Chapter 4 Statistical analysis and interpretation of …repository.christuniversity.in/1828/5/CHAPTER_-4.pdfChapter 4: Statistical analysis and interpretation of data Table 4.3: Indicating

Chapter 4

Statistical analysis and interpretation of data

4.1 Introduction

The previous chapter presented the methodology adopted for the present investigation, while

this chapter presents the statistical analysis of the data and the interpretation of the results.

After the data has been collected, it is processed using Microsoft Excel – 2007 Software. The

statistical techniques adopted are means and standard deviation, analysis of variation,

Pearson’s Correlation, and Regression. SPSS 18.0, statistical software, has been used to

conduct various statistical analyses. The results obtained thereby have been presented and

interpreted. This has been done after obtaining the perception of recreational facilities

available or made available by the management for utilisation in the organisation, for

utilisation by organisational employees, planning and conduct of recreation activities, and

their perceptions on contribution made. Aim of this investigation is to inquire into influence

of the recreational facilities on the employee contribution made towards their organisations

strategy. The collected data has been subjected to statistical treatments to arrive at the relevant

conclusions. It begins with the characteristics of the sample, sample design and the descriptive

statistics of the variables. Suitability and reasonability of the statistical instruments

employed an analysis of their reliability and validity has been included. It is also intention of

the researcher to report significant finding vis-à-vis attitudes of employees of variable

demographics, namely, gender ( male and female), age (≤25, 26-35, 36-45, 46-55, 56≥),

highest level of education ( Masters, M.Phil, PhD), marital status (married and unmarried),

work experience (2-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20, 21-25 and 26> years), experience in the current

position (designation) and experience in the current organisation.

Chapter 4: Statistical analysis and interpretation of data

The chapter has been organised under the following sections:

1. Descriptive statistics (frequency, means, standard deviation and percentages)

2. Bivariate analysis (Correlation)

3. Multivariate analysis (Regression)

4. Univariate analysis (ANOVA).

4.2 Sample Characteristics

The technique of judgement and convenience sampling has been employed to determine

sample for the study. A handy mix of organisations from IT, manufacturing, research and

development, public or private were chosen to represent the population of Indian

organisations.

An aggregate of 450 questionnaires was distributed personally by hand by the researcher, out

of which 210 completed questionnaires were returned, comprising a response rate of 46.7%.

Seven responses were eliminated due to excessive missing data. Valid sample size for testing

the hypotheses was 202 (45.11%). Tables from 4.1 to 4.9 present the profile of the

respondents with regard to gender, age, highest level of education, marital status, working

experience, experience in the current position and experience in the current organisation.

Names of the respondent organisations have been omitted on their instructions. All the

respondents were full-time employees who had completed at least two years in service with

their present organisations.

4.3 Respondent profile

The sample of respondents was drawn from ten different IT Services and manufacturing

organisations located in Bangalore. The number of participants varied amongst the

organisations - highest being 30.2 % from one manufacturing company and the least 2.97%

from one of the IT Solutions companies. The sample drawn was fully representative.

2


Table 4.1: Indicating frequency and percentage based on departments

dept

66 32.7 33.0 33.0

27 13.4 13.5 46.5

50 24.8 25.0 71.5

57 28.2 28.5 100.0

200 99.0 100.0

2 1.0

202 100.0

Personnel &Administration

Research & Development

Purchase & Procurement

Operations

Total

Valid

SystemMissing

Total

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

Percent

In terms of functional departments, the above table indicates that 33.0% of the respondents

were from the Personnel & Administration department, 13.5% from Research &

Development, 24.8% from Purchase & Procurement, and 28.5% from Operations.

Table 4.2: Indicating frequency and percentage based on designation

designation

49 24.3 25.0 25.0

30 14.9 15.3 40.3

20 9.9 10.2 50.5

24 11.9 12.2 62.8

47 23.3 24.0 86.7

26 12.9 13.3 100.0

196 97.0 100.0

6 3.0

202 100.0

Head of Department

Senior Manager

Manager

Assistant

Immediate Supervisor

Entry Level

Total

Valid

SystemMissing

Total


Percent

In terms of designation, the above table indicates that 25.0% of the respondents were Heads of

Departments, 153.% were Senior Managers, 9.9% Managers, 11.9% Assistant managers,

23.3% Supervisors, and 13.3% Entry Level.

3


Table 4.3: Indicating frequency and percentage based on gender

gender

44 21.8 22.8 22.8

149 73.8 77.2 100.0

193 95.5 100.0

9 4.5

202 100.0

female

male

Total

Valid

SystemMissing

Total


Percent

The above table indicates that most of the respondents (77.2%) were male, followed by

female (22.8%) in terms of gender.

Table 4.4: Indicating the frequency and percentage based on age

age

26 12.9 12.9 12.9

144 71.3 71.3 84.2

19 9.4 9.4 93.6

8 4.0 4.0 97.5

5 2.5 2.5 100.0

202 100.0 100.0

25- years and Below

26-35 years

36-45 years

46-55 years

56- years and Above

Total

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

The above table indicates that most of the respondents were from the age group between 26 –

35 yrs (71.3 %) followed by 25 yrs and below (12.9 %), 36-45 yrs (9.4 %) and the least was

from 56 yrs and above (2.5 %).

4


Table 4.5: Indicating the frequency and percentage based on education

edn

10 5.0 5.3 5.3

93 46.0 48.9 54.2

77 38.1 40.5 94.7

10 5.0 5.3 100.0

190 94.1 100.0

12 5.9

202 100.0

Diploma

Bachelor's Degree

Masters Degree

Ph D

Total

Valid

SystemMissing

Total


Percent

The above table indicates that most of the respondents were having Bachelor’s degree

(48.9%), followed by Master degree (40.5%), Ph D (5.3%) and Diploma holders (5.3%).

Table 4.6: Indicating the frequency and percentage of marital status

marital

97 48.0 57.7 57.7

71 35.1 42.3 100.0

168 83.2 100.0

34 16.8

202 100.0

Married

Single

Total

Valid

SystemMissing

Total


Percent

The above table showing marital status of respondents indicates that most of the respondents

were married (57.7%) followed by single respondents (42.3%)

5


Table 4.7: Indicating the frequency and percentage of total work experience

totworkexperience

70 34.7 34.7 34.7

57 28.2 28.2 62.9

34 16.8 16.8 79.7

14 6.9 6.9 86.6

12 5.9 5.9 92.6

15 7.4 7.4 100.0

202 100.0 100.0

2-5 years

6-10 years

11-15 years

16-20 years

21-25 years

More than 25 years

Total

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

The above Table indicates that most of the respondents were having a work experience of

2-5 yrs (34.7%), followed by 6-10 yrs (28.2%), 11-15 yrs (16.8 %), >25 yrs (7.4%), 16-20 yrs

(6.9%) and least from 21-25 yrs with (5.9%).

Table 4.8: Indicating the frequency and percentage years in current position

desigkexperience

140 69.3 70.0 70.0

38 18.8 19.0 89.0

12 5.9 6.0 95.0

7 3.5 3.5 98.5

3 1.5 1.5 100.0

200 99.0 100.0

2 1.0

202 100.0

2-5 years

6-10 years

11-15 years

16-20 years

21-25 years

Total

Valid

SystemMissing

Total


Percent

6


The above table indicates that most of the respondents were holding to their current position

for 2-5 (70.0%) yrs, followed by 6-10 yrs (19.0%), 11-15 yrs (6.0 %), 16-20 yrs (3.5%) and

least from 21-25 yrs with (1.5%).

Table 4.9: Indicating the frequency and percentage of total years working in the

current organisation

orgexperience

129 63.9 64.8 64.8

40 19.8 20.1 84.9

17 8.4 8.5 93.5

8 4.0 4.0 97.5

3 1.5 1.5 99.0

2 1.0 1.0 100.0

199 98.5 100.0

3 1.5

202 100.0

2-5 years

6-10 years

11-15 years

16-20 years

21-25 years

More than 25 years

Total

Valid

SystemMissing

Total


Percent

The above table indicates that most of the respondents were working in the current

organisation for a period of 2-5 yrs (64.8%) followed by followed by 6-10 yrs (20.1%), 11-15

yrs (8.5 %), 16-20 yrs (4.0%), 21-25 yrs with (1.5%) and the least from >25 yrs with (1.0%).

7


4.4 Descriptive statistics

Descriptive statistics describes the normality distribution of the scores of the sample under

investigation. The descriptive statistics for the variables examined in this study is presented in

this section. Tests of internal consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha) to assess the reliability of each

of the scales used were conducted. First, Cronbach’s Alpha for pilot study of the instrument

devised by the researcher was determined, and then, after some modifications, the tests were

subjected to the final questionnaire. All of the measures included in the questionnaire showed

acceptable levels of internal consistency reliability. The internal reliability for Employees’

productivity as a whole measured .887 while recreational facilities measured .837 and

recreation activities .951 for the present sample.

4.4.1 To map employees perception towards availability of Recreational facilities in Indian organisations Table 4.10: Indicating mean, standard deviation and normal distribution histogram

for Recreation facilities dimensions along with the scale statistics.

8


Descriptive Statistics

5.91 1.570

5.90 1.704

5.81 1.907

5.66 1.943

5.51 2.278

5.44 2.381

5.22 2.482

5.10 2.411

4.98 2.609

4.61 2.772

4.21 2.717

4.03 2.793

3.85 2.847

3.24 2.755

2.41 2.408

1.80 1.906

1.46 1.409

1.31 1.270

recFacil_Org

recFacil_Policy

recFacil_NeedForm

recFacil_asWaste_reversed

recFacil_In_CCTT

recFacil_out_Park

recFacil_In_MultiHall

recFacil_DayNight

recFacil_In_AVLib

recFacil_In_Gym

recFacil_out_FamPic

recFacil_out_Adven

recFacil_out_Bad

recFacil_In_Bad

recFacil_out_Tennis

recFacil_In_Billiards

recFacil_In_Saunabath

recFacil_In_Other

MeanStd.

Deviation

Amongst the eighteen items comprising the scale for recreational facilities, employees

perceived periodic organization, institutionalization/ policy, need for formalization, and not

considered as wastage of resources were found to have the highest mean ratings (above 5.50).

At the other extreme, other indoor facilities, indoor sauna bath, indoor billiards, and outdoor

badminton received the lowest ratings (below 2.50) on a 7 point Likert scale.

Employees perceived no provisioning of recreational facilities with respect to outdoor

badminton (3.85), indoor badminton (3.24), outdoor tennis (2.41), indoor billiards (1.80),

indoor sauna bath (1.46), or any other facility (1.31) on the scale from inclined to disagree (3)

to disagree (1); moderate provisioning of recreational facilities such as outdoor adventure

(4.03), outdoor family picnic (4.21), indoor gymnasium (4.61) and indoor audio/ video and

conventional library. Whereas, provisioning of recreational facilities such as provisioning for

day and night shifts (5.10), multipurpose hall (5.22), outdoor park (5.44), indoor carom, chess

and table tennis (5.51) was perceived to be moderately high. Highest in ratings was the policy

institutionalizing recreation in organization rules (5.91), organised by earmarking appropriate

period (5.90), need to be formalised (5.81), and recreational facility is not a waste of effort

(5.66).

9


The

level

of perception of importance of recreational facilities varied considerably in the range 1.00 -

6.00, with a peak close to 5.00 - 5.50. The mean value was 4.29, with standard deviation 1.14

and the overall perception of the availability of Recreational Facilities was found to be

moderate with the policy Item No 6 ‘Organisation of Recreational Facilities needs to be

formalised in the company rules’ being the highest and ‘Any other Recreational Facility is

existing’, the least.

4.4.2 To map perception of employees towards Recreational activities in Indian organisations

Table 4.11: Indicating mean, standard deviation and normal distribution histogram

for Recreation activities dimensions along with the scale statistics.

Amongst the twenty-eight items comprising the scale for recreational activities organised,

involvement of activities advancing communication, goal-setting and clarification of goals, 10

Figure 4.1: Frequency histogram of mean ratings for recreational facilities dimensions


creating satisfaction through the process of rewards & recognition, building of trust and

confidence, self-efficacy, and team-work were found to have the highest mean ratings (above

5.50). At the other extreme, feedback/ involved feedback between leadership and participants,

practicing of spiritual discourses, spiritual health and inclusion of immediate families in

outdoor activities for example, picnics, trekking and social gatherings received the lowest

ratings (below 5.0).

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

RecAct

40

30

20

10

0

Frequency

Mean =5.4278

Std. Dev. =1.3048

N =202

Histogram

Figure 4.2: Frequency histogram of mean ratings for recreational activities dimensions

The level of perception of availability of Recreational Activities varied considerably in the

range 2.00 - 7.00, with a peak close to 6.00 - 5.75. The mean value was 5.43, with standard

deviation 1.30.

11


4.4.3 To find employees perception towards perceived contribution of employees as a result of recreation facilities (inclusive of recreation activities).

Table 4.12: Indicating mean, standard deviation and normal distribution histogram

for employee contribution dimensions along with the scale statistics.

It has been observed that perception of employees towards employee contribution

(productivity) as a result of recreational facilities is very high (mean 5.89). Most of the ratings

centred around on a Likert scale of 7 points. This indicates the strength of perception of

employees and their positive attitude towards importance of recreational facilities in

enhancement of employee contribution.

Amongst the sixteen items comprising the scale for employee contribution, belief that happy

employees are productive employees, loyalty to their organisations, better psychological

health, trust in support of colleagues and organisation doing a better job, and physical well-

being were found to have the highest mean ratings (above 6.20). At the other extreme, thrill of

winning in games and sports and its connection with productivity (4.26) and improvement in

organizational citizenship behaviour (5.01) received lowest ratings but still remained on

positive side of the scale (> 4 points).

The level of perception of importance of employee contribution varied considerably in the

range 3.00 - 7.00, with a peak close to 6.25 - 6.50. The mean value was 5.89, with standard

deviation 1.00.

12

Figure 4.3: Frequency histogram of mean ratings for employee contribution dimensions


4.5 Correlational analysis (bivariate analysis)

4.5.1 Hypothesis H₀₁: There is no significant relationship between organizational

Recreational facilities and Employee contribution.

4.5.2 Hypothesis H₀₂: There is no significant relationship between organizational

Recreation activities and Employee contribution.

Table 4.13: Indicating Pearson correlations among Recreational facilities, Recreation

activities and Employee contribution

Dimensions under Investigation

Employee Contribution

Recreational Facilities .533**Recreation Activities .769**

There was significant positive correlation between the perception of importance of

recreational facilities and recreational activities and the level of employee contribution. Thus,

the level of employee contribution is related to the perception of importance of recreational

facilities and the perception of importance of recreational activities. However, it was also

observed that Recreation activities variable was more positively correlated than Recreational

facilities to Employee contribution. Strength of correlation in case of Recreation Activities

was stronger (.769) as compared to (.533), in case of Recreational Facilities at .01 level of

significance.

Table 4.14 results indicate that null hypothesis H₀₁ is rejected and the alternate hypothesis is

accepted that there is significant relationship between employees’ perception of Recreational

facilities and employee contribution to the organisation. Significant positive association was

found between recreational facilities and employee contribution (.533**). The strength of

relationship was moderate (.533**).

13


Table 4.14 results also indicate that null hypothesis H₀₂ is also rejected and the

alternate hypothesis is accepted that there is significant relationship

between employees’ perception of Recreation activities and employee

contribution to his organisation. Significant positive relationship was found between

recreation activities and employee contribution. The strength of relationship was high

(.769**).

4.6 Multivariate analysis – stepwise regression

4.6.1 Hypothesis 3 (H₀₃): Organizational Recreational facilities and

Recreation activities do not significantly influence employee Contribution.

Table 4.14: Indicating R square of employee contribution on Recreational facilities

and Recreation activities, ANOVA and coefficients of stepwise multiple regression.

Multiple linear regression of level of employee contribution on the independent variables of

perception of importance of recreational facilities and perception of importance of

recreational activities was found to be statistically significant (with Fcal = 150.350, and p-

value = 0.000). Both of the independent variables were found to have a significant impact on

the level of employee contribution, and together explained 60.2% of the overall variation in

level of employee contribution. Further, the perception of importance of recreational activities

had more than 5.5 times the impact as the perception of importance of recreational facilities

on the level of employee contribution.

14


It was found that recreational facilities and recreation activities significantly influenced

employee contribution. The results of Table 4.17 indicate that null hypothesis H₀₃ is

rejected and alternate hypothesis that recreational facilities and recreation

activities influence employee contribution significantly, is accepted.

4.7 Univariate analysis – ANOVA

4.7.1 Hypothesis H₀₄: There are no significant differences across demographics and

with reference to perceptions of organizational recreational facilities and organizational

recreation activities.

4.7.2 Hypothesis H₀₅: There are no significant differences across demographics with

reference to perceptions of Employees contribution to their organizations.

15


Table 4.15.1: Indicating summary of perceptions of employees across Departments, with

reference to the importance of Recreational facilities, Recreation activities and employee

contribution as a result of Recreational facilities.

Table 4.15.2: Indicating ANOVA for Recreational facilities, recreation activities and

employee contribution as a result of Recreational facilities across Departments.

There was significant difference in the perception of importance of recreational facilities and

the level of employee contribution between different departments. The perception of

importance of recreational facilities and of the level of employee contribution was

significantly lower for the purchase & procurement department than for other departments.

There was no significant difference in the perception of importance of recreational activities

between different departments.

It was found that results of Table 4.16.2 indicate that there are significant differences in

perception of employees vis-à-vis recreational facilities but congruence of perception was

observed towards recreation activities across Departments. Hypothesis H₀₄ is partially

rejected and alternate hypothesis that significant difference in perception exists across

departments in relation to recreation facility but not recreation activities.

Table 4.16.2 results indicate that there is significant difference in opinion in relation to

Employee contribution across departments. Null hypothesis H₀5 is rejected and alternate

hypothesis that significant difference in opinion on importance of employee contribution

exists across Departments.

16


Table 4.16.1: Indicating summary of perceptions of employees across Designations, with



Report

3.5740

4.1065

4.6060

4.2530

4.7058

4.8117

4.2795

1.39293

.93640

1.08943

1.07193

.81717

.75637

1.14556

4.9960

5.4104

5.3321

5.5227

5.6989

5.7537

17


5.4273

1.37858

1.12951

.92929

1.30648

1.28788

1.54071

1.31128

5.6342

5.6646

5.7536

6.0000

6.0548

6.4014

5.8985

.96182

.87430

.83777

1.05986

1.14740

.81837

1.00385

Mean

Std. Deviation

Mean

Std. Deviation

Mean

Std. Deviation

RecFac

RecAct

Contrib

Head of

Department

Senior

Manager

Manager

Assistant

Manager

18


Supervisor

Entry Level

Total

designation


employee contribution as a result of Recreational facilities across Designations.


the level of employee contribution between different designations. The perception of

importance of recreational facilities and of the level of employee contribution was

significantly lower for heads of departments and senior managers than for other designations.

There was no significant difference in the perception of importance of recreational activities

between different designations.


perception of employees vis-à-vis recreational facilities but congruence of perception was

observed towards recreation activities across Designations. Hypothesis H₀₄ is partially

rejected and alternate hypothesis that significant difference in perception exists across

designations in relation to recreation facility but not recreation activities.


Employee contribution across designations. Null hypothesis H₀5 is rejected and alternate

hypothesis that significant difference in opinion on importance of employee contribution

exists across designations.

19


Table 4.17.1: Indicating summary of perceptions of employees across Gender, with




employee contribution as a result of Recreational facilities across Gender.

20



the importance of recreational activities between men and women. The perception of

importance of recreational facilities and of the importance of recreational activities was

significantly higher for men than for women. There was no significant difference in the

perception of level of employee contribution between men and women.


perception of men and women vis-à-vis recreational facilities and recreation activities across

Gender. Hypothesis H₀₄ is rejected and alternate hypothesis that significant difference in

perception exists across Gender in relation to recreational facilities and recreation activities.

Table 4.18.2 results indicate that there is no significant difference in opinion in relation to

Employee contribution across Gender. Null hypothesis H₀5 is accepted across Gender.

21


Table 4.18.1: Indicating summary of perceptions of employees across Age, with




employee contribution as a result of Recreational facilities across Age.


the importance of recreational activities between age groups. The perception of importance of

recreational facilities and of the importance of recreational activities generally increased with

age group. There was no significant difference in the perception of level of employee

contribution between age groups.


perception of employees vis-à-vis recreational facilities and recreation activities across Age.

Hypothesis H₀₄ is rejected and alternate hypothesis that significant difference in perception

exists across Age in relation to recreational facilities and recreation activities.

Table 4.19.2 results indicate that there is no significant difference in opinion in relation to

Employee contribution across Age. Null hypothesis H₀5 is accepted across Age.

22


Table 4.19.1: Indicating summary of perceptions of employees across Educational

qualification, with reference to the importance of Recreational facilities, Recreation

activities and employee contribution as a result of Recreational facilities.


employee contribution as a result of Recreational facilities across Educational

qualification.

23


There was significant difference in the perception of importance of recreational facilities, the

importance of recreational activities, and the level of employee contribution between

educational groups. The perception of importance of recreational facilities, recreational

activities, and the level of employee contribution were significantly lower for Masters’ degree

holders than for others.


perception of employees vis-à-vis recreational facilities and recreation activities across

Educational qualification. Hypothesis H₀₄ is rejected and alternate hypothesis that significant

difference in perception exists across educational qualification in relation to recreational

facilities and recreation activities.


Employee contribution across educational qualification. Null hypothesis H₀5 is rejected across

educational qualification and alternate hypothesis that there is significant difference in

perception across educational qualification of employees in relation to level of employee

contribution.

24


Table 4.20.1: Indicating summary of perceptions of employees across Marital status,

with reference to the importance of Recreational facilities, Recreation activities and

employee contribution as a result of Recreational facilities.


employee contribution as a result of Recreational facilities across Educational

qualification.

There was significant difference in the perception of importance of recreational activities

between married and single professionals. The perception of importance of recreational

activities was significantly higher for single professionals than for married professionals.

There was no significant difference in the perception of importance of recreational facilities

and level of employee contribution between married and single professionals..

It was found that results of Table 4.21.2 indicate that there is significant difference in

perception of employees vis-à-vis and recreation activities across Marital status but no

difference in perception of recreational facilities. Hypothesis H₀₄ is partially rejected and

alternate hypothesis that significant difference in perception exists across Marital status in

relation to recreation activities but no significant difference in perception of recreational

facilities exists.

Table 4.21.2 results indicate that there is no significant difference in perception in relation to

Employee contribution across Marital status. Null hypothesis H₀5 is accepted across Marital

status,

25


Table 4.21.1: Indicating summary of perceptions of employees across Total work

experience, with reference to the importance of Recreational facilities, Recreation

activities and employee contribution as a result of Recreational facilities.


employee contribution as a result of Recreational facilities across Total work experience.

26



importance of recreational activities, and the level of employee contribution according to total

work experience. The perception of importance of recreational facilities, recreational

activities, and the level of employee contribution generally increased with experience, with

lowest level for professionals with less experience (less than 5 yrs.).


perception of employees vis-à-vis recreational facilities and recreation activities across Total

work experience. Hypothesis H₀₄ is rejected and alternate hypothesis that significant

difference in perception exists across Total work experience in relation to recreational

facilities and recreation activities.


Employee contribution across Total work experience. Null hypothesis H₀5 is rejected across

Total work experience and alternate hypothesis that there is significant difference in

perception across Total work experience of employees in relation to level of employee

contribution.

27


Table 4.22.1: Indicating summary of perceptions of employees across work experience

at the current designation, with reference to the importance of Recreational facilities,

Recreation activities and employee contribution as a result of Recreational facilities.


employee contribution as a result of Recreational facilities across work experience at the

current designation.


importance of recreational activities, and the level of employee contribution according to

work experience at the current designation. The perception of importance of recreational

facilities, recreational activities, and the level of employee contribution generally increased

with experience, with lowest level for professionals with less experience (less than 5 yrs.).


perception of employees vis-à-vis recreational facilities and recreation activities across work

experience at the current designation. Hypothesis H₀₄ is rejected and alternate hypothesis that

significant difference in perception exists across work experience at the current designation,

in relation to recreational facilities and recreation activities.


Employee contribution across work experience at the current designation. Null hypothesis

H₀5 is rejected across work experience at the current designation and alternate hypothesis that

there is significant difference in perception across work experience at the current designation

of employees, in relation to level of employee contribution.

28


Table 4.23.1: Indicating summary of perceptions of employees across work experience

within the current organisation, with reference to the importance of Recreational

facilities, Recreation activities and employee contribution as a result of Recreational

facilities.


employee contribution as a result of Recreational facilities across work experience

within the current organisation.

29



importance of recreational activities, and the level of employee contribution according to

work experience within the current organisation. The perception of importance of recreational

facilities, recreational activities, and the level of employee contribution generally increased

with experience, with lowest level for professionals with less experience (less than 5 yrs.).


perception of employees vis-à-vis recreational facilities and recreation activities across work

experience within the current organisation. Hypothesis H₀₄ is rejected and alternate

hypothesis that significant difference in perception exists across work experience within the

current organisation, in relation to recreational facilities and recreation activities.

Table 4.24.2 results indicate that there is significant difference in perception in relation to

Employee contribution across work experience within the current organisation. Null

hypothesis H₀5 is rejected across work experience within the current organisation and

alternate hypothesis that there is significant difference in perception across work experience

within the current organisation of employees, in relation to level of employee contribution.

30

Documents

Chapter 4 Statistical analysis and interpretation of …repository.christuniversity.in/1828/5/CHAPTER_-4.pdfChapter 4: Statistical analysis and interpretation of data Table 4.3: Indicating