CHAPTER 3 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS FOR …shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/13559/12/12... · 2015. 12. 4. · Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3 71 Education

Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3

65

CHAPTER 3

DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS FOR

OCB & EI

3.1 CHAPTER OVERVIEW

This chapter aims to analyze the role of demographic variables and its

relationship to organizational citizenship behaviour and emotional intelligence.

Demographic information for the sample under study is collected from the

respondents through the questionnaire. Some of these variables are used as control

variables for further exploration of the relationship between the variables included in

the study.

3.2 INTRODUCTION

Employee demography can be defined as “the study of the composition of a

social entity in terms of its members’ attributes” (Pfeffer 1983. p303). Demographics

include such factors as age, ethnicity, occupation, gender, tenure, income, experience,

education level, marital and family status. However, in the particular area of HRM

research most of research has overlooked employee demographics. This

inattentiveness to employee demographics in HRM research has created lacunae what

is referred to as black box (Pfeffer 1985, Lawrence 1997). Lawrence (1997, p2)

indicates that despite the critical role of demography, researchers frequently leave


66

demographic variables “loosely specified and unmeasured, creating a black box filled

with vague, untested theories”.

Despite the fact that workforce has always had some degree of diversity in

terms of age, ethnicity, marital status, job position and skill, this diversity has grown

strikingly over the last two to three decades. Given a diverse nature of workforce, it is

rational to assume that differences in views and attitudes could be genuine, which

therefore, justifies probing demographics. Pfeffer (1985:74) suggests that,

“sensitivity to demographic effects can help provide a context to understand

organizational behaviour”. Only some studies even touch on demographics in

organizational research, and even lesser pondered over it in a comprehensive manner.

The researcher normally includes those factors which are assumed to have

explanatory value in the research. In the present study, demographic information

collected through the questionnaire can provide some meaningful insights in

understanding the underlying nature of the constructs. In some of the studies,

demographic variables had a significant impact on the variables included in the study,

while in others their impact was either minimal or insignificant.

3.3 DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES

Age A space is provided on the questionnaire for the respondent to indicate his/her

age. The relationship between age and other variables will be tested. If the significant

relationship is found, it will be controlled for the purpose of hypothesis testing.


67

Table 3.1: Plant and Age Category wise Distribution of the Respondents

Age Category PSPCL

Total BATHINDA LEHRA

MOHABBAT under 26 years 3(1.20) 3(1.20) 6(2.40)

26-35 years 19(7.60) 24(9.60) 43(17.20) 36-45 years 25(10.00) 31(12.40) 56(30.40) 46-55 years 56(22.40) 53(21.20) 109(43.60) 56 years & above 22(8.80) 14(5.60) 36(14.40)

Total 125(50) 125(50) 250(100) Note: Figure in parentheses show percentages

109 respondents i.e.43.60% are in the age category of 46-55 years as per Table 3.1.

Table 3.2: Age and Gender wise Distribution of the Respondents

Age category Gender Total Male Female

under 26 years 6(2.40) 0 6(2.40) 26-35 years 40(16.00) 3(1.20) 43(17.20) 36-45 years 53(21.20) 3(1.20) 56(30.40) 46-55 years 103(41.20) 6(2.40) 109(43.60) 56 years & above 29(11.60) 7(2.80) 36(14.40)

Total 231(92.40) 19(7.60) 250(100) Note: Figure in parentheses show percentages

To better understand the sample composition and characteristics, cross tabulations

have been used to present the information about respondents. Table 3.1 lists the plant

and age wise distribution of the respondents, and Table 3.2 indicates the age and

gender wise distribution of the respondents, depicting that there are 231 males and

only 19 females in this study, with most of the respondents falling in 46-55 years of

age category.

Gender An option is provided in the questionnaire to indicate the respondent’s

gender as male / female. Male is coded as 1 and female as 2 for the purpose of data

analysis. While there are indications from previous research that females generally


68

have a higher level of emotional intelligence than males. Table 3.3 shows that there

are 231 (92.4%) males and only 19 (7.6%) females in this sample. As most of the

respondents are males, gender analysis has been dropped.

Table 3.3: Gender and Designation wise Distribution of the Respondents

Designation Gender Total Male Female

Clerk 329(12.80) 18(7.20) 50(20.00) JE 50(20.00) 0 (0) 50(20.00) SDO 52(20.80) 1(0.40) 53(21.20) XEN 47(18.80) 0 47(18.80) ASE/SE 50(20.00) 0 50(20.00)

Total 231(92.40) 19(7.60) 250(100) Note: Figure in parentheses show percentages

Designation A space is provided to indicate the designation as the study aims to

collect the data from technical and clerical employees of both the thermal plants. The

data are collected from Clerks, Junior Engineers, Sub-Divisional Officers, Xens,

Superintending Engineers and Additional Superintending Engineers. The clerk is

coded as 1, J.E. as 2, SDO as 3, Xen as 4 and SE/ASE as 5. Table 3.4 lists the

designation and plant wise distribution of the respondents. Designation wise there is

an almost equal distribution of the respondents in both the thermal plants.

Table 3.4: Designation and Plant wise Distribution of the Respondents

Designation PSPCL

Total Bathinda Lehra

Mohabbat Clerk 25(10) 25(10) 50(20)

JE 25(10) 25(10) 50(20) SDO 26(10.40) 27(10.80) 53(21.20) XEN 24(9.60) 23(9.20) 47(18.80) ASE/SE 25(10) 25(10) 50(20)



69

Tenure The tenure is asked by providing five categories, namely, 0-5 years, 6-

10 years, 11-15 years, 16-20 years, 21 years & above. The tenure is coded as 1, 2, 3, 4

and 5 respectively for the data analysis. 156 respondents i.e. 62.40% have tenure of

16 years & above as per Table 3.5.

Table 3.5: Tenure and Plant wise Distribution of the Respondents

Tenure PSPCL Total Bathinda Lehra Mohabbat

0-5 years 14(5.60) 20(8.00) 34((13.60) 6-10 years 4(1.60) 5(2.00) 9(3.60) 11-15 years 23(9.20) 28(11.20) 51(20.40) 16-20 years 12(4.80) 14(5.60) 26(10.40) 21 years & above 72(28.80) 58(23.20) 130(52.00)


Status of Employment The status of employment is asked by providing

options, as Regular / Contract / Adhoc employee. All the employees under the present

study are working on regular basis in both the thermal plants. Hence, it has not been

further explored in the study.

Spouse’s Status This information is asked by providing options as working/

homemaker/ not applicable. Working status of spouse is coded as 1, homemaker as 2

and not applicable in case of unmarried employees as 0. 107 respondents have their

spouse’s status as working and 135 have as homemakers as per Table 3.6

Table 3.6: Plant wise Spouse’s Status Distribution of the Respondents

Spouse's Status PSPCL Total Bathinda Lehra Mohabbat

N.A. 5(2.00) 3((1.20) 8(3.20) Working 58(23.20) 49(19.60) 107(42.80) Homemaker 62(24.80) 73((29.20) 135(54.00)



70

Marital Status Information is gathered by giving options as Unmarried /

Married in the questionnaire, and the same is coded as 1 for unmarried and 2 for

married. Table 3.7 depicts that 242 respondents are married and only 8 are unmarried.

Table 3.7: Marital Status and Designation wise Distribution of the Respondents

Designation Marital Status Total Unmarried Married

Clerk 0 50(20.00) 50(20.00) JE 2(0.80) 48(19.20) 50(20.00) SDO 5(2.00) 48(19.20) 53(21.20) XEN 1(0.40) 46(18.40) 47(18.80) ASE/SE 0 50(20) 50(20.00) Total 8(3.20) 242(96.80) 250(100)

Note: Figure in parentheses show percentages

Number of Dependents A space is provided in the questionnaire to mention

about the number of dependents of the respondents. Table 3.8 lists the detail about

number of dependents. 102 respondents have 3 dependents each to support in their

family.

Table 3.8: Number of Dependents and Designation wise Distribution of the Respondents

No. of dependents

PSPCL


Mohabbat N.A. 7((2.80) 6(2.4) 13(5.20)

1 8(3.20) 14(5.60) 22(8.80) 2 48(19.20) 44(17.60) 92(36.80) 3 55(22.00) 47(18.80) 102(40.80) 4 6(2.40) 12(4.80) 18(7.20) 5 1(0.40) 2(0.80) 3(1.20)



71

Education Level A space is provided in the questionnaire for the respondents to

indicate their highest level of education. It is then coded as 1 for Matric, 2 for 10+2 /

ITI, 3 for Diploma, 4 for B.Tech/ Bachelor’s degree and 5 for M.Tech / Master’s

degree. A progressive score for education level has been coded in the data sheet for

the analysis. As per Table 3.9, 136 (54.4%) respondents possessed bachelor’s degree.

Table 3.9: Education Level and Plant wise Distribution of the Respondents

Education Level PSPCL


Mohabbat Matric 7(2.80) 9(3.60) 16(6.40)

10+2/ ITI 3(1.20) 6(2.40) 9(3.60) Diploma 31(12.40) 22(8.80) 53(21.20) B.Tech/Bachelor's degree 70(28.00) 66(26.40) 136(54.40) M.Tech/ Master's Degree 14(5.60) 22(8.80) 36(14.40)


Annual Income Four categories of annual income have been included in the

questionnaire for the subjects to indicate their respective category.

Table 3.10: Income and Plant wise Distribution of the Respondents

Income (Rs.) PSPCL


Mohabbat less than 3 lakhs 6 (2.40) 8(3.20) 14(5.60)

3-6 lakhs 67(26.80) 49(19.60) 116(46.40) 6-9 lakhs 29(11.60) 40(16.00) 69(27.60) above 9 lakhs 23(9.20) 28(11.20) 51(20.40)


These categories are coded as 1 for less than Rs. 3 lakhs, 2 for Rs. 3-6 lakhs, 3 for Rs.

6-9 lakhs and 4 for more than Rs. 9 lakhs. As per Table 3.10, 116 (46.4%)


72

respondents are in the income category of Rs.3-6 lakhs and 120 (48%) respondents

are earning annually above Rs.6 lakhs.

Total experience A space is provided to collect this information from the

respondents. Afterwards data are categorized for conducting data analysis. The

sample has mean experience of 21.37 years (s.d. = 9.71), with a minimum of 1 year

and maximum of 37 years.

Number of years known to the supervisor A space is provided to gather

information about the number of years since the supervisor knows his subordinate.

This information is reported by the superior of the concerned subordinate. It has a

mean of 6.88 years (s.d. = 6.49 years), with a minimum of 1 year and maximum of 30

years.

3.3.1 Demographic variables and OCB

Demographic variables can play a major role in assessing and predicting the

OCB of the respondents. The aim of the present study is to assess the contributions of

the demographic variables in assessing the OCB of the respondents.

3.3.1.1 Age and OCB

Garg & Rastogi (2006) carried out the study to assess the significant

differences in the climate profile and OCBs of teachers working in private and public

schools of India. Female teachers exhibited higher levels of OCB as compared to

male teachers. Teachers who are above 36 years tend to exhibit higher levels of

OCBs, in comparison to teachers who are upto the age of 35 years.

Table 3.11 depicts, the means and standard deviations of OCB and its

dimensions, as per the age category of the respondent. The mean values show a


73

mixed trend both rising and falling for OCB and its five dimensions. Before ANOVA

can be used, homogeneity of variance assumption is tested through Levene’s test i.e.,

to examine for, whether the variation of scores for different age categories is the

same. If the significance value (p-value) of this test is less than 0.05, then variances

are significantly different and parametric tests cannot be used. Hence, in order to use

ANOVA, p-value must be greater than 0.05, which means that the assumption of

equal variances is not violated, and therefore equal variances assumed. In Table 3.12,

the level of significance for all variables in Levene’s statistics is more than the

threshold value of 0.05. Hence, ANOVA can be applied successfully to test the

hypothesized relationship.

Table 3.11: Means & Std. Deviations for Age Category, OCB and its Dimensions Age category

OCB Altruism Sportsm-anship

Conscient-iousness

Courtesy Civic Virtue

under 26 years

Mean 5.32 5.17 5.08 5.40 5.27 5.25 N 6 6 6 6 6 6 S.d. .21 .66 1.50 .36 . 78 .69

26-35 years Mean 5.63 5.69 5.81 5.69 5.53 5.33 N 43 43 43 43 43 43 S.d .29 .48 .79 .56 .54 .49

36-45 years Mean 5.53 5.49 5.68 5.57 5.48 5.25 N 56 56 56 56 56 56 S.d .43 .64 .92 .56 .53 .59

46-55 years Mean 5.57 5.55 5.68 5.70 5.50 5.35 N 109 109 109 109 109 109 S.d .40 .64 .65 .55 .56 .62

56 years & above

Mean 5.42 5.28 5.53 5.58 5.35 5.14 N 36 36 36 36 36 36 S.d .37 .59 1.06 .60 .60 .61

N = 250 In Table 3.11 for OCB, altruism, sportsmanship, conscientiousness and courtesy

mean values are lowest for under 26 years category and highest for 26-35 years


74

category except for civic virtue. While civic virtue has the lowest mean for 56 years

& above age category and highest mean for 46-55 years of age category.

Table 3.12: ANOVA & Homogeneity of Variance Results for Age, OCB and its Dimensions

The results in Table 3.12, show that OCB with F (4, 245) = 2.243, p < .10 and

altruism with F(4,245) = 2.841, p < .05 are statistically significant. The summated

scales of OCB and altruism have significant relationship with age. The homogeneity

of variance, tested through Levene’s statistic shows that all p-values are greater than

0.05, so ANOVA can be applied to test the relationship among the variables.

Table 3.13: Contrast Coefficients for Age and OCB Contrast Age category

under 26 years

26-35 years

36-45 years

46-55 years

56 years & above

1 0 1 -1 0 0 2 0 1 0 -.5 -.5 3 4

0 0

0 1

0 1

1 -1

-1 -1

Table 3.13 and Table 3.14 show the results of contrast analysis. As the ANOVA does

not specifically tell about the age categories, which have statistically significant

Variable Mean (Std. Deviation)

ANOVA Homogeneity of Variance

F (df) p value Levene statistic

p value

OCB 5.54 (.38) 2.243 (4, 245) .065 1.463 .166 Altruism 5.51 (.62) 2.841 (4, 245) .025 1.253 .289 Sportsmanship 5.67 (.83) 1.342 (4, 245) .255 .697 .676 Conscientiousness 5.65 (.56) 1.015 (4, 245) .400 .616 .652 Courtesy 5.48 (.56) .812 (4, 245) .518 .164 .956 Civic Virtue 5.29 (.59) .956 (4, 245) .432 .940 .441 N=250


75

differences, contrast analysis have been carried out alongwith the post-hoc tests. The

relationship between the OCB and altruism is further explored through post-hoc tests

given in Table 3.15. There is significant difference between OCB in the age category

of 26-35 years and 56 years & above (p < 0.10). Also for altruism, there is significant

difference between age category of 26-35 years and 56 years & above.

Table 3.14: Contrast tests for OCB and Altruism as per Age Category Contrast Value of

Contrast Std.

Error t df Sig. (2-tailed)

OCB Assume equal variances

1 .103 .077 1.344 245 .180 2 .138 .068 2.013 245 .045 3 .152 .073 2.079 245 .039

4 .172 .106 1.623 245 .101 Does not assume equal variances

1 .103 .072 1.427 96.195 .157 2 .138 .057 2.392 88.541 .019 3 .152 .071 2.120 64.246 .038 4 .172 .102 1.690 154.832 .093

Altruism Assume equal variances

1 .200 .123 1.620 245 .101 2 .278 .110 2.530 245 .012 3 .270 .117 2.301 245 .022 4 .361 .170 2.090 245 .038

Does not assume equal variances

1 .200 .112 1.777 96.989 .079 2 .278 .093 2.971 88.027 .004 3 .270 .115 2.334 65.031 .023 4 .361 .161 2.206 154.092 .029

The results of contrast analysis for OCB revealed that:

(i) There is significant difference between 46-55 years and 56 years & above age

category with t(245) = 2.079, p <.05.

(ii) There is significant difference between 26-35 years and above 46 years of age

category with t(245) = 2.013, p <.05.


76

(iii) There is significant difference between 26-45 years and above 46 years of age

category with t(245) = 1.623, p = .10.

Table 3.15: Post Hoc Tests for OCB and Altruism as per Age Category Dependent Variable

(I) Age Category

(J) Age Category

Mean Difference

(I-J) Std.

Error Sig.

95% Confidence

Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

OCB

26-35 years

under 26 years .313 .165 .324 -.141 .769 36-45 years .103 .077 .664 -.108 .315 46-55 years .062 .068 .895 -.126 .250 56 years & above

.214* .085 .096 -.022 .450

Altruism

26-35 years

under 26 years .525 .266 .283 -.207 1.257 36-45 years .201 .123 .486 -.139 .541 46-55 years .143 .110 .688 -.158 .446 56 years & above

.414** .138 .025 .034 .793

**. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.10 level.

For altruism, the results of contrast analysis are as follows:

(i) There is significant difference between 26-35 years and 36-45 years age

category with t(245) = 1.620 , p =.10.

(ii) There is significant difference between 46-55 years and 56 years & above age

category with t(245) = 2.301 , p < .05.

(iii) There is significant difference between 26-45 years and above 46 years of age

category with t(245) = 2.530 , p < .05.

(iv) There is significant difference between 26-35 years and above 46 years of age

category with t(245) = 2.090 , p < .05.


77

Figure 3.1: Means Plot of Age and OCB

Figure 3.2: Means Plot of Age and Altruism

Figure 3.1 shows that OCB is highest in 26-35 years of age category and lowest for

less than 26 years of category. Figure 3.2 gives the relationship between altruism and

age. The shape of the curve for altruism is similar to that of OCB in Figure 3.1.


78

Inference: The results of ANOVA partially support hypothesis 1(age and OCB)

and 1a (age & altruism). It depicts that there is difference in age and OCB as well as

age and altruism among respondents. Henceforth, hypothesis 1b, 1c, 1d and 1e are

rejected for lack of statistical support.

3.3.1.2 Designation and OCB

Designation means the job position that a person holds in an organization.

Coding for designation has been done in ascending order. Rise in designation leads to

corresponding rise in responsibility and duty. Job positions at higher level demand,

that a person has to perform over and above the job contracts. Hence, it is

hypothesized that designation may have significant impact on the level of OCB of the

respondents, as a higher designation means higher duties and responsibilities of the

job.

Table 3.16: Designation wise Means and Std. Deviations for OCB and its Dimensions

Designation OCB Altruism Sportsm-anship

Conscient-iousness


Clerk Mean 5.42 5.37 5.68 5.46 5.23 5.24 N 50 50 50 50 50 50 S.d .31 .60 1.06 .63 . 55 .57 JE Mean 5.50 5.48 5.74 5.56 5.38 5.24 N 50 50 50 50 50 50 S.d .34 .63 .64 .47 .58 .52 SDO Mean 5.60 5.64 5.66 5.71 5.61 5.27 N 53 53 53 53 53 53 S.d .40 .54 .91 .49 .52 .61 XEN Mean 5.56 5.46 5.58 5.72 5.57 5.30 N 47 47 47 47 47 47 S.d .39 .67 .76 .51 .50 .62 ASE/SE Mean 5.63 5.58 5.66 5.78 5.58 5.46 N 50 50 50 50 50 50 S.d .43 .63 .73 .61 .56 .63 N = 250


79

Table 3.16 indicates that for OCB, conscientiousness and civic virtue; mean

value is highest for ASE/SE and lowest for Clerk. For altruism and courtesy, mean

value is highest for SDO and lowest for Clerk. While for sportsmanship, mean value

is highest for JE and lowest for XEN with a slight difference between the mean

values.

Table 3.17 indicates the results of ANOVA and homogeneity of variance.

Moreover, Levene’s statistic for homogeneity of variance and its corresponding

significance values are all more than .05 indicating equality of variance. As per

ANOVA results for OCB with F(4,245) = 2.436, p < .05, conscientiousness with

F(4,245) = 2.931, p < .05 and courtesy with F(4,245) = 4.557, p < .01; show

statistically significant outcomes for designation. One Way ANOVA analysis reveals,

that on the basis of designation, there is statistically significant difference of scores

for OCB, conscientiousness and courtesy.

Table 3.17: Designation wise ANOVA & Homogeneity of Variance results for

OCB and its dimensions

Variable

Mean (Std. Deviation)



p value

OCB 5.54 (.38) 2.436 (4, 245) .048 2.254 .064 Altruism 5.51 (.62) 1.560 (4, 245) .186 .751 .558 Sportsmanship 5.67 (.83) .238 (4, 245) .917 1.832 .123 Conscientiousness 5.65 (.56) 2.931 (4, 245) .022 1.530 .194 Courtesy 5.48 (.56) 4.557 (4, 245) .001 .214 .930 Civic Virtue 5.29 (.59) 1.495 (4, 245) .204 1.680 .155 N=250


80

Table 3.18: Designation wise Contrast Coefficients for OCB Contrast Designation

Clerk JE SDO XEN ASE/SE

1 0 1 -1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 -1 3 1 1 -1 -1 0 4 0 1 0 -1 0

Table 3.19: Designation wise Contrast Tests for OCB, conscientiousness and courtesy

Contrast Value of Contrast

Std. Error t df

Sig. (2-tailed)


1 -.097 .074 -1.303 245 .194 2 -.210 .076 -2.775 245 .006 3 -.235 .107 -2.191 245 .029 4 -.056 .077 -.729 245 .467


1 -.097 .073 -1.330 100.243 .186 2 -.210 .076 -2.775 87.924 .007 3 -.235 .102 -2.291 187.035 .023 4 -.056 .075 -.747 91.603 .457

Conscient- Iousness

Assume equal variances

1 -.153 .108 -1.413 245 .159 2 -.320 .109 -2.914 245 .004 3 -.420 .155 -2.704 245 .007 4 -.159 .111 -1.429 245 .154


1 -.153 .095 -1.606 100.919 .111 2 -.320 .124 -2.565 97.803 .012 3 -.420 .151 -2.783 182.659 .006 4 -.159 .100 -1.583 93.222 .117

Courtesy Assume equal variances

1 -.231 .107 -2.149 245 .033 2 -.348 .109 -3.190 245 .002 3 -.573 .154 -3.715 245 .000 4 -.190 .110 -1.719 245 .087


1 -.231 .108 -2.126 98.596 .036 2 -.348 .111 -3.113 97.977 .002 3 -.573 .152 -3.750 193.490 .000 4 -.190 .109 -1.733 94.532 .086


81

Hence, again ANOVA values are explored with contrasts and post-hoc analysis, to

find out which category of designation is statistically significant. For testing the

relationship further contrast coefficients have been used as per Table 3.18.

Table 3.20: Designation wise Post Hoc Tests for OCB, Conscientiousness and Courtesy

Multiple Comparisons (Tukey HSD) Dependent Variable

(I) Desig (J) Desig

Mean Difference

(I-J) Std.

Error Sig.

95% Confidence

Interval Lower Bound

Upper Bound

OCB

Clerk

JE -.081 .076 .819 -.290 .127 SDO -.179 .075 .120 -.385 .026 XEN -.138 .077 .383 -.350 .074 ASE/SE -.211* .076 .047 -.419 -.002

Conscienti- ousness

Clerk

JE -.108 .109 .863 -.409 .193 SDO -.261 .108 .116 -.558 .036 XEN -.267 .111 .120 -.574 .039 ASE/SE -.320* .109 .032 -.621 -.018

Courtesy

Clerk

JE -.152 .109 .632 -.451 .147 SDO -.383* .107 .004 -.678 -.087 XEN -.342* .110 .019 -.647 -.038 ASE/SE -.348* .109 .014 -.647 -.048

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. The results of Table 3.19 and 3.20 further reveal following outcomes:

(i) For OCB and designation, statistically significant result of the contrast

analysis is, that there is significant difference between OCB mean values of

Clerk and ASE/SE with t(245) = -2.775, p = .006.

(ii) For OCB and designation, statistically significant result of the contrast

analysis shows, that there is significant difference between OCBs collective

mean values of Clerk and JE taken together viz-à-viz SDO and XEN with

t(245) = -2.191, p = .029.


82

(iii) For conscientiousness and designation, statistically significant result of the

contrast analysis shows, that there is significant difference between mean

values of Clerk and ASE/SE with t(245) = -2.914, p = .004.

(iv) For conscientiousness and designation, statistically significant result of the

contrast analysis shows, that there is significant difference between collective

mean values of Clerk and JE viz-à-viz SDO and XEN with t(245) = -2.704, p

= .007.

(v) For courtesy and designation, statistically significant result of the contrast

analysis is, that there is significant difference between mean values of JE and

SDO with t(245) = -2.149, p = .033.

(vi) For courtesy and designation, statistically significant result of the contrast

analysis shows, that there is significant difference between mean values of

Clerk and ASE/SE with t(245) = -3.190, p=.022.

(vii) For courtesy and designation, statistically significant result of the contrast

analysis shows, that there is significant difference between collective mean

values of Clerk and JE viz-à-viz SDO and XEN with t(245) = -3.715, p=.000.

(vii) For courtesy and designation, statistically significant result of the contrast

analyses are that there is significant difference between mean values of JE and

XEN with t (245) = -1.719, p=.087.

(viii) Additional results of post-hoc tests reveal, that for courtesy there is

statistically significant difference in mean values for Clerk and Xen (p = .019)

as well as for Clerk and SDO (p = .004).


83

Figure 3.3 lists the Means Plot of designation and OCB showing the rising curve with

respect to designation; it is lowest for clerk’s category and highest for ASE/SE.

Figure 3.3: Means Plot of Designation & OCB

Figure 3.4: Means Plot of Designation & Courtesy


84

Figure 3.5: Means Plot of Designation & Conscientiousness

Figure 3.4 depicts the relationship between designation and courtesy, mean value is

lowest for clerk’s category and highest for SDO. There is a steep rise in the curve in

the beginning till SDO and then it flattens. Figure 3.5 lists the relationship between

designation and conscientiousness, the curve is rising depicting the lowest mean for

clerk’s category and highest for ASE/SE.

Inference: The results indicate support for hypothesis 2 (designation & OCB), 2c

(designation & conscientiousness) and 2d (designation & courtesy), while hypothesis

2a, 2b and 2e are rejected due to want of statistical support

3.3.1.3 Tenure and OCB

Tenure basically denotes the length of time spent in an organization, it leads to

the development of shared understandings and experiences (Wiersema & Bird, 1993).

Studies suggest that a longer tenure in an organization is positively associated to

employee well-being and employee performance (Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1990;


85

Wiersema & Bantel, 1992; Pfeffer, 1993; Cheng, Jiang & Riley, 2003). It is likely

that employees with longer tenure would engage in more OCBs, as they are more

psychologically involved and have a stronger bonding at the workplace. Moreover,

their organizational experience implies, that they are quite familiar with the

organizational milieu, seniors’ expectations, peers’ requirements and are aware of

where and how to contribute. In relation to this, less tenured employees will be more

engaged in in-role activities to establish their job security. The findings have been

mixed regarding this variable. O’Reilly & Chatman (1986) as well as Morrison

(1993) found, that longer tenured employees performed more extra-role activities,

while Smith et al. (1983) did not find any relationship between the two variables.

Table 3.21 lists the means and standard deviations of the respondents, as per their

tenure in the organization.

Table 3.21: Tenure wise Means & Std. deviations for OCB and its dimensions Tenure category

OCB Altruism Sportsm-anship

Conscien-tiousness


0-5 years

Mean 5.61 5.60 5.66 5.71 5.56 5.29 N 34 34 34 34 34 34 S.d .36 .63 1.09 .60 . 64 .50

6-10 years

Mean 5.42 5.42 5.97 5.13 5.26 5.19 N 9 9 9 9 9 9 S.d .40 .83 .84 .54 .62 .59

11-15 years

Mean 5.56 5.57 5.81 5.61 5.45 5.25 N 51 56 56 56 56 56 S.d .28 .52 .66 .46 .43 .50

16-20 years

Mean 5.54 5.51 5.70 5.53 5.55 5.19 N 26 26 26 26 26 26 S.d .45 .63 .72 .68 .58 .60

21 years Mean 5.53 5.47 5.59 5.70 5.46 5.32 & above N 130 130 130 130 130 130 S.d .40 .63 .83 .53 .57 .64 N = 250


86

As per the Table 3.22, the relationship between the tenure and conscientiousness is

found to be significant. Figure 3.6 shows the relationship between these constructs.

The mean value of conscientiousness is lowest for respondents with 6-10 years of

tenure and highest for 21 years & above category. As per the results of ANOVA in

Table 3.22, only conscientiousness has significant F(4, 245) = 2.705, (p <. 05) value.

Hence, only this is further explored through contrasts and post hoc analysis.

Table 3.22: Tenure wise ANOVA & Homogeneity of Variance results for OCB and its dimensions

Figure 3.6: Means Plot of Tenure & Conscientiousness




p value

OCB 5.54 (.38) .545 (4, 245) .703 2.153 .075 Altruism 5.51 (.62) .425 (4, 245) .790 1.420 .228 Sportsmanship 5.67 (.83) .985 (4, 245) .416 .927 .449 Conscientiousness 5.65 (.56) 2.705 (4, 245) .031 1.275 .280 Courtesy 5.48 (.56) .686 (4, 245) .602 2.227 .067 Civic Virtue 5.29 (.59) .389 (4, 245) .816 1.701 .150 N=250


87

As per Table 3.24 and 3.25, there is a significant relationship between tenure and

conscientiousness of the respondents. This relationship is further explored through

contrast coefficients/tests in Table 3.23, Table 3.24 and post-hoc tests in Table 3.25.

Table 3.23: Tenure wise Contrast Coefficients for Conscientiousness Contrast Tenure

0-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 21 years & above

1 0 1 -1 0 0 2 0 1 1 -1 -1 3 0 1 0 -1 0 4 1 -1 0 0 0

Table 3.24: Tenure wise Contrast Tests for Conscientiousness


Std. Error t df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Conscien- tiousness


1 -.478 .198 -2.406 245 .017 2 -.494 .231 -2.139 245 .033 3 -.405 .212 -1.904 245 .058 4 .578 .206 2.805 245 .005


1 -.478 .193 -2.470 10.110 .033 2 -.494 .239 -2.063 21.797 .051 3 -.405 .226 -1.791 17.260 .091 4 .578 .210 2.750 13.744 .016

Table 3.25: Tenure wise Post Hoc tests for Conscientiousness (Multiple Comparisons) Tukey HSD

Dependent Variable

(I) tenure (J) tenure Mean

Difference (I-J)

Std. Error Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Conscien- tiousness

6-10 years 0-5 years -.57* .21 .043 -1.14 -.01 11-15 years -.47 .20 .117 -1.02 .06 16-20 years -.40 .21 .318 -.98 .17 21 years & above

-.56* .19 .025 -1.08 -.04

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level


88

For conscientiousness, the tenure of 6-10 years is significantly related to other

categories of 0-5 years, 11-15 years as well as 21 years & above. The mean value of

conscientiousness is found to be significantly rising with the progressive tenure

categories. As per contrast no. 2 of Table 3.23, the collective mean of 6-15 years and

16 years & above showed significant difference with t(245) = -2.139, p < .05.

Moreover, when having a glance at these findings, it should also be considered that

only 9 respondents are there in 6-10 years of category, while there are 34 respondents

in 0-5 years. The conscientiousness score of 0-5 category is higher than others, as

probably newer employees fall in this category and they are more sincerely following

the rules and regulations, to acclimatize in the new environment.

Inference: Hence, only hypothesis 3c is supported for tenure and

conscientiousness and for others i.e. hypotheses 3, 3a, 3b, 3d and 3e are rejected.

3.3.1.4 Spouse’s Status and OCB

The impact of the spouse’s status on OCB has been examined. The status of

the spouse taken in the present study is working / homemaker /not applicable for

unmarried employees. This demographic variable has not been examined in previous

research studies. Working couples could be more sensitive to each other’s role at the

workplace and at home, while homemakers can also provide immense support as their

spouses can devote themselves whole-heartedly on a single front, by not worrying too

much about the household chores and other assignments. Whether spouse’s status can

have vital impact on the OCB and its five dimensions has to be explored. As per

Table 3.26 means of working couples are higher than that of their counterparts.


89

Table 3.26: Spouse’s Status wise Means & Std. deviations for OCB and its Dimensions

Spouse Status

OCB Altruism Sportsm -anship

Conscient-iousness


N.A. Mean 5.42 5.37 5.84 5.37 5.20 5.09 N 8 8 8 8 8 8 S.d .48 .79 .88 .53 . 70 .26 Working Mean 5.60 5.62 5.71 5.71 5.54 5.31 N 107 107 107 107 107 107 S.d .35 .59 .82 .61 .60 .61 Homemaker Mean 5.50 5.43 5.62 5.61 5.44 5.27 N 135 135 135 135 135 135 S.d .40 .62 .84 .51 .52 .60 N = 250 As per Table 3.27, the ANOVA values are significant for OCB with F (2, 247) =

2.466, p < .10 and altruism with F (2,247) = 2.994, p < .05 only. To further explore,

for which particular category of spouse’s status the relationship is significant

contrasts are applied as per Table 3.28.

Table 3.27: Spouse’s Status wise ANOVA and Homogeneity of Variance Results for OCB and its Dimensions

Table 3.28: Spouse’s Status wise Contrast Coefficients for OCB Contrast Spouse Status

N.A. Working Homemaker 1 0 1 -1




p value

OCB 5.54 (.38) 2.466 (2, 247) .087 .819 .442 Altruism 5.51 (.62) 2.994 (2, 247) .049 1.395 .250 Sportsmanship 5.67 (.83) .566 (2, 247) .568 .213 .808 Conscientiousness 5.65 (.56) 2.033 (2, 247) .133 1.991 .139 Courtesy 5.48 (.56) 1.960 (2, 247) .143 1.902 .152 Civic Virtue 5.29 (.59) .572 (2, 247) .565 2.606 .076 N=250


90

Table 3.29: Spouse’s Status wise Contrast Tests for OCB & Altruism Contrast Value of

Contrast Std.



1 .099 .049 2.019 247 .045


1 .099 .048 2.064 236.762 .040


1 .188 .079 2.362 247 .019


1 .188 .078 2.400 232.681 .017

The results of Table 3.29 show significant value for OCB {t(247) = 2.019, p

<.05} and altruism {t(247) = 2.363, p < .05}. Working couples had higher means for

OCB and altruism viz-à-viz their counterparts. This relationship between mean

values of spouse’s status viz-à-viz OCB and altruism has been shown in Figure 3.7

and 3.8. The mean value is higher for working couples, as compared to the

homemakers depicting almost the same shape of the curve for both OCB and

altruism.

Figure 3.7: Means Plot of Spouse’s Status & OCB


91

Figure 3.8: Means Plot of Spouse’s Status & Altruism

Inference: The findings support hypothesis 4 (spouse’s status and OCB) and 4a

(spouse’s status and altruism), while other hypothesis 4b-4e are not supported.

3.3.1.5 Number of Dependents and OCB

The relationship between the number of dependents of the respondents and

their organizational citizenship behaviour has been examined here. Previous research

studies have been deficient regarding this. Table 3.30 lists the means and standard

deviations for different categories of dependents for OCB. The relationship has been

explored through ANOVA as per Table 3.31.

As per Table 3.31 ANOVA values were not significant for number of

dependents and corresponding OCB, altruism, sportsmanship, conscientiousness and

courtesy. For civic virtue F(5,244) = 2.110, p < .10 , it is further explored through

post hoc analysis, but the results are insignificant.


92

Table 3.30: Means and Std. Deviations for OCB and its dimensions as per Number of Dependents

No. of dependents OCB Altruism Sportsm-anship

Conscien-tiousness


N.A. Mean 5.528 5.461 5.250 5.630 5.600 5.442 N 13 13 13 13 13 13 S.d. .383 .636 1.534 .582 .721 .605

1.00 Mean 5.495 5.409 5.784 5.663 5.381 5.079 N 22 22 22 22 22 22 S.d. .325 .688 .839 .618 .623 .502

2.00 Mean 5.585 5.554 5.682 5.676 5.515 5.353 N 92 92 92 92 92 92 S.d. .443 .629 .810 .609 .528 .601

3.00 Mean 5.519 5.497 5.671 5.615 5.441 5.286 N 102 102 102 102 102 102 S.d. .328 .620 .705 .508 .545 .590

4.00 Mean 5.502 5.500 5.763 5.588 5.466 5.041 N 18 18 18 18 18 18 S.d. .438 .542 .788 .506 .650 .557

5.00 Mean 5.818 5.750 5.500 6.133 5.800 5.833 N 3 3 3 3 3 3 S.d. .327 .433 1.802 .115 .400 .763

N = 250

Table 3.31: ANOVA and Homogeneity of Variance Results for OCB and its Dimensions as per Number of Dependents


ANOVA Homogeneity of Variances


p value

OCB 5.54 (.38) .683 (5, 244) .637 2.495 .032 Altruism 5.51 (.62) .320 (5, 244) .901 .366 .872 Sportsmanship 5.67 (.83) .814 (5, 244) .541 5.020 .000 Conscientiousness 5.65 (.56) .611 (5, 244) .691 1.624 .154 Courtesy 5.48 (.56) .616 (5, 244) .688 1.356 .242 Civic Virtue 5.29 (.59) 2.110 (5, 244) .065 .457 .808 N=250


93

No significant relationship is found between the number of dependents and

the OCB alongwith its five dimensions. The relationship was examined though One

Way ANOVA as per Table 3.31 alongwith post-hoc analysis but nothing significant

was found.

Inference: Hence, hypothesis (5, 5a-5e) is not supported and null hypothesis is

accepted.

3.3.1.6 Education Level and OCB

Education level refers to the academic credentials or degrees an individual has

obtained. Although education level is a continuous variable, it is frequently measured

categorically in research studies.

Table 3.32: Education Level wise Means & Std. Deviations for OCB and its Dimensions

OCB Altruism Sportsman-ship

Conscient-iousness


Matric Mean 5.344 5.571 5.589 5.100 5.185 5.160 N 14 14 14 14 14 14 S.d. .352 .653 1.306 .704 .557 .568

10+2/ ITI

Mean 5.378 5.277 5.388 5.733 5.244 5.111 N 9 9 9 9 9 9 S.d. .309 .666 .638 .565 .622 .801

Diploma Mean 5.522 5.512 5.750 5.556 5.365 5.329 N 41 41 41 41 41 41 S.d. .308 .622 .607 .463 .556 .412

B.Tech/ Bachelor's degree

Mean 5.554 5.486 5.681 5.684 5.518 5.266 N 150 150 150 150 150 150 S.d. .404 .629 .788 .539 .552 .633

M.Tech/ Master's Degree

Mean 5.640 5.652 5.618 5.788 5.605 5.437 N 36 36 36 36 36 36 S.d. .381 .555 1.054 .559 .539 .545


94

In several studies, relationship of education to OCB has been examined with the

belief, that employees with a higher education level would perceive their exchange

with the organization as more social than just evaluative. Such employees, who

generally occupy the higher ranks in the organization, would more readily

acknowledge the importance of the informal support of their co-workers and

supervisors. With more financial security, better educated employees can spend more

time on social exchange such as OCB. On the other hand, less educated employees

would focus on the economic exchange of their workplace.

Table 3.33: Education Level wise ANOVA & Homogeneity of Variance Results for OCB and its Dimensions

Table 3.34: Education Level wise Contrast Coefficients for OCB Contrast Education Level

Matric 10+2/ ITI Diploma B.Tech/Bachelor's

Degree M.Tech/

Master's Degree

1 1 0 0 0 -1 2 1 1 -1 -1 0 3 0 1 0 0 -1 4 0 1 1 -1 -1 5 0 0 1 0 -1

Research findings are not conclusive regarding the relationship between

education and OCB. Some of the researchers have found a positive relationship


ANOVA Homogeneity of Variances


p value

OCB 5.54 (.38) 2.018 (4, 245) .092 2.173 .073 Altruism 5.51 (.62) .877 (4, 245) .478 .200 .938 Sportsmanship 5.67 (.83) .421 (4, 245) .793 3.290 .012 Conscientiousness 5.65 (.56) 4.708 (4, 245) .001 1.668 .158 Courtesy 5.48 (.56) 2.471 (4, 245) .045 .186 .946 Civic Virtue 5.29 (.59) 1.028 (4, 245) .393 2.898 .023 N=250


95

(Gregerson, 1993; Smith et al., 1983) and some did not find any relationship (Organ

& Konovsky, 1989). Results show that education level is positively related to

citizenship behaviours (Ng & Feldman, 2009; Cheng et al., 2003). In consonance with

the rise in the education level, the OCB of the respondents may improve. As per

Table 3.32, the mean values of OCB and courtesy are rising with the education level,

while for other variables the mean values have a mixed trend.

As per the results of ANOVA in Table 3.33, significant difference of

education level to conscientiousness and courtesy has been found. Conscientiousness

and courtesy dimensions of OCB indicate significant difference to education level

with F (4, 245) = 4.708, p < .01 and F (4, 245) = 2.471, p < .05 respectively.

Moreover, for OCB the values are significant at .10 level of significance only. For

sportsmanship and civic virtue, the homogeneity of variance condition is violated as

p-value is less than .05, so its further analysis has been dropped. Hence, the

relationship is further explored and tested through contrasts command of one way

ANOVA in Table 3.34 and 3.35.

Contrasts and post hoc analysis (Table 3.36) reveal that there is significant

difference between OCB, conscientiousness, courtesy to the education level of

employees. For courtesy, with the progress in education level, there is rise in

respective mean values depicting significant difference between Matriculates vs.

Master’s, Diploma vs. Master’s and 10+2/ITI vs. Master’s degree. For

conscientiousness, the education level is significant for Matric vs. Masters &

Diploma vs. Masters.


96

Table 3.35: Education Level wise Contrast Tests for OCB, Conscientiousness & Courtesy


Std. Error t df

Sig. (2-tailed)


1 -.296 .120 -2.465 245 .014 2 -.353 .176 -2.008 245 .046 3 -.261 .142 -1.839 245 .067 4 -.293 .157 -1.869 245 .063 5 -.118 .087 -1.355 245 .177


1 -.296 .113 -2.604 25.593 .015 2 -.353 .151 -2.338 25.840 .027 3 -.261 .121 -2.158 14.772 .048 4 -.293 .134 -2.185 22.217 .040 5 -.118 .079 -1.479 67.264 .144

Conscient- iousness


1 -.688 .170 -4.038 245 .000 2 -.406 .250 -1.625 245 .105 3 -.055 .201 -.275 245 .783 4 -.183 .223 -.822 245 .412 5 -.232 .123 -1.882 245 .061


1 -.688 .210 -3.277 19.710 .004 2 -.406 .279 -1.454 23.940 .159 3 -.055 .210 -.264 12.224 .796 4 -.183 .226 -.809 16.441 .430 5 -.232 .118 -1.972 68.234 .053


1 -.419 .174 -2.405 245 .017 2 -.454 .256 -1.774 245 .077 3 -.361 .206 -1.748 245 .082 4 -.513 .228 -2.249 245 .025 5 -.239 .126 -1.894 245 .059


1 -.419 .174 -2.413 23.077 .024 2 -.454 .273 -1.661 20.653 .112 3 -.361 .226 -1.596 11.198 .138 4 -.513 .246 -2.085 15.691 .054 5 -.239 .125 -1.916 74.239 .059

On the basis of education level, there is significant difference between the

OCB scores of the respondents among Matriculates vs. Master’s, 10+2 vs. Master’s,


97

Matric/10+2 vs. Diploma/Bachelor’s and 10+2/Diploma vs. Bachelor’s/Master’s

degree.

Table 3.36: Education Level wise Post Hoc Tests for OCB & Conscientiousness (Multiple Comparisons)

Dependent Variable

(I) Education Level

(J) Education Level Mean

Difference (I-J)

Std. Error Sig.


Lower Bound

Upper Bound

OCB Matric 10+2/ ITI -.034 .162 1.000 -.482 .413 Diploma -.178 .118 .558 -.502 .146 B.Tech/ Bachelor's degree

-.210 .106 .282 -.503 .082

M.Tech/ Master's degree

-.296 .120 .102 -.626 .034

Conscie- ntiousness

Matric 10+2/ ITI -.633 .231 .051 -1.269 .002 Diploma -.456 .167 .054 -.916 .004 B.Tech/Bachelor's degree

-.584* .151 .001 -1.000 -.168

M.Tech/ Master's degree

-.688* .170 .001 -1.157 -.220

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Figure 3.9: Means Plot of Education Level and OCB


98

Figure 3.10: Means Plot of Education Level and Conscientiousness

Figure 3.11: Means Plot of Education Level and Courtesy

Therefore, it implies that there is significant difference between OCB,

conscientiousness, courtesy and education level of the respondents. Overall, it is

implied that there is significant difference between education level and OCB. In


99

Figures 3.9, 3.10 & 3.11 the relationship of education level with OCB,

conscientiousness and courtesy have been displayed respectively. In all these figures,

the curve is rising with the progress in education level of the respondents; lowest

mean is for Matric category and highest for M.Tech/ Master’s category.

Inference: The results of ANOVA analysis support hypothesis 6 (education and

OCB), 6c (education and conscientiousness) and 6d (education and courtesy),

whereas hypothesis 6a, 6b and 6d could not gather support and hence, are rejected.

3.3.1.7 Experience and OCB

The total job experience in number of completed years may have an impact on

the extra role behaviour of the employees. Over the years through job experience a

person becomes mature, understands and accepts what is expected from him on the

job. Some of the things expected are not always explicit, but implicit like OCB. Table

3.37 lists the means and standard deviations for OCB & its five dimensions.

Table 3.37: Experience wise Means and Std. Deviations for OCB and its Dimensions

Experience Category OCB Altruism

Sportsm -anship

Conscien -tiousness

Court-esy

Civic Virue

upto 5 years Mean 5.590 5.593 5.520 5.733 5.591 5.312 N 24 24 24 24 24 24 S.d. .291 .535 1.204 .402 .582 .552

6-15 years Mean 5.571 5.568 5.897 5.563 5.451 5.253 N 66 66 66 66 66 66 S.d. .348 .595 .607 .565 .517 .502

16 - 25 years

Mean 5.541 5.563 5.536 5.632 5.501 5.327 N 55 55 55 55 55 55 S.d. .448 .635 .929 .614 .579 .668

26 years & above

Mean 5.516 5.431 5.626 5.687 5.455 5.288 N 105 105 105 105 105 105 S.d. .391 .644 .783 .551 .576 .620


100

Table 3.38: Experience wise ANOVA & Homogeneity of Variance Results for OCB and its Dimensions

N = 250

While in an earlier study, the more experienced employees exhibited fewer

organizational citizenship behaviours, than did their less experienced colleagues

(Cohen & Vrahami, 2006); but here as per Table 3.38, no significant difference

between experience categories and OCB alongwith its dimensions has been found.

All the F-values and related p-values are statistically insignificant as they are greater

than .05. Furthermore, the condition of homogeneity of variance is violated for

sportsmanship dimension only and consequently its corresponding F-values also

become insignificant.

Inference: Hence, hypotheses 7 and 7a-7e relating to experience and OCB

alongwith its five dimensions could not be supported and hence, are rejected.

3.3.1.8 Income and OCB

The rise in level of income is dependent upon the advancement in designation

and tenure of the employees. Both these indicators of tenure and advancement in

designation imply maturity in relationships and understanding. Whether this financial

exchange can have some impact on social exchange of the employees too has to be




p value

OCB 5.54 (.38) .416 (3, 246) .742 2.100 .101 Altruism 5.51 (.62) 1.044 (3, 246) .374 1.257 .290 Sportsmanship 5.67 (.83) 2.511(3, 246) .059 3.712 .012 Conscientiousness 5.65 (.56) .880 (3, 246) .452 1.557 .200 Courtesy 5.48 (.56) .465 (3, 246) .707 .462 .709 Civic Virtue 5.29 (.59) .164 (3, 246) .920 1.797 .148


101

examined here. Table 3.39 depicts, the means and standard deviations for OCB & its

five dimensions based on the income categories.

Table 3.39: Income wise Means and Std. Deviations of OCB and its Dimensions Annual Income (Rs.) OCB Altruism

Sportsm -anship

Conscien -tiousness Courtesy

Civic Virtue

less than 3 lakhs

Mean 5.353 5.178 6.125 4.928 5.042 5.142 N 14 14 14 14 14 14 S.d. .321 .768 .594 .541 .587 .467

3-6 lakhs Mean 5.509 5.507 5.577 5.624 5.426 5.285 N 100 100 100 100 100 100 S.d. .353 .561 .955 .500 .533 .572

6-9 lakhs Mean 5.551 5.472 5.784 5.693 5.516 5.216 N 81 81 81 81 81 81 S.d. .392 .660 .650 .552 .570 .589

above 9 lakhs

Mean 5.642 5.663 5.545 5.803 5.625 5.445 N 55 55 55 55 55 55 S.d. .421 .595 .844 .536 .533 .646

The Table 3.40 lists the ANOVA results, which are found to be significant for

OCB with F(3, 246) = 2.675, p < .05; altruism with F(3, 246) = 2.605, p < .05,

conscientiousness with F(3, 246) = 10.526, p < .001 and courtesy with F(3, 246) =

4.688, p < .003. Among these, conscientiousness has the highest F-value, while

altruism has the least. Sportsmanship is dropped from this analysis, as its

homogeneity of variance’s p-value is less than .05. As per Table 3.41 and 3.42, the

relationship among the significant variables is again explored through contrasts.

Results of contrast analysis of Table 3.41 and 3.42 for OCB are as follows:

(i) There is a significant difference between less than Rs.3 lakhs and above Rs.9

lakhs category with t(246) = -2.530, p < .05.


102

(ii) There is a significant difference between less than Rs.3 lakhs and Rs.6-9 lakhs

category with t(246) = -1.795, p < .10.

(iii) There is a significant difference between less than Rs.3-6 lakhs and above

Rs.9 lakhs category with t(246) = -2.083, p < .05.

(iv) There is a significant difference between upto Rs.6 lakhs and above Rs.6 lakhs

category with t(246) = -2.598, p < .01.

Table 3.40: Income wise ANOVA & Homogeneity of Variance Results for OCB and its Dimensions

N=250

Table 3.41: Income wise Contrast Coefficients for OCB

Contrast Annual Income (Rs.) less than 3 lakhs 3-6 lakhs 6-9 lakhs above 9 lakhs

1 1 -1 0 0 2 0 0 1 -1 3 1 0 0 -1 4 1 0 -1 0 5 0 1 0 -1 6 1 1 -1 -1




p value

OCB 5.54 (.38) 2.675 (3, 246) .048 1.533 .207 Altruism 5.51 (.62) 2.605 (3, 246) .050 2.219 .086 Sportsmanship 5.67 (.83) 2.773 (3, 246) .042 3.245 .023 Conscientiousness 5.65 (.56) 10.526 (3, 246) .000 .254 .859 Courtesy 5.48 (.56) 4.688 (3, 246) .003 .171 .916 Civic Virtue 5.29 (.59) 1.986 (3, 246) .117 .927 .428


103

Table 3.42: Income wise Contrast Tests for OCB


Std. Error t df

Sig. (2-tailed)


1 -.1552 .10860 -1.429 246 .154 2 -.0905 .06649 -1.361 246 .175 3 -.2883 .11392 -2.530 246 .012 4 -.1977 .11015 -1.795 246 .074 5 -.1331 .06389 -2.083 246 .038 6 -.3308 .12734 -2.598 246 .010


1 -.1552 .09291 -1.670 17.705 .112 2 -.0905 .07165 -1.263 110.383 .209 3 -.2883 .10304 -2.798 25.694 .010 4 -.1977 .09635 -2.052 20.334 .053 5 -.1331 .06695 -1.987 95.972 .050 6 -.3308 .11733 -2.819 42.608 .007


1 -.3289 .17535 -1.876 246 .062 2 -.1914 .10736 -1.783 246 .076 3 -.4851 .18395 -2.637 246 .009 4 -.2937 .17786 -1.651 246 .100 5 -.1561 .10316 -1.514 246 .131 6 -.4498 .20561 -2.188 246 .030


1 -.3289 .21293 -1.545 15.002 .143 2 -.1914 .10877 -1.760 123.625 .081 3 -.4851 .22054 -2.199 17.181 .042 4 -.2937 .21811 -1.346 16.485 .196 5 -.1561 .09797 -1.594 105.858 .114 6 -.4498 .23910 -1.881 23.658 .072


104

Table 3.42: Income wise Contrast Tests for OCB (Contd.)

Results of contrast analysis of Table 3.41 and 3.42 for Altruism are as follows:

(i) There is a significant difference between less than Rs.3 lakhs and Rs.3-6 lakhs

category with t(246) = -1.876, p < .10.

(ii) There is a significant difference between Rs.6-9lakhs and above Rs.9 lakhs

category with t(246) = 1.783, p < .10.


Std. Error t df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Conscient-iousness


1 -.6954 .15069 -4.615 246 .000 2 -.1098 .09226 -1.190 246 .235 3 -.8751 .15808 -5.536 246 .000 4 -.7653 .15284 -5.007 246 .000 5 -.1796 .08865 -2.026 246 .044 6 -.9449 .17669 -5.348 246 .000


1 -.6954 .15308 -4.543 16.271 .000 2 -.1098 .09490 -1.157 118.288 .250 3 -.8751 .16176 -5.410 20.022 .000 4 -.7653 .15714 -4.870 18.006 .000 5 -.1796 .08801 -2.041 104.946 .044 6 -.9449 .18011 -5.246 30.559 .000


1 -.3831 .15657 -2.447 246 .015 2 -.1094 .09587 -1.141 246 .255 3 -.5826 .16425 -3.547 246 .000 4 -.4732 .15881 -2.980 246 .003 5 -.1995 .09211 -2.165 246 .031 6 -.6726 .18359 -3.664 246 .000


1 -.3831 .16594 -2.309 16.136 .035 2 -.1094 .09590 -1.141 121.178 .256 3 -.5826 .17282 -3.371 18.819 .003 4 -.4732 .16946 -2.792 17.505 .012 5 -.1995 .08953 -2.228 111.300 .028 6 -.6726 .19166 -3.510 28.294 .002


105

(iii) There is a significant difference between less than Rs.3 lakhs and above Rs.9

lakhs category with t(246) = -2.637 p < .01.

(iv) There is a significant difference between upto Rs.6 lakhs and above Rs.6 lakhs

category with t(246) = -2.188, p < .05.

Results of contrast analysis of Table 3.41 and 3.42 for Conscientiousness &

Courtesy are as follows:

(i) There is a significant difference between less than Rs.3 lakhs and Rs.3-6

lakhs for conscientiousness with t (246) = - 4.615, p < .05 and for courtesy

with t(246) = - 2.447, p < .05.

(ii) There is statistically significant difference between the contrasts 3, 4, 5 and 6

for conscientiousness as well as courtesy.

Figure 3.13 shows the means plots OCB, altruism, conscientiousness, courtesy and

income. The means plots have positive relationship with income. Moreover, the

means plots of courtesy and conscientiousness have quite similar plotted lines. In

Figure 3.13, relationship of income with OCB, altruism, courtesy and

conscientiousness have been given. With the rise in income, its corresponding

variables mean value is also rising. Overall, the results show that there is significant

difference between OCB, courtesy, conscientiousness and income categories.

Inference: Hence, hypothesis 8 (income & OCB), 8a (income & altruism), 8c

(income & conscientiousness), 8d (income & courtesy) are supported and accepted.

Hypothesis related to income and sportsmanship (8b) and income & civic virtue (8e)

is rejected.

106

Figure 3.12: Means Plot of Income, OCB, Altruism, Courtesy and Conscientiousness


107

3.3.2 Demographic Variables and EI

To explore the role of demographic variables in assessing emotional

intelligence, biographical profile of the respondents has been collected through

information filled at the end of EI instrument. The role of demographic variables,

which have been included in the questionnaire, i.e., age, tenure, marital status,

gender, number of dependents in the family, level of highest education, designation ,

status of spouse whether he/she is working or homemaker for exploring their

relationship with other variables, have been included in the study. Some of the

previous studies have tried to test the relationship among some of the demographic

variables and emotional intelligence.

3.3.2.1 Age and EI

In a study conducted by Tyagi (2004) on EI among teachers in relation to

gender and age in Maharashtra, the results revealed that there is no significant

difference between age, gender and EI. Pandey & Tripathi (2004) conducted a study

on development of EI- some preliminary observations; results indicated that there was

increase in EI with age. The relationship between age and EI has been mixed, in some

of the studies age is related to EI, while in others it has insignificant relationship.

Table 3.43 lists the mean values and standard deviation of EI and its four dimensions.

The mean values are generally rising with the increase in age for most of the

dimensions. The relationship between age and dimensions of EI has been examined

through ANOVA in Table 3.44; UOE dimension is not found to be significant (p

>.10).


108

Table 3.43: Means & Std. Deviations of EI & its dimensions as per Age Category

Age Category EI POE MOE MOtE UOE under 26 years Mean 3.58 3.44 3.45 3.61 3.91

N 6 6 6 6 6 S.d. .20 .51 .34 .30 .52

26-35 years Mean 3.82 3.57 3.88 3.87 4.08 N 43 43 43 43 43 S.d. .19 .40 .36 .29 .33

36-45 years Mean 3.86 3.64 3.98 3.83 4.05 N 56 56 56 56 56 S.d. .22 .29 .33 .32 .40

46-55 years Mean 3.81 3.64 3.90 3.81 3.93 N 109 109 109 109 109 S.d. .27 .37 .34 .33 .52

56 years & above

Mean 3.77 3.52 3.89 3.78 4.00 N 36 36 36 36 36 S.d. .33 .43 .37 .42 .43

Table 3.44: ANOVA & Homogeneity of Variance Results for Age, EI and its

Dimensions

As per the results of ANOVA in Table 3.44, only MOE dimension is

significantly related with age with F (4,245) = 3.181, p < .01. Hence, this dimension

is further explored through contrast (Table 3.45 and 3.46) and post-hoc analysis

(Table 3.47) in ANOVA. For EI, POE and MOtE variables, the condition of




p value

EI 3.82 (.26) 1.829(4, 245) .124 5.846 .000 POE 3.61 (.38) 1.287 (4, 245) .276 3.426 .010 MOE 3.91 (.36) 3.181 (4, 245) .010 .243 .913 MOtE 3.82 (.34) .891 (4, 245) .470 2.895 .023 UOE 3.99 (.46) 1.215 (4, 245) .305 1.943 .104 N=250


109

homogeneity of variance does not satisfy (p > .05), so these are dropped from

ANOVA analysis.

Table 3.45: Age wise Contrast Coefficients for EI Contrast Age Category

under 26 years

26-35 years 36-45 years 46-55 years

56 years & above

1 1 0 0 0 -1

2 1 1 -1 -1 0

Table 3.46: Age wise Contrast Tests for MOE


Std. Error T df

Sig. (2-tailed)

MOE Assume equal variances

1 -.441 .154 -2.858 245 .005 2 -.544 .162 -3.340 245 .001


1 -.441 .152 -2.890 7.130 .023 2 -.544 .159 -3.406 8.595 .008

Table 3.47 indicates the results of post-hoc tests for MOE, which are significant for

less than 26 years of age category and all other age categories with p < .05.

Table 3.47: Age wise Post Hoc Tests for MOE (Multiple Comparisons) Tukey HSD

(I) age_cat

(J) age_cat Mean

Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.


Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Less than 26 years

26-35 years -.422* .152 .047 -.841 -.003 36-45 years -.523* .150 .005 -.936 -.110 46-55 years -.443* .146 .023 -.846 -.039 56 years & above -.440* .154 .037 -.865 -.016

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. As per the results of Table 3.45 and 3.46, MOE is statistically different for

less than 26 years vs. 56 years & above age category with t(245) = -2.858, p < .005.

MOE is also statistically different for upto 35 years and 36 years & above category,


110

as per contrast no.2 of Table 3.45 with t(245) = -3.340, p < .001.

Figure 3.13: Means Plot of Age & MOE

Figure 3.13 shows the relationship between MOE & age category, lowest mean value

for less than 26 years and highest for 36-45 years of age category. The MOE curve is

rising with the age and there is marked difference between those upto 35 years

compared to those above 35 years indicating that a person becomes mature enough to

handle his emotions with the progression in age.

Inference: Only hypothesis 9b related to age and MOE has found statistical

support. It shows that there is significant relationship between age and managing own

emotions. Henceforth, results imply that hypotheses 9, 9a, 9c and 9d can’t be

accepted.

3.3.2.2 Designation and EI

With the rise in designation there may be corresponding rise in EI, as the duties and

responsibilities enhance the person has to be emotionally mature to deal with different


111

issues that may crop up in the organizations. Nasir, Mustaffa and Ahmad (2011) in

their study on EI with skills inventory and personal development among counselling

teachers, indicated that there is significant difference between designation and EI of

the respondents.

Table 3.48 lists the means and standard deviations of the respondents as per

their designation which indicates that average scores of JE and Clerk are lower than

that of the officers. While the results of ANOVA as per Table 3.49 reveal no

significant relationship between EI, POE, MOE, MOtE and designation. UOE

dimension has to be dropped from this ANOVA analysis because homogeneity of

variance condition is violated with p < .05.

Table 3.48: Designation wise Means and Std. Deviations for EI and its dimensions

Designation EI POE MOE MOtE UOE Clerk Mean 3.822 3.562 3.927 3.802 4.093

N 50 50 50 50 50 S.d. .258 .406 .316 .390 .330

JE Mean 3.784 3.562 3.812 3.802 4.060 N 50 50 50 50 50 S.d. .272 .387 .418 .345 .374

SDO Mean 3.864 3.681 3.976 3.835 4.025 N 53 53 53 53 53 S.d. .250 .407 .344 .293 .491

XEN Mean 3.810 3.605 3.893 3.875 3.932 N 47 47 47 47 47 S.d. .244 .348 .381 .303 .427

ASE/SE Mean 3.792 3.644 3.910 3.791 3.856 N 50 50 50 50 50 S.d. .286 .337 .303 .361 .598


112

Table 3.49: Designation wise ANOVA & Homogeneity of Variance results for EI and its Dimensions

Still the relationship among these variables has been explored through Table 3.50 and

3.51; indicating that there is statistically significant difference between mean scores

of JE and SDO for MOE with t(245) = -2.344, p < .05. It implies that the difference in

mean values of JE (3.83) and SDO (3.98) is statistically important and that mean

value of MOE is higher for SDO as compared to JE. Figure 3.14 shows the

relationship between mean value of MOE and designation. The mean value is lowest

for JE and highest for SDO.

Table 3.50: Designation wise Contrast Coefficients of MOE Contrast Designation

Clerk JE SDO XEN ASE/SE 1 0 1 -1 0 0

Table 3.51: Designation wise Contrast Tests for MOE Contrast Value of

Contrast Std.



1 -.1639 .06993 -2.344 245 .020


1 -.1639 .07571 -2.165 95.047 .033




p value

EI 3.82 (.26) .748 (4, 245) .560 .632 .640 POE 3.61 (.38) .968 (4, 245) .426 1.364 .247 MOE 3.91 (.36) 1.452 (4, 245) .218 2.368 .053 MOtE 3.82 (.34) .489 (4, 245) .744 2.058 .087 UOE 3.99 (.46) 2.271 (4, 245) .062 3.422 .010 N=250


113

Figure 3.14: Means Plot of Designation & MOE

Inference: Overall, the results reveal that hypothesis 10b (designation & MOE) is

supported, whereas hypothesis 10, 10a, 10c and 10d are rejected for shortage of

enough statistical evidence.

3.3.2.3 Tenure and EI

The tenure of the employees may enhance their level of emotional

intelligence. The stay of the employee in the organization over a period of time,

increases their familiarity with the organization and may help them to become

emotionally mature in their dealings. Table 3.52 lists the means and standard

deviations for EI alongwith its dimensions. The relationship between EI and tenure

has been examined here.

The results of ANOVA in Table 3.53 indicate that there is no significant

relationship between the tenure categories and their respective EI score. As the

homogeneity of variance condition is not satisfied by EI, it has not been included in


114

further analysis. Still an attempt is made to examine the stated relationship through

contrast analysis as per Table 3.54 and 3.55.

Table 3.52: Tenure wise Means and Std. Deviations for EI and its Dimensions Tenure EI POE MOE MOtE UOE 0-5 years Mean 3.832 3.653 3.871 3.823 4.058

N 34 34 34 34 34 S.d. .228 .400 .369 .294 .430

6-10 years Mean 3.814 3.567 3.888 3.857 4.037 N 9 9 9 9 9 S.d. .234 .285 .268 .285 .388

11-15 years Mean 3.867 3.623 3.970 3.862 4.101 N 51 51 51 51 51 S.d. .210 .337 .367 .319 .314

16-20 years Mean 3.762 3.602 3.788 3.802 3.923 N 26 26 26 26 26 S.d. .277 .382 .401 .377 .455

21 years & above

Mean 3.801 3.601 3.912 3.805 3.947 N 130 130 130 130 130 S.d. .286 .397 .341 .355 .513

Table 3.53: Tenure wise ANOVA & Homogeneity of Variance results for EI and its Dimensions

Results of Table 3.55 indicate, that there is significant difference between 11-15 years

and 16-20 years of tenure category for MOE with t(245) =2.127 , p < .05. Also for




p value

EI 3.82 (.26) .887 (4, 245) .472 3.075 .017 POE 3.61 (.38) .169 (4, 245) .954 1.044 .385 MOE 3.91 (.36) 1.229 (4, 245) .299 .381 .822 MOtE 3.82 (.34) .304 (4, 245) .875 .963 .428 UOE 3.99 (.46) 1.379 (4, 245) .242 1.906 .110 N=250


115

UOE, there is statistically significant difference in 11-15 years and 21 years & above

tenure category. Figure 3.15 depicts the relationship between tenure and MOE, the

mean value is lowest for 16-20 years category and highest for 11-15 years category.

Figure 3.16 depicts the relationship between tenure and UOE.

Table 3.54: Tenure wise Contrast Coefficients for MOE & UOE Contrast Tenure

0-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 21 years &

above

1 0 0 1 -1 0 2 0 0 1 0 -1

Table 3.55: Tenure wise Contrast Tests Contrast Value of

Contrast Std.


MOE


1 .182 .085 2.127 245 .034 2 .058 .058 .989 245 .323


1 .182 .094 1.937 46.737 .059 2 .058 .059 .975 85.732 .332

UOE Assume equal variances

1 .178 .110 1.613 245 .108 2 .153 .075 2.031 245 .043


1 .178 .099 1.790 37.547 .081 2 .153 .063 2.442 147.004 .016

For both MOE and UOE variables, the 11-15 years category is showing higher

mean as compared to their statistically relevant category. The underlying reasons for

it could be factors not explored here.

Inference: The results revealed that only hypotheses 11b (tenure & MOE) and

11d (tenure & UOE) have been supported and rest of the hypotheses i.e. 11, 11a and

11c are rejected.


116

Figure 3.15: Means Plot of Tenure & MOE

Figure 3.16: Means Plot of Tenure & UOE

3.3.2.4 Spouse’s Status and EI

The impact of the spouse’s status on EI has not been examined in previous

research studies. Whether spouse’s status can have meaningful impact on his EI and

its four dimensions has to be explored through analysis.


117

Table 3.56: Spouse’s Status wise Means and Std. Deviations of EI and its Dimensions

Spouse's Status EI POE MOE MOtE UOE

N.A. Mean 3.650 3.555 3.625 3.607 3.875 N 8 8 8 8 8 S.d. .274 .584 .406 .416 .568

Working Mean 3.878 3.654 3.960 3.917 4.062 N 107 107 107 107 107 S.d. .228 .335 .331 .331 .423

Homemaker Mean 3.775 3.581 3.877 3.757 3.948 N 135 135 135 135 135 S.d. .276 .397 .363 .321 .477

As per Table 3.56, mean value of EI and its dimensions, is higher for working

couples in relation to their counterparts. To examine whether the mean value among

working couples and homemakers has statistically relevant differences, ANOVA

analysis has been carried out as per Table 3.57

Table 3.57: Spouse’s Status wise ANOVA & Homogeneity of Variance results for EI and its Dimensions

The results (Table 3.57) indicate that there is significant difference for EI

with F (2,247) = 6.582, p < .01; MOE with F (2,247) = 4.268, p < .01 and MOtE with

F (2,247) = 8.767, p< .001; viz-à-viz their spouse’s status. Also the mean values are

higher for working couples in relation to their counterparts. POE dimension has been




p value

EI 3.82 (.26) 6.582 (2, 247) .002 3.031 .066 POE 3.61 (.38) 1.178 (2, 247) .310 4.619 .011 MOE 3.91 (.36) 4.268 (2, 247) .010 .587 .557 MOtE 3.82 (.34) 8.767 (2, 247) .000 .607 .546 UOE 3.99 (.46) 2.138 (2, 247) .120 .846 .430 N=250


118

dropped from this analysis as its corresponding Levene’s statistic has significance

value less than .05 and thus, it is not satisfying the condition of equality of variances.

Figure 3.17: Means Plot of Spouse’s Status & EI

Figure 3.18: Means Plot of Spouse’s Status & MOE


119

Table 3.58: Spouse’s Status wise Contrast Coefficients Contrast Spouse's Status

N.A. Working Homemaker 1 0 1 -1

Table 3.59: Spouse’s Status wise Contrast Tests Contrast Value of

Contrast Std.


EI Assume equal variances

1 .103 .033 3.120 247 .002


1 .103 .032 3.196 239.572 .002


1 .082 .045 1.814 247 .071


1 .082 .044 1.842 235.283 .067

MOtE Assume equal variances

1 .159 .042 3.747 247 .000


1 .159 .042 3.767 224.549 .000

UOE


1 .114 .059 1.927 247 .055


1 .114 .057 1.969 236.969 .050

Figure 3.16, 3.17 and 3.18 depict the relationship between mean values of EI,

MOE and MOtE respectively for spouse’s status. The mean value is higher for

working couples followed by homemakers. The results of the contrasts tests in Table

3.58 and 3.59 reveal, that for EI, MOE, MOtE and UOE have t(247) = 3.120 (p <

.01), t(247) = 1.814 (p < .10), t(247) = 3.747 (p < .01) and t(247) = 1.927(p < .05)

respectively for spouse’s status. Working couples have higher mean as compared to

their counterparts.


120

Figure 3.19: Means Plot of Spouse’s Status & MOtE

The reason for higher level of EI of dual working couples could be, that they

both have to be empathetic towards each other. In order to have peaceful relations

they have to break the shackles of age old traditional roles assigned to men and

women.

Inference: Hence, the hypotheses12 (spouse’s status & EI), 12b (spouse’s status

& MOE), 12c (spouse’s status & MOtE) are supported for these variables. While for

variables POE and UOE viz-à-viz status, the hypotheses (12a & 12d) are rejected, this

implies, that there is no significant difference between these variables based on the

spouse’s status.

3.3.2.5 Number of Dependents and EI

The relationship between number of dependents and EI has not been

examined so far. It has been proposed that as the number of dependents increase, the


121

respondent may become emotionally mature to handle different relationships in his

family and this maturity will permeate through organizational relationships too.

Table 3.60: No. of Dependents wise Means and Std. Deviations for EI and its Dimensions

No. of dependents EI POE MOE MOtE UOE N.A. Mean 3.764 3.487 3.759 3.791 4.153

N 13 13 13 13 13 S.d. .349 .554 .524 .362 .453

1.00 Mean 3.883 3.752 3.903 3.961 3.962 N 22 22 22 22 22 S.d. .254 .361 .301 .369 .534

2.00 Mean 3.814 3.608 3.941 3.819 3.949 N 92 92 92 92 92 S.d. .258 .377 .326 .357 .492

3.00 Mean 3.819 3.615 3.894 3.817 4.029 N 102 102 102 102 102 S.d. .250 .347 .369 .318 .400

4.00 Mean 3.729 3.518 3.868 3.722 3.870 N 18 18 18 18 18 S.d. .289 .367 .367 .270 .476

5.00 Mean 3.922 3.666 4.000 3.666 4.500 N 3 3 3 3 3 S.d. .309 .769 .250 .436 .440

Table 3.61: No. of Dependents wise ANOVA & Homogeneity of Variance

results for EI and its Dimensions




p value

EI 3.82 (.26) .881 (5, 244) .494 .752 .586 POE 3.61 (.38) 1.122 (5, 244) .349 2.620 .025 MOE 3.91 (.36) .723 (5, 244) .607 .629 .678 MOtE 3.82 (.34) 1.207 (5, 244) .306 .847 .517 UOE 3.99 (.46) 1.637 (5, 244) .151 1.008 .413 N=250


122

Table 3.60 lists the means and standard deviations of the respondents in relation to EI

and its dimensions. As per the results of ANOVA in Table 3.61, all the variables have

significance values higher than .05, so there is no significant relationship between EI

and its dimensions viz-à-viz number of dependents.

Inference: Hence, the hypotheses 13 and 13a-13d corresponding to it can’t be

accepted.

3.3.2.6 Education Level and EI

Education's purpose is to replace an empty mind with an open one. - Malcolm S.

Forbes

Table 3.62: Means & Std. Deviations for EI as per Education Level Education Level EI POE MOE MOtE UOE Matric Mean 3.826 3.492 3.866 3.908 4.178

N 14 14 14 14 14 S.d. .247 .445 .291 .402 .152

10+2/ ITI Mean 3.644 3.518 3.736 3.587 3.777 N 9 9 9 9 9 S.d. .329 .512 .407 .374 .363

Diploma Mean 3.803 3.574 3.817 3.843 4.081 N 41 41 41 41 41 S.d. .236 .388 .386 .325 .341

B.Tech/Bachelor's degree

Mean 3.827 3.650 3.929 3.818 3.966 N 150 150 150 150 150 S.d. .253 .353 .339 .328 .505

M.Tech/ Master's Degree

Mean 3.819 3.564 3.961 3.833 3.995 N 36 36 36 36 36 S.d. .310 .410 .383 .355 .455

The ultimate purpose of education is to broaden the outlook of a person and

condition his mind to understand the emotions of the self and the others. Hence, with

the progression in education level there may be improvement in EI score too.


123

Education makes a person refined in his dealings, but whether it can really have some

genuine impact on EI has been tested here.

Table 3.62 indicates the means and standard deviations for EI and its four

dimensions on the basis of education level. As can be seen, the mean values of

graduates and post-graduates are higher than their other counterparts. To verify

whether these mean values are really significant, ANOVA has been applied in Table

3.63. ANOVA values in Table 3.63 show that all the variables have significance

value greater than 0.05. Even though the ANOVA values do not show statistically

relevant results, it has been further tested through contrasts in Table 3.64 & 3.65.

Table 3.63: Education Level wise ANOVA & Homogeneity of Variance results for EI and its Dimensions

Table 3.64: Education Level wise Contrast Coefficients Contrast Education Level

Matric 10+2/

ITI Diploma B.Tech/Bachelor's

degree M.Tech/ Master's

Degree

1 0 1 -1 0 0 2 0 0 1 -1 0 3 0 1 0 0 -1 4 0 1 1 -1 -1 5 0 0 1 -1 0 6 0 1 0 -1 0 7 0 0 1 0 -1




p value

EI 3.82 (.26) 1.059 (4, 245) .377 .813 .518 POE 3.61 (.38) 1.111 (4, 245) .352 2.373 .053 MOE 3.91 (.36) 1.590 (4, 245) .177 .693 .597 MOtE 3.82 (.34) 1.366 (4, 245) .246 .770 .546 UOE 3.99 (.46) 1.578 (4, 245) .181 2.685 .032 N=250


124

Table 3.65: Education Level wise Contrast Tests Contrast Value of

Contrast Std.


EI Assume equal variances

3 -.175 .097 -1.789 245 .075 4 -.198 .108 -1.838 245 .067 2 -.182 .090 -2.028 245 .044


3 -.175 .121 -1.442 11.827 .175 4 -.198 .128 -1.548 14.838 .143 2 -.182 .111 -1.636 8.581 .138


2 -.112 .062 -1.795 245 .074 3 -.225 .132 -1.709 245 .089 4 -.337 .146 -2.313 245 .022 6 -.144 .080 -1.788 245 .075


2 -.112 .066 -1.688 57.999 .097 3 -.225 .150 -1.504 11.811 .159 4 -.337 .164 -2.059 16.763 .055 6 -.144 .087 -1.646 73.852 .104


1 -.255 .124 -2.056 245 .041 3 -.246 .126 -1.952 245 .052 5 -.230 .116 -1.989 245 .048


1 -.255 .134 -1.900 10.818 .084 3 -.246 .138 -1.781 11.884 .100 5 -.230 .127 -1.809 8.758 .105

Table 3.65 lists those contrast values only which have been found to be

statistically significant, the rest have not been included here. Moreover, UOE

dimension has been dropped from this further analysis, as the Levene’s statistic’s p-

value is less than .05 and hence, basic condition of homogeneity of variance is not

satisfied. Results listed in Table 3.65 show that for EI, there is statistically significant

difference in education level of 10+2/ITI vs. M.Tech/Master’s with t(245) = -1.789, p

< .10; 10+2/ITI and Diploma vs. B.Tech/Bachelor’s and M.Tech/Master’s with t(245)

= -1.838, p<.10; and Diploma vs. B.Tech/Bachelor’s with t(245) = -2.028, p < .05.


125

Figure 3.20: Means Plot of Education Level & EI

Figure 3.21: Means Plot of Education Level & MOE

For MOE, there are statistically significant differences between Diploma vs.

B.Tech/ Bachelor’s , 10+2/ITI vs. M.Tech/Master’s, 10+2/ITI and Diploma vs.

B.Tech/Bachelor’s and M.Tech/Master’s, and Diploma vs. M.Tech/Master’s.


126

For MOtE, there are statistically relevant differences between 10+2/ITI vs.

Diploma, 10+2/ITI vs. M.Tech/Master’s and 10+2/ITI vs. B.Tech/Bachelor’s. Figure

3.19, 3.20 and 3.21 depict the relationship of education level with EI, MOE and

MOtE respectively. These results indicate that for EI, MOE and MOtE with the

progression in education level, there is significant improvement in their level of

emotional intelligence. It also implies that education level really broadens the outlook

of a person and enhances his emotional maturity.

Figure 3.22: Means Plot of Education Level & MOtE

Inference: Hence, hypothesis 14 (education & EI) is partially supported and

hypotheses 14b(education & MOE) and 14c (education & MOtE) is supported.

Hypothesis 14a (education & POE) is rejected, as the significance value is greater

than .05.

3.3.2.7 Experience and EI

The level of experience a respondent has, may have some impact on the EI

and its four dimensions. The number of years of job experience in the same


127

organization or different may enhance the emotional maturity of the subjects over the

years. Experience has been measured as a categorical variable in number of years.

Table 3.66 depicts the means and standard deviations for EI and its dimensions as per

experience.

Table 3.66: Means & Std. deviations of EI as per Experience Experience EI POE MOE MOtE UOE upto 5 years Mean 3.798 3.666 3.781 3.809 4.006

N 24 24 24 24 24 S.d. .243 .411 .367 .322 .435

6-15 years Mean 3.855 3.602 3.969 3.850 4.085 N 66 66 66 66 66 S.d. .201 .338 .356 .305 .331

16-25 years Mean 3.798 3.606 3.861 3.846 3.945 N 55 55 55 55 55 S.d. .266 .397 .339 .326 .486

26 years & above Mean 3.803 3.608 3.915 3.791 3.960 N 105 105 105 105 105 S.d. .297 .390 .356 .370 .515

Table 3.67: ANOVA Results of EI as per Experience

As per the results in Table 3.67, the significance values for ANOVA are all

greater than .05. Hence, there is no significant relationship between experience and EI

and its four dimensions.




p value

EI 3.82 (.26) .682(3, 246) .564 4.492 .004 POE 3.61 (.38) .185 (3, 246) .906 .892 .446 MOE 3.91 (.36) 2.024 (3, 246) .111 .159 .924 MOtE 3.82 (.34) .539 (3, 246) .656 2.031 .110 UOE 3.99 (.46) 1.289 (3, 246) .282 2.261 .082 N=250


128

Inference: Thus, the hypotheses 15, 15a, 15b, 15c and 15d are not supported and

null hypothesis has to be accepted.

3.3.2.8 Income and EI

The economic exchange can have some significant influence on individual’s

EI and its four dimensions. The level of income grows with the progression in

designation and on the basis of tenure of the employees. The relationship between

these variables has not been explored in the previous studies. Table 3.68 lists the

means and standard deviations for EI and its four dimensions on the basis of income

categories. Whether these differences in the mean values are statistically significant

have been examined through one-way ANOVA.

Table 3.68: Means & Std. Deviations for EI and its Dimensions as per Income

Categories Income (Rs.) EI POE MOE MOtE UOE less than 3 lakhs Mean 3.816 3.587 3.821 3.918 4.035

N 14 14 14 14 14 S.d. .268 .330 .437 .395 .370

3-6 lakhs Mean 3.803 3.585 3.878 3.782 4.053 N 100 100 100 100 100 S.d. .244 .400 .345 .346 .360

6-9 lakhs Mean 3.832 3.599 3.935 3.866 4.008 N 81 81 81 81 81 S.d. .292 .364 .382 .332 .470

above 9 lakhs Mean 3.811 3.684 3.929 3.800 3.857 N 55 55 55 55 55 S.d. .252 .374 .312 .316 .590

The results in Table 3.69 show, that only UOE dimension of EI is statistically

different for income categories with F(3,246) = 2.266 , p < .10. For which specific


129

income category, this difference is statistically relevant has been examined through

contrast coefficients in Table 3.70.

Table 3.69: Income wise ANOVA and Homogeneity of Variance Results for EI & its Dimensions

Table 3.70: Income wise Contrast Coefficients of UOE

Contrast Income (Rs.) less than 3 lakhs 3-6 lakhs 6-9 lakhs above 9 lakhs

1 1 -1 0 0 2 0 1 -1 0 3 0 0 1 -1 4 1 0 0 -1 5 1 0 -1 0 6 0 1 0 -1 7 1 1 -1 -1

The results of Table 3.71 reveal for MOtE, there is statistically significant difference

between Rs. 3-6 lakhs and Rs.6-9 lakhs income categories. Also for UOE, there is

statistically significant difference between Rs. 6-9 lakhs vs. above Rs.9 lakhs income

categories and Rs.3-6 lakhs vs. above Rs.9 lakhs of category. Figure 3.22 and 3.23

depict the relationship of income with MOtE and UOE respectively.




p value

EI 3.82 (.26) .193 (3, 246) .901 .752 .586 POE 3.61 (.38) .886 (3, 246) .449 2.620 .025 MOE 3.91 (.36) .717 (3, 246) .543 .629 .678 MOtE 3.82 (.34) 1.357 (3, 246) .257 .847 .517 UOE 3.99 (.46) 2.266 (3, 246) .081 1.008 .413 N=250


130

Inference: Thus, the results only partially support hypotheses 16c (income &

MOtE) and 16d (income & UOE). For hypotheses 16, 16a and 16b no support have

been found and hence, these are rejected in favour of null hypothesis.

Figure 3.23: Means Plot of Income & MOtE

Figure 3.24: Means Plot of Income & UOE


131

Table 3.71: Income wise Contrast Tests


Std. Error t df

Sig. (2-tailed)


1 .135 .096 1.403 246 .162 2 -.083 .050 -1.643 246 .102 3 .066 .059 1.116 246 .266 4 .118 .101 1.169 246 .244 5 .052 .097 .535 246 .593 6 -.017 .056 -.302 246 .763 7 .035 .113 .311 246 .756


1 .135 .111 1.219 15.929 .240 2 -.083 .050 -1.641 173.979 .103 3 .066 .056 1.169 119.756 .245 4 .118 .113 1.039 17.484 .313 5 .052 .111 .469 16.332 .646 6 -.017 .054 -.312 120.194 .756 7 .035 .124 .283 24.983 .780

UOE Assume equal variances

1 -.017 .130 -.135 246 .892 2 .045 .068 .661 246 .509 3 .150 .079 1.889 246 .060 4 .178 .136 1.304 246 .194 5 .027 .132 .208 246 .835 6 .195 .076 2.555 246 .011 7 .223 .152 1.462 246 .145


1 -.017 .105 -.167 16.634 .869 2 .045 .063 .710 147.307 .479 3 .150 .095 1.581 98.226 .117 4 .178 .127 1.401 32.017 .171 5 .027 .112 .245 20.980 .809 6 .195 .087 2.238 76.647 .028 7 .223 .142 1.570 49.321 .123


132

Table 3.72: Summary of Results

Hypothesis Result

1: There is a significant difference between the age of the respondents and their OCB.

Supported

1a: There is a significant difference between the age of the respondents and altruism.

Supported

1b: There is a significant difference between the age of the respondents and sportsmanship.

Rejected

1c: There is a significant difference between the age of the respondents and conscientiousness.

Rejected

1d: There is a significant difference between the age of the respondents and courtesy.

Rejected

1e: There is a significant difference between the age of the respondents and civic virtue.

Rejected

2: There is a significant difference between the designation of the respondents and their OCB.

Supported

2a: There is a significant difference between the designation of the respondents and altruism.

Rejected

2b: There is a significant difference between the designation of the respondents and sportsmanship.

Rejected

2c: There is a significant difference between the designation of the respondents and conscientiousness.

Supported

2d: There is a significant difference between the designation of the respondents and courtesy.

Supported

2e: There is a significant difference between the designation of the respondents and civic virtue.

Rejected

3: There is a significant difference between the tenure of the respondents and their OCB.

Rejected

3a: There is a significant difference between the tenure of the respondents and altruism.

Rejected

3b: There is a significant difference between the tenure of the respondents and sportsmanship.

Rejected

3c: There is a significant difference between the tenure of the respondents and conscientiousness.

Supported

3d: There is a significant difference between the tenure of the respondents and courtesy.

Rejected

3e: There is a significant difference between the tenure of the respondents and civic virtue.

Rejected

4: There is a significant difference between the spouse’s status and OCB.

Supported

4a: There is a significant difference between the spouse’s status and altruism.

Supported


133

Hypothesis Result

4b: There is a significant difference between the spouse’s status and sportsmanship.

Rejected

4c: There is a significant difference between the spouse’s status and conscientiousness.

Rejected

4d: There is a significant difference between the spouse’s status and courtesy.

Rejected

4e: There is a significant difference between the spouse’s status and civic virtue.

Rejected

5: There is a significant difference between the number of dependents and OCB.

Rejected

5a: There is a significant difference between the number of dependents and altruism.

Rejected

5b: There is a significant difference between the number of dependents and sportsmanship.

Rejected

5c: There is a significant difference between the number of dependents and conscientiousness.

Rejected

5d: There is a significant difference between the number of dependents and courtesy.

Rejected

5e: There is a significant difference between the number of dependents and civic virtue.

Rejected

6: There is a significant difference between education level and OCB.

Supported

6a: There is a significant difference between education level and altruism.

Rejected

6b: There is a significant difference between education level and sportsmanship.

Rejected

6c: There is a significant difference between education level and conscientiousness.

Supported

6d: There is a significant difference between education level and courtesy.

Supported

6e: There is a significant difference between education level and civic virtue.

Rejected

7: There is a significant difference between total job experience and OCB.

Rejected

7a: There is a significant difference between total job experience and altruism.

Rejected

7b: There is a significant difference between total job experience and sportsmanship.

Rejected

7c: There is a significant difference between total job experience and conscientiousness.

Rejected

7d: There is a significant difference between total job experience and courtesy.

Rejected


134

Hypothesis Result

7e: There is a significant difference between total job experience and civic virtue.

Rejected

8: There is a significant difference between income and OCB. Supported 8a: There is a significant difference between income and altruism. Supported 8b: There is a significant difference between income and sportsmanship.

Rejected

8c: There is a significant difference between income and conscientiousness.

Supported

8d: There is a significant difference between income and courtesy. Supported 8e: There is a significant difference between income and civic virtue. Rejected 9: There is a significant difference between the age of the respondents and their EI.

Rejected

9a: There is a significant difference between the age of the respondents and perception of emotions.

Rejected

9b: There is a significant difference between the age of the respondents and manage own emotions.

Supported

9c: There is a significant difference between the age of the respondents and manage others’ emotions.

Rejected

9d: There is a significant difference between the age of the respondents and utilization of emotions.

Rejected

10: There is a significant relationship between the designation of the respondents and their EI.

Rejected

10a: There is a significant difference between the designation of the respondents and perception of emotions.

Rejected

10b: There is a significant difference between the designation of the respondents and manage own emotions.

Supported

10c: There is a significant difference between the designation of the respondents and manage others’ emotions.

Rejected

10d: There is a significant difference between the designation of the respondents and utilization of emotions.

Rejected

11: There is a significant difference between the tenure of the respondents and their EI.

Rejected

11a: There is a significant difference between the tenure of the respondents and perception of emotions.

Rejected

11b: There is a significant difference between the tenure of the respondents and manage own emotions.

Supported

11c: There is a significant difference between the tenure of the respondents and manage others’ emotions.

Rejected

11d: There is a significant difference between the tenure of the respondents and utilization of emotions.

Supported

12: There is a significant difference between the spouse’s status and EI.

Supported


135

Hypothesis Result

12a: There is a significant difference between the spouse’s status and perception of emotion.

Rejected

12b: There is a significant difference between the spouse’s status and manage own emotions

Supported

12c: There is a significant difference between the spouse’s status and manage others’ emotions.

Supported

12d: There is a significant difference between the spouse’s status and utilization of emotions.

Rejected

13: There is a significant difference between the number of dependents and EI.

Rejected

13a: There is a significant difference between the number of dependents and perception of emotions.

Rejected

13b: There is a significant difference between the number of dependents and manage own emotions.

Rejected

13c: There is a significant difference between the number of dependents and manage others’ emotions.

Rejected

13d: There is a significant difference between the number of dependents and utilization of emotions.

Rejected

14: There is a significant difference between the education level and EI.

Supported

14a: There is a significant difference between the education level and perception of emotions.

Rejected

14b: There is a significant difference between the education level and manage own emotions.

Supported

14c: There is a significant difference between the education level and manage others’ emotions.

Supported

14d: There is a significant difference between the education level and utilization of emotions.

Dropped

15: There is a significant difference between total job experience and EI.

Rejected

15a: There is a significant difference between total job experience and perception of emotions.

Rejected

15b: There is a significant difference between total job experience and manage own emotions.

Rejected

15c: There is a significant difference between total job experience and mange others’ emotions.

Rejected

15d: There is a significant difference between total job experience and utilization of emotions.

Rejected

16: There is a significant difference between the income of the respondents and their EI.

Rejected


136

3.4 DISCUSSION

Demographic variables have played a mixed role in relation to OCB and EI.

While some of the variables have been significant others are completely insignificant.

Age has a significant relationship with OCB, altruism and MOE. It can be seen from

the findings, that mean value of OCB and altruism is rising till 26-35 years of age and

then slides down a little for 36-45 years of age, rises and again falls steeply at the end

forming ‘M’ shaped curve. These results are little confounding, but a careful

pondering at it reveals that younger employees are better in OCB and altruism scores

compared to their senior counterparts. Underlying rationale for it could be that

younger employees are more enthusiastic, may be they want to adjust and want to be

noticed by their seniors to fetch promotions and rewards, while the seniors have

already exhausted their share of promotions and the bodily energy is not permitting

them to help and cooperate with others. The MOE curve is moving up with the age

and there is striking difference between those upto 35 years of age and those above 35

years, indicating that a person becomes mature enough to handle his emotions with

the progression in age.

Hypothesis Result

16a: There is a significant difference between the income of the respondents and their perception of emotions.

Rejected

16b: There is a significant difference between the income of the respondents and manage own emotions.

Rejected

16c: There is a significant difference between the income of the respondents and manage others’ emotions.

Partially Supported

16d: There is a significant difference between the income of the respondents and utilization of emotion.

Partially Supported


137

In some of the studies age, income and education level have no significant

relationship with EI (Adeyemo, 2008), while in the same study experience has been

positively related to EI. Designation of the respondents is significant for OCB,

conscientiousness, courtesy and MOE. Position a person holds in an organization,

indeed has influence over OCB, conscientiousness and courtesy. The probable

explanation for it could be that people at higher levels are more educated and

emotionally mature due to their daily dealings with different people during work.

There are really noticeable differences between lower cadre of employees and those

working at higher cadres, implying that there is statistically significant difference in

the mean values of these variables.

Tenure has statistically significant relationship with conscientiousness, MOE

and UOE. While it is not significantly related to EI, OCB and other sub dimensions.

The mean value of conscientiousness is found to be significantly rising with the

progressive tenure categories. Moreover, when having a glance at these findings, it

should also be considered that only 9 respondents are there in 6-10 years of category,

while there are 34 respondents in 0-5 years. The conscientiousness score for 0-5 years

category is higher than others, as probably newer employees fall in this category and

they are more sincere in following the rules and regulations, so as to acclimatize

themselves in the new environment. However, the relationship of tenure with MOE &

UOE is found to be significant for categories, where shorter tenure has higher mean

compared to longer tenure having lower mean value. This finding is quite appealing,

as it implies that employees having shorter tenure have higher MOE and UOE score,


138

indicating that when a person is new to the organization, he is managing and utilizing

his emotions with awareness and control.

Spouse’s status is found to be quite significant for OCB, altruism, EI, MOE

and MOtE. Dual working couples have higher mean as compared to single working

couples. The underlying reason for this could be that, as dual working couples have

multiple responsibilities at home and workplace, they accommodate each other,

empathize with their spouse and peers by helping them.

Number of dependents and total experience do not have any impact in this

study. Moreover, level of education is found to be quite significant for OCB,

conscientiousness, courtesy, EI, MOE, MOtE and UOE. It implies that with the rise in

level of education, there is corresponding positive impact on OCB, EI and its

dimensions. Income also has significant impact on OCB, altruism, conscientiousness,

courtesy, MOtE and UOE implying, that with the rise in income there is

corresponding hike in the stated variables. In this study, education has foremost

impact on OCB and EI variables followed by income and spouse’s status. The results

reveal, that designation is also quite significant followed by age and tenure of the

respondents.

3.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY

Demographic profile of the respondents corresponding to OCB and EI has

been analysed in this chapter. For the analysis of data, descriptive analysis, one way

ANOVA, contrast coefficients, contrast tests and post-hoc tests have been applied to

have better insight regarding the data analysed for demographic variables. Some of


139

the demographic variables like spouse’s status and number of dependents have not

been examined earlier. Findings related to spouse’s status have been quite appealing

for OCB and EI, while number of dependents and experience variables have

negligible influence. Age is significantly related to OCB, altruism and MOE,

depicting that younger employees are better in OCB and altruism scores compared to

their senior counterparts. There is noteworthy difference in OCB, conscientiousness,

courtesy and MOE among respondents based on their designation. Tenure and level

of education also emerged as important variables in this study.

Documents

CHAPTER 3 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS FOR …shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/13559/12/12... · 2015. 12. 4. · Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3 71 Education