10.00

36-45 35 5.4286 2.35504 .39807 4.6196 6.2376 2.00 10.00

46-55 18 4.3333 2.40098 .56592 3.1394 5.5273 2.00 10.00

Above 56 4 5.0000 2.58199 1.29099 .8915 9.1085 2.00 8.00

Total 75 4.9333 2.35575 .27202 4.3913 5.4753 2.00 10.00


Table 5.23 Showing the Anova Test for Influence of Age and Encouragement

ANOVA

Encouragement

Sum of


Between Groups 18.095 4 4.524 .807 .525


Total 410.667 74


The above table shows mean value of the factor Encouragement among Age group of

respondents. The respondents belongs to below 25 age category is having a mean value of

5.00 with a standard deviation of 1.41, the respondents belong to 26-35 age category having

a mean value 4.5 with a standard deviation of 2.37, 36-45 age category having the mean

value of 5.43 with a standard deviation of 2.36, the respondents belong to 46-55 age group

is having 4.33 with a standard deviation of 2.4 and above 56 age group is having a mean

value of 5.00 with a standard deviation of 2.58.The respondents belong to age group 36-45 is

having highest mean value with 5.43 and age group 46-55 showing the lowest mean value

with 4.33. The Significance Level is 0.525. There is a difference in mean. It is not


20/41

significantly valid at 95% confidence level. Thus this analysis established that age group is

not a significant parameter in determining the encouragement

Table 5.24 Showing Sample Statics for Encouragement


N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Encouragement 75 4.9333 2.35575 .27202

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 8


Mean

Difference


the Difference

Lower Upper

Encouragement -11.274 74 .000 -3.06667 -3.6087 -2.5247


The opinions regarding the factor encouragement among respondents shows a mean value of

4.93 with the standard deviation is 2.36. Here the tested value of the factor is 8. It shows a

significance value of 0.000 i.e. 80% of maximum score given in the response. The difference

in the tested value and mean value of respondent are statistically significant at 95%

confidence interval. The mean value is less than test value. So it means that the employees

are of opinion that they are getting encouragement from the company where they are working

Hence the employees are not satisfied.


21/41

Table 5.25 Showing the Influences of Experience and Reliability

N Mean

Std.



Mean


Below 10 10 8.5000 2.46080 .77817 6.7396 10.2604 5.00 12.00

11-20 42 9.8095 1.74241 .26886 9.2665 10.3525 5.00 12.00

21-30 15 7.8667 2.19957 .56793 6.6486 9.0847 3.00 12.00

31-40 8 9.2500 2.25198 .79620 7.3673 11.1327 7.00 12.00

Total 75 9.1867 2.10978 .24362 8.7013 9.6721 3.00 12.00


Table 5.26 Showing the Anova Test for Influences of Experience and Reliability

Sum of


Between Groups 47.177 3 15.726 3.956 .011


Total 329.387 74


The table shows mean value of the factor Reliability among experience group of

employees. The age group below 10 shows a mean value of 8.50 with a standard deviation of

2.46, the respondents belong to 11-20 years of experience is showing a mean value of 9.81,

21-30 showing a mean value of 7.87 and the respondents belong to 31-40 year of experience

having a mean value 9.25 with a standard deviation of 2.25. Among the respondents, 11-20

year of experience group is having highest mean value with 9.81 and the lowest is the 21-30

year of experience category with the mean value 7.87. The Significance Level shown in the

table is 0.11. There is a difference in mean and it is significantly valid at 95% confidence

level. Thus this analysis established that Experience group is a significant parameter in

determining the Reliability.


22/41

TABLE 5.19 SHOWING THE INFLUENCES OF AGE AND RELIABILITY

Descriptives

Reliability

N Mean

Std.



Mean


Below 25 2 8.5000 4.94975 3.50000 -35.9717 52.9717 5.00 12.00

26-35 16 9.3125 2.15155 .53789 8.1660 10.4590 6.00 12.00

36-45 35 9.7429 1.63316 .27606 9.1818 10.3039 5.00 12.0046-55 18 8.0556 2.36325 .55702 6.8803 9.2308 3.00 12.00

Above 56 4 9.2500 2.21736 1.10868 5.7217 12.7783 7.00 12.00

Total 75 9.1867 2.10978 .24362 8.7013 9.6721 3.00 12.00


TABLE 5.19 SHOWING THE ANOVA TEST FOR INFLUENCE OF AGE AND

RELIABILITY

ANOVA

Reliability

Sum of


Between Groups 35.069 4 8.767 2.085 .092


Total 329.387 74


The above table shows mean value ofthe factor Reliability among age group of employees.

The respondents belong to the below 25 category is having a mean value of 8.50 with a

standard deviation of 4.95, the respondents belong to 26-35 category having a mean value

9.31 with a standard deviation of 2.15, 36-45 age category having the mean value of 9.74

with a standard deviation of 1.63, 46-55 age group is having 8.06 with a standard deviation

of 2.36 and above 56 age group is having a mean value of5 9.25 with a standard deviation of

2.21.The respondents belongs to age group 36-45 is having highest mean value with 9.74 and


23/41

age group 46-55 showing the lowest mean value with 8.06. The Significance Level is 0.092.

There is a difference in mean. It is not significantly valid at 95% confidence level. Thus this

analysis established that age group is not a significant parameter in determining the factor

Reliability. But if we take 90% confidence level, the factor shows a significance level. Thus

this analysis established that age group is a significant parameter in determining the factor

Reliability.

TABLE 5.28 SHOWING SAMPLE STATICS FOR RELIABILITY



Std. Error

Mean

Reliability 75 9.1867 2.10978 .24362


One-Sample Test

Test Value = 12


Mean

Difference


the Difference

Lower Upper

Reliability -11.548 74 .000 -2.81333 -3.2987 -2.3279


The opinions regarding the factor reliability among respondents shows a mean value of 9.19

with a standard deviation is 2.11. Here the tested value of the factor is 12. It shows a

significance value of 0.000 i.e. 80% of maximum score given in the response. The differencein the tested value and mean value of respondent are statistically significant at 95%

confidence interval. The mean value is less than test value. So it means that the respondents

are of same opinion that they are not feeling reliable where they are working. Hence the

respondents are not satisfied.

TABLE 5.9 SHOWING THE INFLUENCES OF EXPERIENCE AND RAPPORT

BETWEEN EMPLOYEES


24/41

N Mean

Std.



Mean


Below 10 10 5.4000 1.71270 .54160 4.1748 6.6252 3.00 9.00

11-20 42 6.4762 1.69990 .26230 5.9465 7.0059 4.00 11.00

21-30 15 7.2667 2.12020 .54743 6.0925 8.4408 3.00 10.00

31-40 8 5.6250 1.76777 .62500 4.1471 7.1029 3.00 8.00

Total 75 6.4000 1.85996 .21477 5.9721 6.8279 3.00 11.00


TABLE 5.9 SHOWING THE ANOVA TEST FOR INFLUENCES OF EXPERIENCE

AND RAPPRT BETWEEN EMPLOYEES

Sum of


Between Groups 26.315 3 8.772 2.712 .051


Total 256.000 74


The table shows mean value of the factor Rapport between employees among experience

group of respondents. The respondents below 10 years of experience shows a mean value of

5.4 with a standard deviation of 1.71, 11-20 years of experience group showing a mean value

of 6.47 with a standard deviation of 1.67, the respondents belong to 21-30 years of experience

showing a mean value of 7.27 with a standard deviation of 2.12 and 31-40 years of

experience group having a mean value 5.63 with a standard deviation of 1.77. And The

Significance Level is 0.51. Among the respondents 21-30 years of group is having highest

mean value with 7.27 and the lowest is the category with the mean value 5.40. Even though

there is a difference in mean, it is not significantly valid at 95% confidence level. Thus this

analysis established that experience group is not a significant parameter in determining the

factor Rapport b/w employee. But if we take 90% confidence level, the factor shows a

significance level. Thus this analysis established that experience group is a significantparameter in determining the factor Rapport b/w employee


25/41

Table 5.27 Showing the Influences of Age and Rapport between the Employees

Descriptives

Rapport b/w employee

N Mean

Std.



Mean


Below 25 2 4.5000 .70711 .50000 -1.8531 10.8531 4.00 5.00

26-35 16 5.8750 1.70783 .42696 4.9650 6.7850 3.00 9.00

36-45 35 6.6000 1.78556 .30182 5.9866 7.2134 4.00 11.0046-55 18 6.8889 2.08324 .49102 5.8529 7.9249 3.00 10.00

Above 56 4 5.5000 1.73205 .86603 2.7439 8.2561 3.00 7.00

Total 75 6.4000 1.85996 .21477 5.9721 6.8279 3.00 11.00


Table 5.28 Showing the Anova Test for Influence of Rapport between Employees

ANOVA

Rapport b/w employee

Sum of


Between Groups 20.572 4 5.143 1.529 .203


Total 256.000 74


The above table shows mean value of the factor Rapport between employees among age

group of employees. The respondents belongs to below 25 age category is having a mean

value of 4.5 with a standard deviation of 0.71, 26-35 age category having a mean value 5.88

with a standard deviation of 1.71, the respondents belong to 36-45 age group having the mean

value of 6.60 with a standard deviation of 1.79, 46-55 age group is having 6.89 with a

standard deviation of 2.08 and the age group above 56 is having a mean value of 5.5 with a

standard deviation of 1.73. The respondents belong to age group 46-55 is having highest


26/41

mean value with 6.89 and the age group below 25 showing the lowest mean value with

4.50. The Significance Level is 0.203. There is a difference in mean. It is not significantly

valid at 95% confidence level. Thus this analysis established that age is not a significant

parameter in determining the Rapport between employees

Table 5.29 Showing Sample Statics for Rapport Between Employees



Rapport b/w employee 75 6.4000 1.85996 .21477


One-Sample Test

Test Value = 12


Mean

Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Rapport b/w employee -26.074 74 .000 -5.60000 -6.0279 -5.1721


The opinions regarding factor rapport between employees among respondents show a mean

value of 6.40 with the standard deviation is 1.86. Here the tested value of the factor is 12. It



confidence interval. The mean value is less than test value. It means that the employees are of

same opinion that the rapport between the employees is not there in the company. Hence the

employees are not satisfied


27/41

Table 5.30 Showing the Influences of Experience and Business Policy

N Mean

Std.



Mean


Below 10 10 8.9000 1.37032 .43333 7.9197 9.8803 6.00 11.00

11-20 42 8.1905 2.18909 .33778 7.5083 8.8726 4.00 12.00

21-30 15 8.0000 2.85357 .73679 6.4197 9.5803 4.00 14.00

31-40 8 7.3750 1.40789 .49776 6.1980 8.5520 5.00 9.00

Total 75 8.1600 2.18125 .25187 7.6581 8.6619 4.00 14.00


Table 5.10 Showing the Anova Test for Influence of Experience and Business Policy

ANOVA

Business Policy

Sum of


Between Groups 10.829 3 3.610 .751 .525


Total 352.080 74

The above table shows mean value of the factor Business Policy among experience group

of employees. The respondents belong to below 10 shows a mean value of 8.90 with a

standard deviation of 1.37, 11-20 year of experience group showing a mean value of 8.19

with a standard deviation of 2.19, 21-30 years of experience group showing a mean value of

8.00 with a standard deviation of 2.85 and 31-40 experience having a mean value of 7.36

with a standard deviation of 1.41. Among the respondents, below 10 years of experience

group is having highest mean value with 8.90 and the lowest is the 31-40 years of experience

category with the mean value 7.38. The Significance Level is 0.525. There is a difference in

mean and it is not significantly valid at 95% confidence level. Thus this analysis established

that experience is not a significant parameter in determining the Business Policy.


28/41

Table 5.31 Showing Influence Age and Business Policy

Descriptives

Business Policy

N Mean

Std.



Mean


Below 25 2 8.5000 .70711 .50000 2.1469 14.8531 8.00 9.00

26-35 16 8.8750 1.14746 .28687 8.2636 9.4864 6.00 11.00

36-45 35 8.1714 2.36998 .40060 7.3573 8.9855 5.00 12.00

46-55 18 7.7222 2.63027 .61996 6.4142 9.0302 4.00 14.00

Above 56 4 7.0000 1.41421 .70711 4.7497 9.2503 5.00 8.00

Total 75 8.1600 2.18125 .25187 7.6581 8.6619 4.00 14.00


Table 5.32 Showing the Anova Test for Influence of Age and Business Policy

ANOVA

Business Policy

Sum of


Between Groups 17.247 4 4.312 .901 .468


Total 352.080 74


The table shows mean value of the factor Business policy among age group of employees.

The respondents belongs to below 25 category is having a mean value of 8.5 with a standard

deviation of 0.71, 26-35 years of age category having a mean value 8.88 with standard

deviation of 1.15, the respondents belong to 36-45 age group having the mean value of 8.17

with a standard deviation of 2.37, 46-55 age group is having 7.72 with a standard deviation of

2.63 and above 56 group is having a mean value of 7.00 with a standard deviation of 1.41.

The respondents belong to age group 26-35 is having highest mean value with 8.88 and age


29/41

group above 56 showing the lowest mean value with 7.0. The significance level is 0.468.

There is a difference in mean at the same time, it is not significantly valid at 95% confidence

level. Thus this analysis established that Age is not a significant parameter in determining the

factor Business Policy

Table 5.33 Showing Sample Statics for Business Policy



Std. Error

Mean

Business Policy 75 8.1600 2.18125 .25187


One-Sample Test

Test Value = 12


Mean

Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Business Policy -15.246 74 .000 -3.84000 -4.3419 -3.3381


From this table, the opinions regarding factor business policy among respondents show a

mean value of 8.16 with a standard deviation of 2.18. Here the tested value of the factor is 12.

It shows a significance value of 0.000 i.e. 80% of maximum score given in the response. The


confidence interval. The mean value is less than test value. So it means that the employees

are satisfied with the business policy. Hence the employees are not satisfied.


30/41

Table 5.34 Showing the Influences of Experience and Employee Friendliness

Descriptives

Employee friendliness

N Mean

Std.



Mean


Below 10 10 5.1000 1.79196 .56667 3.8181 6.3819 3.00 8.00

11-20 42 5.7857 1.88104 .29025 5.1995 6.3719 3.00 11.00

21-30 15 5.4667 1.84649 .47676 4.4441 6.4892 3.00 8.00

31-40 8 6.0000 2.82843 1.00000 3.6354 8.3646 3.00 11.00

Total 75 5.6533 1.95554 .22581 5.2034 6.1033 3.00 11.00


Table5.35. Showing the Anova Test for Influence of Experience and Employee

Friendliness

ANOVA


Sum of


Between Groups 5.282 3 1.761 .450 .718


Total 282.987 74


The table shows mean value of the factor Employee Friendliness among experience group

of employees. The respondents belong to below 10 shows a mean value of 5.10 with a

standard deviation of 1.79, the group 11-20 years of experience is showing a mean value of

5.79 with a standard deviation of 1.88, 21-30 years of experience is showing a mean value of

5.47 with a standard deviation of 1.85 and the group 31-40 years of experience is having

mean value of 6.00 with a standard deviation of 1.00. Among the respondents, 31-40 years of


31/41

experience group is having highest mean value with 6.00 and the lowest is the below 10

categories with the mean value 5.10. The Significance Level is 0.718. There is a difference

in mean and it is not significantly valid at 95% confidence level. Thus this analysis

established that experience is not a significant parameter in determining the factor Employee

friendliness.

Table 5.36 Showing the Influences of Age and Employee Friendliness

Descriptives


N Mean

Std.



Mean


Below 25 2 4.0000 1.41421 1.00000 -8.7062 16.7062 3.00 5.00

26-35 16 5.1250 1.31022 .32755 4.4268 5.8232 3.00 8.00

36-45 35 6.0857 1.94591 .32892 5.4173 6.7542 3.00 11.00

46-55 18 5.5000 2.30728 .54383 4.3526 6.6474 3.00 11.00

Above 56 4 5.5000 2.51661 1.25831 1.4955 9.5045 3.00 9.00

Total 75 5.6533 1.95554 .22581 5.2034 6.1033 3.00 11.00


Table 5.37 Showing the Anova Test for Influence of Age and Employee Friendliness

ANOVA



Between Groups 16.994 4 4.248 1.118 .355


Total 282.987 74



32/41

The above table shows mean value of the factor Employee Friendliness among age group

of employees. The respondents belongs to below 25 age category is having a mean value of

4.00 with a standard deviation of 1.41, 26-35 age category having a mean value 5.13 with a

standard deviation of 1.31, the age group 36-45 is having the mean value of 6.09 with a

standard deviation of 1.95, 46-55 age group is having 5.5 with a standard deviation of 2.31

and above 56 group is having a mean value of 5.50 with a standard deviation of 2.52 The

respondents belongs to age group 36-45 is having highest mean value with 6.09 and age

group below 25 showing the lowest mean value with 4.0. The Significance Level is 0.355.

There is a difference in mean and it is not significantly valid at 95% confidence level. Thus

this analysis established that age is not a significant parameter in determining the factor

Employee Friendliness

Table 5.38 Showing Sample Statics for Employee Friendliness



Std. Error

Mean

Employee

friendliness

75 5.6533 1.95554 .22581


One-Sample Test

Test Value = 12


Mean

Difference


the Difference

Lower Upper

Employee

friendliness

-28.107 74 .000 -6.34667 -6.7966 -5.8967


From this table, the opinions regarding factor employee friendliness among respondents show

a mean value of 5.65 with a standard deviation of 1.96. Here the tested value of the factor is



95% confidence interval. So it means that the respondents response regarding employee

friendliness is that the employee friendliness is not exist. Hence the employees are notsatisfied.


33/41

Table 5.39 Showing the Influences of Experience and Efficiency

Descriptives

Efficiency

N Mean

Std.



Mean


Below 10 10 7.9000 1.85293 .58595 6.5745 9.2255 5.00 11.00

11-20 42 9.0714 1.94300 .29981 8.4659 9.6769 6.00 13.00

21-30 15 8.4667 2.09989 .54219 7.3038 9.6295 5.00 11.0031-40 8 9.3750 1.68502 .59574 7.9663 10.7837 7.00 12.00

Total 75 8.8267 1.95471 .22571 8.3769 9.2764 5.00 13.00


Table 5.40 Showing the Anova Test for Influence of Experience and Efficiency

ANOVA

Efficiency

Sum of


Between Groups 15.453 3 5.151 1.368 .260


Total 282.747 74


The table shows mean value of the factor Efficiency among experience group of

employees. The respondents belong to the below 10 years of experience shows a mean value

of 7.90 with a standard deviation of 1.85, 11-20 years of experience group showing a mean

value of 9.07 with a standard deviation 1.93, 21-30 years of experience showing a mean value

of 8.45 with a standard deviation of 2.098 and the category of 31-40 years of experience

having a mean value 9.38 with a standard deviation of 1.95. Among the respondents, the

experience category 31-40 years of experience is having highest mean value with 9.37 andthe lowest is the below 10 categories with the mean value 7.9. This is having a significance


34/41

level of 0.269. There is a difference in mean and it is not significantly valid at 95%

confidence level. Thus this analysis established that experience is not a significant parameter

in determining the factor Efficiency.

Table 5.41 Showing the Influences of Age and Efficiency

Descriptives

Efficiency

N Mean

Std.



Mean


Below 25 2 8.5000 .70711 .50000 2.1469 14.8531 8.00 9.00

26-35 16 8.3125 1.95683 .48921 7.2698 9.3552 5.00 11.00

36-45 35 9.0857 2.10561 .35591 8.3624 9.8090 5.00 13.00

46-55 18 8.6111 1.78684 .42116 7.7225 9.4997 5.00 11.00

Above 56 4 9.7500 1.70783 .85391 7.0325 12.4675 8.00 12.00

Total 75 8.8267 1.95471 .22571 8.3769 9.2764 5.00 13.00


Table 5.41 Showing the Anova Test for Influence of Age and Efficiency

ANOVA

Efficiency


Between Groups 11.039 4 2.760 .711 .587


Total 282.747 74


The above table shows mean value of the factor Efficiency among age group of employees.

The respondents belong to below 25 category is having a mean value of 8.5 with standard


35/41

deviation of 0.71, the age group 26-35 is having a mean value 8.31 with a standard deviation

of 1..95, 36-45 age category having the mean value of 9.09 with a standard deviation of 2.11,

the age category 46-55 is having 8.61 with a standard deviation of 1.79 and above 56 group is

having a mean value of 9.75 with a standard deviation of 1.71 The respondents belongs to age

group above 56 is having highest mean value with 9.75 and age group 26-35 showing the

lowest mean value with 8.31. The Significance Level is 0.587. There is a difference in mean

and it is not significantly valid at 95% confidence level. Thus this analysis established that

age is not a significant parameter in determining the factor efficiency

Table 5.42 Showing Sample Statics for Efficiency



Std. Error

Mean

Efficiency 75 8.8267 1.95471 .22571


One-Sample Test

Test Value = 12


Mean

Difference


the Difference

Lower Upper

Efficiency -14.059 74 .000 -3.17333 -3.6231 -2.7236


From this table, the opinions regarding factor efficiency among respondents show a mean

value of 8.23 with the standard deviation is 1.95. Here the tested value of the factor is 12. It


difference in the tested value and mean value of respondent are statistically significant at 95%confidence interval. It means that the employees response regarding efficiency is that the

company is not efficient. Hence the employees are not satisfied


36/41

Table 5.43 Showing Influence of Experience and Work Itself

Descriptives

Work itself

N Mean

Std.



Mean


Below 10 10 3.0000 1.41421 .44721 1.9883 4.0117 2.00 6.00

11-20 42 3.5714 1.74108 .26865 3.0289 4.1140 2.00 8.00

21-30 15 4.2667 2.37447 .61308 2.9517 5.5816 2.00 8.0031-40 8 3.5000 1.41421 .50000 2.3177 4.6823 2.00 6.00

Total 75 3.6267 1.82159 .21034 3.2076 4.0458 2.00 8.00

Table 5.44 Showing the Anova Test for Influence of Experience and Work Itself

ANOVA

Work itself

Sum of


Between Groups 10.328 3 3.443 1.039 .381


Total 245.547 74

The above table shows mean value of the factor Work itself among experience group of

employees. The respondents belong to below 10 shows a mean value of 3.00 with a standard

deviation of 1.41, 11-20 years of experience group showing a mean value of 3.57 with a

standard deviation of 1.74, the experience group of 21-30 years showing a mean value of 4.27

with a standard deviation of 2.37 and 31-40 years of experience group having a mean value

3.50 with a standard deviation of 1.41. Among the respondents, 21-30 years of experience

group is having highest mean value with 4.26 and the lowest is the below 10 years of

experience category with the mean value of 3.00. The Significance Level is 0.381. There is a


37/41

difference in mean and it is not significantly valid at 95% confidence level. Thus this analysis

established that experience group is not a significant parameter in determining the factor

Work itself.

Table 5.45 Showing the Influences of Age and Work Itself

Descriptives

Work itself

N Mean

Std.



Mean


Below 25 2 3.0000 1.41421 1.00000 -9.7062 15.7062 2.00 4.00

26-35 16 3.2500 1.77012 .44253 2.3068 4.1932 2.00 6.00

36-45 35 3.7143 1.69031 .28571 3.1336 4.2949 2.00 8.00

46-55 18 4.0000 2.27519 .53627 2.8686 5.1314 2.00 8.00

Above 56 4 3.0000 1.15470 .57735 1.1626 4.8374 2.00 4.00

Total 75 3.6267 1.82159 .21034 3.2076 4.0458 2.00 8.00


Table 5.46 Showing the Anova Test for Influence of Age and Work Itself

ANOVA

Work itself

Sum of


Between Groups 7.404 4 1.851 .544 .704


Total 245.547 74


The above table shows mean value of the factor Work itself among Age group of

employees. The respondents belongs to below 25 age category is having a mean value of 3.00


38/41

with standard deviation 1.41, 26-35 age category having a mean value 3.25 with a standard

deviation of 1.77, the respondents belong to 36-45 age category having the mean value of

3.71 with a standard deviation of 1.69, 46-55 age group is having 4.00 with a standard

deviation of 1.15 and above 56 group is having a mean value of 3.00 with a standard

deviation of 1.15. The respondents belongs to age group 36-45 is having highest mean value

with 6.09 and age group below 25 showing the lowest mean value with 4.0. The

Significance Level is 0.704. There is a difference in mean and it is not significantly valid at

95% confidence level. Thus this analysis established that age group is not a significant

parameter in determining the factor Work itself

Table 5.47 Showing One Sample Statics for Work Itself



Std. Error

Mean

Work itself 75 3.6267 1.82159 .21034


One-Sample Test

Test Value = 8


Mean

Difference


the Difference

Lower Upper

Work itself -20.792 74 .000 -4.37333 -4.7924 -3.9542


From this table, the opinions regarding the factor work itself among respondents show amean value of 3.63 with the standard deviation is 1.82. Here the tested value of the factor is



95% confidence interval. Since the mean value is less than test value it means that the

employees are not finding interest in the work itself. Hence the employees are not satisfied.


39/41

Table 5.48 Showing the Influences of Experience and Reward and Recognition

Descriptives

Rewards and Recognition

N Mean

Std.



Mean


Below 10 10 2.4000 .84327 .26667 1.7968 3.0032 2.00 4.00

11-20 42 3.6667 1.64786 .25427 3.1532 4.1802 2.00 10.00

21-30 15 4.1333 1.92230 .49634 3.0688 5.1979 2.00 8.00

31-40 8 4.5000 1.77281 .62678 3.0179 5.9821 2.00 6.00

Total 75 3.6800 1.70975 .19742 3.2866 4.0734 2.00 10.00


Table 5.49 Showing the Anova Test for Influence of Experience and Rewards and

Recognition

ANOVA


Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 24.853 3 8.284 3.072 .033


Total 216.320 74

Source: Analysis of survey dataThe table shows mean value of the factor Rewards and recognition among experience

group of employees. The respondents belong to below 10 shows a mean value of 2.40 with a

standard deviation of 0.84, 11-20 years of experience group showing a mean value of 3.67

with a standard deviation of 1.65, the experience group 21-30 years showing a mean value of

4.13 with a standard deviation of 1.92 and 31-40 years of experience having a mean value 4.5

with a standard deviation of 1.77. Among the employees 31-40 group is having highest mean

value with 4.5 and the lowest is the below 10 years of experience category with s mean value

of 0.28. The Significance Level shown in the table is 0.033. There is a difference in mean but


40/41

still it is significantly valid at 95% confidence level. Thus this analysis established that

Experience is a significant parameter in determining the factor Rewards and recognition.

Table 5.50 Showing the Influences of Age and Rewards and Recognition

Descriptive


Age N MeanStd.

Deviation

Std.

Error

95% Confidence Interval

for MeanMinimum Maximum

Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

Below 25 2 2.0000 .00000 .00000 2.0000 2.0000 2.00 2.00

26-35 16 3.2500 1.43759 .35940 2.4840 4.0160 2.00 6.00

36-45 35 3.4857 1.63368 .27614 2.9245 4.0469 2.00 10.00

46-55 18 4.3333 1.97037 .46442 3.3535 5.3132 2.00 8.00

Above 56 4 5.0000 1.15470 .57735 3.1626 6.8374 4.00 6.00

Total 75 3.6800 1.70975 .19742 3.2866 4.0734 2.00 10.00


le 5.51 Showing the Anova Test for Influence of Age and Rewards and Recognition

ANOVA


Sum of

Squares

df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 24.577 4 6.144 2.243 .073


Total 216.320 74


The table shows mean value of the factor Rewards and Recognition among age group of

employees. The respondents belongs to below 25 category is having a mean value of 2.00

with zero standard deviation, the age group 26-35 category having a mean value 3.25 with a


41/41

standard deviation of 1.44, 36-45 age group is having the mean value of 3.45 with a standard

deviation of 1.63, the age group 46-55 years is having 4.33 with a standard deviation of 1.97

and above 56 group is having a mean value of 5.00 with a standard deviation of 1.71. The

respondents belongs to age group 36-45 is having highest mean value with 9.74 and age

group 46-55 showing the lowest mean value with 8.06. The Significance Level is 0.073.

There is a difference in mean and it is not significantly valid at 95% confidence level. Thus

this analysis established that age group is not a significant parameter in determining the factor

Reliability. But if we take 90% confidence level, the factor shows a significance level. Thus

this analysis established that Age is a significant parameter in determining the factor Rewards

and Recognition

Table 5.52 Showing Sample Statics for Rewards and Recognition



Rewards and Recognition 75 3.6800 1.70975 .19742


One-Sample Test

Test Value = 12

t df Sig. (2-tailed)Mean

Difference


the Difference

Lower Upper

Rewards and

Recognition-42.143 74 .000 -8.32000 -8.7134 -7.9266


From this table, the opinions regarding the factor rewards and recognition among respondentsshow a mean value of 3.68 with the standard deviation is 1.71. Here the tested value of the

factor is 12. It shows a significance value of 0.000 i.e. 80% of maximum score given for the

response. There is a huge difference between mean value and test value. The difference in the

tested value and mean value of respondent are statistically significant at 95% confidence

interval. They are not satisfied with the way they have treated and the also the perks and

perquisites they have received. Hence the employees are not satisfied.

interpretation 21

Documents