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

Age of the employees Frequency Below 25 26-35 36-45 46-55 Above 56 Total Source: Analysis of survey data 2 16 35 18 4 75 Percent 2.7 21.3 46.7 24.0 5.3 100.0

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 4655 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.

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

Experience of the employees Frequency Valid Below 10 11-20 21-30 31-40 Total Source: Analysis of survey data 10 42 15 8 75 Percent 13.3 56.0 20.0 10.7 100.0

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.

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

Age * Experience Cross tabulation Experience Below 10 Below 25 26-35 Age 36-45 46-55 Above 56 Total Source: Analysis of survey data 2 8 0 0 0 10 11-20 0 8 33 1 0 42 21-30 0 0 2 13 0 15 31-40 0 0 0 4 4 8 Total 2 16 35 18 4 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.

Table No: 5.4 Factor Analyses

Rotated Component Matrix Component 1 This office has regular staff meetings to plan and coordinate work and to make announcements. This office reasonably accommodates personal needs. I have a clear understanding of how my job performance is measured. I feel heard when I communicate with others in my office I feel supported by my office to participate in various programs conducted by my company The workload in this office is distributed equitably. There is a spirit of cooperation among staff in this office. I received a thorough orientation to this office and my job when I started Ive a clear goal for my own career progression. Promoting respect and fair treatment among all staff is a high priority of this office. I feel encouraged by my office to pursue professional development opportunities. My workload and expected completion times are reasonable Disciplinary procedures in this office are consistently enforced. Overall, this office is run efficiently Communication between staff and this offices upper leadership is effective -.094 -.162 .009 .323 .016 .355 -.047 -.125 .920 .484 .013 .210 .065 -.010 -.103 .089 -.033 .122 -.180 .145 .096 -.068 -.094 .009 .016 -.047 .920 .013 .065 -.103 -.033 -.180 .096 .096 -.108 -.064 .916 -.051 .001 -.029 .196 .001 .092 -.017 .096 -.108 -.064 .916 -.051 .001 -.029 .196 .001 .092 -.017 .160 -.371 -.478 .259 -.047 .131 -.284 .066 -.077 .101 -.207 -.255 -.007 -.689 .144 -.113 .305 .364 -.157 -.012 -.095 .068 -.081 .008 .928 -.002 -.022 .049 .132 .012 -.032 -.210 .099 -.081 .008 .928 -.002 -.022 .049 .132 .012 -.032 -.210 .099 -.184 .935 .026 -.104 .052 .012 -.033 .017 .028 .024 -.081 -.184 .935 .026 -.104 .052 .012 -.033 .017 .028 .024 -.081 -.694 .248 .023 -.458 -.145 .073 -.059 .325 .102 -.011 .203 -.694 .248 .023 -.458 -.145 .073 -.059 .325 .102 -.011 .203 .844 -.133 -.052 -.021 -.225 .084 .071 .190 .115 .091 .169 .844 2 -.133 3 -.052 4 -.021 5 -.225 6 .084 7 .071 8 .190 9 .115 10 .091 11 .169

I have a clear vision of the organization growth Conflict among staff in my office is managed effectively This office has policies that are supportive of its staff. I feel there are leaders in this office I can trust I like the people I work with I have a positive relationship with my office leaders Communication among staff in this office is effective. Problems are managed effectively in this office when they arise Policies in this office are clearly articulated to its staff. Morale in this office is high I know and interact with my office leaders My office is one of the best places to work I feel Im valued apart of this company I receive constructive feedback about the quality of my work I like my job. I feel fairly compensated for the work I do in this office compared to other similar positions across campus. My office leadership has a clear understanding of the work I do Overall this office is working effectively Others in this office trust me to perform my job.

.018

.057

-.207

.250

.476

.060

.237

.203

.246

.193

.093

.090

.045

.006

-.029

.059

.932

-.162

-.006

-.088

.028

.072

.090

.045

.006

-.029

.059

.932

-.162

-.006

-.088

.028

.072

-.248

-.285

-.123

.097

-.005

.543

.253

.088

.033

.196

-.195

.095 .095

-.026 -.026

.087 .087

-.041 -.041

.106 .106

-.121 -.121

.945 .945

.022 .022

-.025 -.025

-.004 -.004

.031 .031

.128

-.444

.045

.001

.236

-.392

-.445

.051

.020

.178

-.290

.037

-.004

.047

.205

-.069

.030

.013

.882

-.067

.037

-.296

.037

-.004

.047

.205

-.069

.030

.013

.882

-.067

.037

-.296

-.053 .055

-.511 .058

-.042 -.008

.191 -.030

-.063 .008

.170 -.071

-.045 .002

-.531 -.020

-.021 .971

.337 -.024

-.062 -.042

.055

.058

-.008

-.030

.008

-.071

.002

-.020

.971

-.024

-.042

-.075 .077

-.183 -.010

-.007 -.181

.457 .103

.031 -.127

-.030 .053

-.197 -.015

-.210 .002

.527 .003

.193 .932

-.022 .141

.077 .065

-.010 -.059

-.181 .104

.103 -.031

-.127 .109

.053 .045

-.015 .054

.002 -.244

.003 -.055

.932 .150

.141 .908

.065

-.059

.104

-.031

.109

.045

.054

-.244

-.055

.150

.908

.111 .111

.035 .035

.015 .015

.144 .144

-.095 -.095

.140 .140

.038 .038

-.046 -.046

.046 .046

-.040 -.040

-.043 -.043

Source: Analysis of survey data

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

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

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 itself because 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

Table 5.5 Showing Influence of Experience and Work Environment

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Std. N Below 10 11-20 21-30 31-40 Total Mean 10 9.8000 42 10.6667 15 10.1333 8 9.7500 75 10.3467 Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound 8.5473 10.1578 8.8453 8.3546 9.9297 Upper Bound 11.0527 11.1755 11.4213 11.1454 10.7636 Minimum Maximum 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 12.00 16.00

1.75119 .55377 1.63299 .25198 2.32584 .60053 1.66905 .59010 1.81207 .20924

Source: Analysis of survey data

Table 5.6 Showing the Anova Test for Influence of Experience and Work Environment Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total 10.820 232.167 242.987 Df 3 71 74 Mean Square 3.607 3.270 F 1.103 Sig. .354

Source: Analysis of survey data 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

Table 5.7 Showing Influence of Age and Work Environment Descriptives work environment 95% Confidence Interval for Std. N Below 25 26-35 36-45 46-55 Above 56 Total Mean 2 10.0000 16 10.6250 35 10.2857 18 10.6667 4 8.5000 Deviation 2.82843 1.74642 1.69031 2.05798 1.00000 1.81207 Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum 2.00000 .43661 .28571 .48507 .50000 .20924 -15.4124 9.6944 9.7051 9.6433 6.9088 9.9297 35.4124 11.5556 10.8664 11.6901 10.0912 10.7636 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 12.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 10.00 16.00

75 10.3467

Source: Analysis of survey data Table 5.8 Showing the Anova Test for Influence of Age and Work Environment ANOVA work environment Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total 17.094 225.893 242.987 df 4 70 74 Mean Square 4.273 3.227 F 1.324 Sig. .269

Source: Analysis of survey data 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

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 work environment 75 Mean 10.3467 Std. Deviation 1.81207 Std. Error Mean .20924

Source: Analysis of survey data

One-Sample Test Test Value = 16 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower -6.0703 Upper -5.2364

t work environment -27.018

df 74

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

Mean Difference -5.65333

Source: Analysis of survey data 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.

Table 5.10 Showing the Influences of Experience and Growth Orientation

95% Confidence Interval for Std. N Below 10 11-20 21-30 31-40 Total 10 Mean 9.4000 Deviation 1.83787 1.45170 1.43759 1.38873 1.48845 Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum .58119 .22400 .37118 .49099 .17187 8.0853 9.6667 9.2706 8.5890 9.6309 10.7147 10.5714 10.8628 10.9110 10.3158 5.00 5.00 8.00 7.00 5.00 11.00 13.00 13.00 11.00 13.00

42 10.1190 15 10.0667 8 75 9.7500 9.9733

Source: Analysis of survey data

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

Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total 4.709 159.238 163.947 Df 3 71 74 Mean Square 1.570 2.243 F .700 Sig. .555

Source: Analysis of survey data 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 3140 years of experience category with the mean value 9.75. The Significance Level is 0.555.

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 95% Confidence Interval for Std. N Below 25 26-35 36-45 46-55 Above 56 Total 2 16 Mean 9.5000 9.6250 Deviation .70711 1.62788 1.52404 1.30484 1.91485 1.48845 Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum .50000 .40697 .25761 .30755 .95743 .17187 3.1469 8.7576 9.6479 9.4067 6.4530 9.6309 15.8531 10.4924 10.6950 10.7044 12.5470 10.3158 9.00 5.00 5.00 8.00 7.00 5.00 10.00 11.00 13.00 13.00 11.00 13.00

35 10.1714 18 10.0556 4 75 9.5000 9.9733

Source: Analysis of survey data

Table 5.13 Showing the Anova Test for Influence of Age And Growth Orientation ANOVA Growth orientation Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total Source: Analysis of survey data 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 4.781 159.166 163.947 Df 4 70 74 Mean Square 1.195 2.274 F .526 Sig. .717

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
One-Sample Statistics N Growth orientation 75 Mean 9.9733 Std. Deviation 1.48845 Std. Error Mean .17187

Source: Analysis of survey data

One-Sample Test Test Value = 16 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower -6.3691 Upper -5.6842

t Growth orientation -35.065

Df 74

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

Mean Difference -6.02667

Source: Analysis of survey data 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.

Table 5.15 Showing the Influences of Experience Support from the Company 95% Confidence Interval for Std. N Below 10 11-20 21-30 31-40 Total 10 42 15 8 75 Mean 8.8000 8.0476 7.6000 7.7500 8.0267 Deviation 1.39841 1.89932 2.02837 2.49285 1.93106 Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum .44222 .29307 .52372 .88135 .22298 7.7996 7.4557 6.4767 5.6659 7.5824 9.8004 8.6395 8.7233 9.8341 8.4710 6.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00

Source: Analysis of survey data

Table 5.16 Showing the Anova Test for Influences of Experience and Support from the Company Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total Source: Analysis of survey data 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 respondents belong 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. 9.342 266.605 275.947 Df 3 71 74 Mean Square 3.114 3.755 F .829 Sig. .482

Table 5.17 Showing the Influences of Age and Support by the Company Descriptives Support from the company 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Std. N Below 25 26-35 36-45 46-55 Above 56 Total Mean 2 10.0000 16 7.7500 35 8.1714 18 7.7778 4 8.0000 75 8.0267 Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound 10.0000 6.8908 7.4769 6.6521 8.0000 7.5824 Upper Bound 10.0000 8.6092 8.8659 8.9035 8.0000 8.4710 Minimum Maximum 10.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 8.00 2.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 8.00 10.00

.00000 .00000 1.61245 .40311 2.02173 .34173 2.26367 .53355 .00000 .00000 1.93106 .22298

Source: Analysis of survey data Table 5.18 Showing the Anova Test for Influence of Age and Support from the Company ANOVA Support from the company Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total Source: Analysis of survey data 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 10.864 265.083 275.947 Df 4 70 74 Mean Square 2.716 3.787 F .717 Sig. .583

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
One-Sample Statistics N Support from the company 75 Mean 8.0267 Std. Deviation 1.93106 Std. Error Mean .22298

Source: Analysis of survey data

One-Sample Test Test Value = 8 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower -.4176 Upper .4710

T Support from the company .120

Df 74

Sig. (2-tailed) .905

Mean Difference .02667

Source: Analysis of survey data 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.

Table 5.20 Showing the Influences of Experience and Encouragement

95% Confidence Interval for Std. N Below 10 11-20 21-30 31-40 Total 10 42 15 8 75 Mean 5.0000 4.9524 5.3333 4.0000 4.9333 Deviation 1.69967 2.42902 2.58199 2.39046 2.35575 Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum .53748 .37481 .66667 .84515 .27202 3.7841 4.1954 3.9035 2.0015 4.3913 6.2159 5.7093 6.7632 5.9985 5.4753 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 8.00 10.00 10.00 8.00 10.00

Source: Analysis of survey data Table 5.21 Showing the Anova Test for Influences of Experience and Encouragement

Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total Source: Analysis of survey data 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. 9.429 401.238 410.667 Df 3 71 74 Mean Square 3.143 5.651 F .556 Sig. .646

Table 5.22 Showing the Influences of Age and Encouragement Descriptives Encouragement 95% Confidence Interval for Std. N Below 25 26-35 36-45 46-55 Above 56 Total 2 16 35 18 4 75 Mean 5.0000 4.5000 5.4286 4.3333 5.0000 4.9333 Deviation 1.41421 2.36643 2.35504 2.40098 2.58199 2.35575 Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum 1.00000 .59161 .39807 .56592 1.29099 .27202 -7.7062 3.2390 4.6196 3.1394 .8915 4.3913 17.7062 5.7610 6.2376 5.5273 9.1085 5.4753 4.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 6.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 8.00 10.00

Source: Analysis of survey data Table 5.23 Showing the Anova Test for Influence of Age and Encouragement ANOVA Encouragement Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total Source: Analysis of survey data 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 18.095 392.571 410.667 df 4 70 74 Mean Square 4.524 5.608 F .807 Sig. .525

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
One-Sample Statistics N Encouragement 75 Mean 4.9333 Std. Deviation 2.35575 Std. Error Mean .27202

One-Sample Test Test Value = 8 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower -3.6087 Upper -2.5247

t Encouragement -11.274

Df 74

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

Mean Difference -3.06667

Source: Analysis of survey data 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.

Table 5.25 Showing the Influences of Experience and Reliability

95% Confidence Interval for Std. N Below 10 11-20 21-30 31-40 Total 10 42 15 8 75 Mean 8.5000 9.8095 7.8667 9.2500 9.1867 Deviation 2.46080 1.74241 2.19957 2.25198 2.10978 Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum .77817 .26886 .56793 .79620 .24362 6.7396 9.2665 6.6486 7.3673 8.7013 10.2604 10.3525 9.0847 11.1327 9.6721 5.00 5.00 3.00 7.00 3.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00

Source: Analysis of survey data

Table 5.26 Showing the Anova Test for Influences of Experience and Reliability Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total Source: Analysis of survey data 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. 47.177 282.210 329.387 Df 3 71 74 Mean Square 15.726 3.975 F 3.956 Sig. .011

TABLE 5.19 SHOWING THE INFLUENCES OF AGE AND RELIABILITY

Descriptives Reliability 95% Confidence Interval for Std. N Below 25 26-35 36-45 46-55 Above 56 Total 2 16 35 18 4 75 Mean 8.5000 9.3125 9.7429 8.0556 9.2500 9.1867 Deviation 4.94975 2.15155 1.63316 2.36325 2.21736 2.10978 Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum 3.50000 .53789 .27606 .55702 1.10868 .24362 -35.9717 8.1660 9.1818 6.8803 5.7217 8.7013 52.9717 10.4590 10.3039 9.2308 12.7783 9.6721 5.00 6.00 5.00 3.00 7.00 3.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00

Source: Analysis of survey data TABLE 5.19 SHOWING THE ANOVA TEST FOR INFLUENCE OF AGE AND RELIABILITY ANOVA Reliability Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total Source: Analysis of survey data The above table shows mean value of the 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 35.069 294.318 329.387 df 4 70 74 Mean Square 8.767 4.205 F 2.085 Sig. .092

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

One-Sample Statistics Std. Error N Reliability 75 Mean 9.1867 Std. Deviation 2.10978 Mean .24362

Source: Analysis of survey data

One-Sample Test Test Value = 12 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower -3.2987 Upper -2.3279

t Reliability -11.548

df 74

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

Mean Difference -2.81333

Source: Analysis of survey data

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 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 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

95% Confidence Interval for Std. N Below 10 11-20 21-30 31-40 Total 10 42 15 8 75 Mean 5.4000 6.4762 7.2667 5.6250 6.4000 Deviation 1.71270 1.69990 2.12020 1.76777 1.85996 Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum .54160 .26230 .54743 .62500 .21477 4.1748 5.9465 6.0925 4.1471 5.9721 6.6252 7.0059 8.4408 7.1029 6.8279 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 9.00 11.00 10.00 8.00 11.00

Source: Analysis of survey data

TABLE 5.9 SHOWING THE ANOVA TEST FOR INFLUENCES OF EXPERIENCE AND RAPPRT BETWEEN EMPLOYEES

Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total Source: Analysis of survey data 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 significant parameter in determining the factor Rapport b/w employee 26.315 229.685 256.000 Df 3 71 74 Mean Square 8.772 3.235 F 2.712 Sig. .051

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

Descriptives Rapport b/w employee 95% Confidence Interval for Std. N Below 25 26-35 36-45 46-55 Above 56 Total 2 16 35 18 4 75 Mean 4.5000 5.8750 6.6000 6.8889 5.5000 6.4000 Deviation .70711 1.70783 1.78556 2.08324 1.73205 1.85996 Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum .50000 .42696 .30182 .49102 .86603 .21477 -1.8531 4.9650 5.9866 5.8529 2.7439 5.9721 10.8531 6.7850 7.2134 7.9249 8.2561 6.8279 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 5.00 9.00 11.00 10.00 7.00 11.00

Source: Analysis of survey data

Table 5.28 Showing the Anova Test for Influence of Rapport between Employees ANOVA Rapport b/w employee Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total Source: Analysis of survey data 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 20.572 235.428 256.000 Df 4 70 74 Mean Square 5.143 3.363 F 1.529 Sig. .203

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
One-Sample Statistics N Rapport b/w employee 75 Mean 6.4000 Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 1.85996 .21477

Source: Analysis of survey data

One-Sample Test Test Value = 12 95% Confidence Interval of the Mean t Rapport b/w employee -26.074 Df 74 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 Difference -5.60000 Difference Lower -6.0279 Upper -5.1721

Source: Analysis of survey data 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 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. 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

Table 5.30 Showing the Influences of Experience and Business Policy

95% Confidence Interval for Std. N Below 10 11-20 21-30 31-40 Total 10 42 15 8 75 Mean 8.9000 8.1905 8.0000 7.3750 8.1600 Deviation 1.37032 2.18909 2.85357 1.40789 2.18125 Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum .43333 .33778 .73679 .49776 .25187 7.9197 7.5083 6.4197 6.1980 7.6581 9.8803 8.8726 9.5803 8.5520 8.6619 6.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 11.00 12.00 14.00 9.00 14.00

Source: Analysis of survey data Table 5.10 Showing the Anova Test for Influence of Experience and Business Policy ANOVA Business Policy Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total 10.829 341.251 352.080 Df 3 71 74 Mean Square 3.610 4.806 F .751 Sig. .525

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.

Table 5.31 Showing Influence Age and Business Policy Descriptives Business Policy 95% Confidence Interval for Std. N Below 25 26-35 36-45 46-55 Above 56 Total 2 16 35 18 4 75 Mean 8.5000 8.8750 8.1714 7.7222 7.0000 8.1600 Deviation .70711 1.14746 2.36998 2.63027 1.41421 2.18125 Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum .50000 .28687 .40060 .61996 .70711 .25187 2.1469 8.2636 7.3573 6.4142 4.7497 7.6581 14.8531 9.4864 8.9855 9.0302 9.2503 8.6619 8.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 9.00 11.00 12.00 14.00 8.00 14.00

Source: Analysis of survey data

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

ANOVA Business Policy Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total Source: Analysis of survey data 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 17.247 334.833 352.080 Df 4 70 74 Mean Square 4.312 4.783 F .901 Sig. .468

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

One-Sample Statistics Std. Error N Business Policy 75 Mean 8.1600 Std. Deviation 2.18125 Mean .25187

Source: Analysis of survey data

One-Sample Test Test Value = 12 95% Confidence Interval of the Mean t Business Policy -15.246 df 74 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 Difference -3.84000 Lower -4.3419 Difference Upper -3.3381

Source: Analysis of survey data

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

Table 5.34 Showing the Influences of Experience and Employee Friendliness

Descriptives Employee friendliness 95% Confidence Interval for Std. N Below 10 11-20 21-30 31-40 Total 10 42 15 8 75 Mean 5.1000 5.7857 5.4667 6.0000 5.6533 Deviation 1.79196 1.88104 1.84649 2.82843 1.95554 Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum .56667 .29025 .47676 1.00000 .22581 3.8181 5.1995 4.4441 3.6354 5.2034 6.3819 6.3719 6.4892 8.3646 6.1033 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 8.00 11.00 8.00 11.00 11.00

Source: Analysis of survey data

Table5.35. Showing the Anova Test for Influence of Experience and Employee Friendliness ANOVA Employee friendliness Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total Source: Analysis of survey data 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 5.282 277.705 282.987 Df 3 71 74 Mean Square 1.761 3.911 F .450 Sig. .718

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 Employee friendliness 95% Confidence Interval for Std. N Below 25 26-35 36-45 46-55 Above 56 Total 2 16 35 18 4 75 Mean 4.0000 5.1250 6.0857 5.5000 5.5000 5.6533 Deviation 1.41421 1.31022 1.94591 2.30728 2.51661 1.95554 Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum 1.00000 .32755 .32892 .54383 1.25831 .22581 -8.7062 4.4268 5.4173 4.3526 1.4955 5.2034 16.7062 5.8232 6.7542 6.6474 9.5045 6.1033 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 5.00 8.00 11.00 11.00 9.00 11.00

Source: Analysis of survey data

Table 5.37 Showing the Anova Test for Influence of Age and Employee Friendliness ANOVA Employee friendliness Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total Source: Analysis of survey data 16.994 265.993 282.987 Df 4 70 74 Mean Square 4.248 3.800 F 1.118 Sig. .355

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

One-Sample Statistics N Employee friendliness 75 Mean 5.6533 Std. Deviation 1.95554 Std. Error Mean .22581

Source: Analysis of survey data

One-Sample Test Test Value = 12 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower -6.7966 Upper -5.8967

t Employee friendliness -28.107

Df 74

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

Mean Difference -6.34667

Source: Analysis of survey data 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 12. 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. So it means that the respondents response regarding employee friendliness is that the employee friendliness is not exist. Hence the employees are not satisfied.

Table 5.39 Showing the Influences of Experience and Efficiency Descriptives Efficiency 95% Confidence Interval for Std. N Below 10 11-20 21-30 31-40 Total 10 42 15 8 75 Mean 7.9000 9.0714 8.4667 9.3750 8.8267 Deviation 1.85293 1.94300 2.09989 1.68502 1.95471 Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum .58595 .29981 .54219 .59574 .22571 6.5745 8.4659 7.3038 7.9663 8.3769 9.2255 9.6769 9.6295 10.7837 9.2764 5.00 6.00 5.00 7.00 5.00 11.00 13.00 11.00 12.00 13.00

Source: Analysis of survey data

Table 5.40 Showing the Anova Test for Influence of Experience and Efficiency ANOVA Efficiency Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total Source: Analysis of survey data 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 and the lowest is the below 10 categories with the mean value 7.9. This is having a significance 15.453 267.294 282.747 Df 3 71 74 Mean Square 5.151 3.765 F 1.368 Sig. .260

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 95% Confidence Interval for Std. N Below 25 26-35 36-45 46-55 Above 56 Total 2 16 35 18 4 75 Mean 8.5000 8.3125 9.0857 8.6111 9.7500 8.8267 Deviation .70711 1.95683 2.10561 1.78684 1.70783 1.95471 Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum .50000 .48921 .35591 .42116 .85391 .22571 2.1469 7.2698 8.3624 7.7225 7.0325 8.3769 14.8531 9.3552 9.8090 9.4997 12.4675 9.2764 8.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 8.00 5.00 9.00 11.00 13.00 11.00 12.00 13.00

Source: Analysis of survey data

Table 5.41 Showing the Anova Test for Influence of Age and Efficiency ANOVA Efficiency Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total Source: Analysis of survey data 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 11.039 271.708 282.747 Df 4 70 74 Mean Square 2.760 3.882 F .711 Sig. .587

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
One-Sample Statistics N Efficiency 75 Mean 8.8267 Std. Deviation 1.95471 Std. Error Mean .22571

Source: Analysis of survey data

One-Sample Test Test Value = 12 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower -3.6231 Upper -2.7236

t Efficiency -14.059

df 74

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

Mean Difference -3.17333

Source: Analysis of survey data 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 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. It means that the employees response regarding efficiency is that the company is not efficient. Hence the employees are not satisfied

Table 5.43 Showing Influence of Experience and Work Itself

Descriptives Work itself 95% Confidence Interval for Std. N Below 10 11-20 21-30 31-40 Total 10 42 15 8 75 Mean 3.0000 3.5714 4.2667 3.5000 3.6267 Deviation 1.41421 1.74108 2.37447 1.41421 1.82159 Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum .44721 .26865 .61308 .50000 .21034 1.9883 3.0289 2.9517 2.3177 3.2076 4.0117 4.1140 5.5816 4.6823 4.0458 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 6.00 8.00 8.00 6.00 8.00

Table 5.44 Showing the Anova Test for Influence of Experience and Work Itself ANOVA Work itself Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total 10.328 235.219 245.547 Df 3 71 74 Mean Square 3.443 3.313 F 1.039 Sig. .381

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

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 95% Confidence Interval for Std. N Below 25 26-35 36-45 46-55 Above 56 Total 2 16 35 18 4 75 Mean 3.0000 3.2500 3.7143 4.0000 3.0000 3.6267 Deviation 1.41421 1.77012 1.69031 2.27519 1.15470 1.82159 Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum 1.00000 .44253 .28571 .53627 .57735 .21034 -9.7062 2.3068 3.1336 2.8686 1.1626 3.2076 15.7062 4.1932 4.2949 5.1314 4.8374 4.0458 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 8.00 4.00 8.00

Source: Analysis of survey data

Table 5.46 Showing the Anova Test for Influence of Age and Work Itself ANOVA Work itself Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total Source: Analysis of survey data 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 7.404 238.143 245.547 Df 4 70 74 Mean Square 1.851 3.402 F .544 Sig. .704

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
One-Sample Statistics N Work itself 75 Mean 3.6267 Std. Deviation 1.82159 Std. Error Mean .21034

Source: Analysis of survey data

One-Sample Test Test Value = 8 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower -4.7924 Upper -3.9542

t Work itself -20.792

df 74

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

Mean Difference -4.37333

Source: Analysis of survey data

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

Table 5.48 Showing the Influences of Experience and Reward and Recognition Descriptives Rewards and Recognition 95% Confidence Interval for Std. N Below 10 11-20 21-30 31-40 Total 10 42 15 8 75 Mean 2.4000 3.6667 4.1333 4.5000 3.6800 Deviation .84327 1.64786 1.92230 1.77281 1.70975 Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum .26667 .25427 .49634 .62678 .19742 1.7968 3.1532 3.0688 3.0179 3.2866 3.0032 4.1802 5.1979 5.9821 4.0734 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 10.00

Source: Analysis of survey data

Table 5.49 Showing the Anova Test for Influence of Experience and Rewards and Recognition ANOVA Rewards and Recognition Sum of Squares Df Mean Square Between Groups Within Groups Total Source: Analysis of survey data The 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 24.853 191.467 216.320 3 71 74 8.284 2.697 F Sig.

3.072 .033

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 Rewards and Recognition 95% Confidence Interval Age N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Below 25 26-35 36-45 46-55 Above 56 Total 2 2.0000 16 3.2500 35 3.4857 18 4.3333 4 5.0000 75 3.6800 .00000 1.43759 1.63368 1.97037 1.15470 1.70975 .00000 .35940 .27614 .46442 .57735 .19742 2.0000 2.4840 2.9245 3.3535 3.1626 3.2866 Upper Bound 2.0000 4.0160 4.0469 5.3132 6.8374 4.0734 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 6.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 10.00

Source: Analysis of survey data

Table 5.51 Showing the Anova Test for Influence of Age and Rewards and Recognition ANOVA Rewards and Recognition Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total 24.577 191.743 216.320 df 4 70 74 Mean Square 6.144 2.739 F Sig.

2.243 .073

Source: Analysis of survey data 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

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
One-Sample Statistics N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 1.70975 .19742

Rewards and Recognition 75 3.6800

Source: Analysis of survey data

One-Sample Test Test Value = 12 Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower -8.7134 Upper -7.9266

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Rewards and Recognition

-42.143

74

.000

-8.32000

Source: Analysis of survey data From this table, the opinions regarding the factor rewards and recognition among respondents show 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.