You are on page 1of 74

“A STUDY ON JOB SATISFACTION OF EMPLOYEES IN

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED


CHENNAI”

MAJOR PROJECT REPORT

Submitted by
R.MUTHUKUMAR
06BA078

Under the guidance of


Mr. BRIGHTON ANBU
Lecturer
KSM

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the degree of
” MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION” of Karunya university

KARUNYA SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT


KARUNYA UNIVERSITY
COIMBATORE-641114

KARUNYA SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT


KARUNYA UNIVERSITY
DECLARATION

I hereby declare, the project work entitled “A STUDY ON JOB SATISFACTION IN


CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED, CHENNAI” for
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the degree of “MASTER OF
BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION”, as a record of original work done by me under the
supervision and guidance of Mr. BRIGHTON ANBU, Karunya school of management,
Karunya university, COIMBATORE. This project work has not formed the basis for the
award of any Degree /Diploma/Associateship/Fellowship of similar titles to any
candidate of any university.

Place: Signature of the student


Date:
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I am indebted to the all powerful ALMIGHTY GOD for all the blessings he
showered on me and for being with me throughout the study.

I would like to express my sincere thanks to Mr. Dr. REVEES WESLY, HOS
Karunya School of management who provided me an opportunity to do this project.

I am deeply obliged to Mr. RAYMOND LOBO (VICE PRESIDENT-HR) AND


MS. MALINI (HR-MANAGER) for his exemplary guidance and support without
whose help this project would not have been success.

I would like to place on record my sincere gratitude and appreciation to my project guide
Mr. BRIGHTON ANBU Karunya school of management, for his kind co-
operation and guidance which enabled me to complete my project.

I also take this opportunity to express my deed gratitude to my loving parents and
friends who are a constant source of motivation and for their never ending support and
encouragement during this project.
S.No Title of the Table Page
No
1. Table showing gender of the respondents

2. Table showing monthly income of the respondents

3. Table showing Education qualification of the respondents

4. Table showing marital status of the respondents

5. Table showing Years of experience of the respondents

6. Table showing Working hours are convenient for me of the employees

7. Table showing I’ m happy with the work place of the respondents

8. Table showing the lightings and other arrangements in the office are satisfactory
of the respondents
9. Table showing I have too much work to do of the respondents

10. Table showing safety measures provided by the company of the respondents

11. Table showing My relationship with my supervisors is cordial of the respondents

12. Table showing my supervisor in not partial of the respondents

13. Table showing my supervisor considers my idea too while taking decision of the
respondents
14. Table showing I’m satisfied with the support from my co-workers of the
respondents
15. Table showing People here have concern over one another and tend to help one
another of the respondents
16. Table showing I’ m happy with the refreshment facilities of the respondents

17. Table showing we are provided with the rest and lunch room facilities and they
are good of the respondents
18. Table showing the parking space for our facilities of the respondents

19. Table showing I’ m satisfied with the first aid facilities of the respondents.

20 Table showing I’m satisfied with the loan facilities and other personal welfare
facilities offered by the company of the respondents
21 Table showing I feel I’m paid a fair amount for the work I do of the respondents

22. Tale showing I’ m satisfied with the chances for my promotion of the respondents.

23. Table showing the salary we receive are good as other organizations offer of the
respondents
24. Table showing I’m satisfied with the allowances provided by the organization of
the respondents
25. Table showing I feel my boss motivates me to achieve the organizational goals of
the respondents
26. Table showing my supervisor motivates me to increase my productivity when I’m
unproductive of the respondents.
27. Table showing communication seems good within this organization of the
respondents
28. Table showing work assignments are explained clearly to me of the respondents

29 Table showing I love this job and to work in this organization of the respondents.

30 Table showing My work life is meaningful to me of the respondents

31 Table showing my work life is valuable in attaining organizational goals of the


respondents
32 Table showing I have adequate opportunities to use my ability of the respondents

33 Table showing overall I’m satisfied with the job of the respondents

34 Table showing the significance difference among experience group of


respondents with reference to environment and nature of work factor
35. Table showing the significance differ ence among experience group of
respondents with reference to Relationship with supervisors and colleagues factor
36. Table showing the significance differ ence among experience group of
respondents with reference to welfare facilities factor
37. Table showing the significance differ ence among experience group of
respondents with reference to Pay and promotion factor
38. Table showing the significance differ ence among experience group of
respondents with reference to Communication and motivation factor
39. Table showing the significance differ ence among experience group of
respondents with reference to job factor.
40. Table showing the significance differ ence among Age group of respondents with
reference to job factor.
41. Table showing the significance differ ence among Gender of respondents with
reference to job factor.

S.No Title of the Chart Page


No
1. Chart showing gender of the respondents

2. Chart showing monthly income of the respondents

3. Chart showing Education qualification of the respondents

4. Chart showing marital status of the respondents

5. Chart showing Years of exper ience of the respondents

6. Chart showing Working hours are convenient for me of the employees

7. Chart showing I’m happy with the work place of the respondents

8. Chart showing the lightings and other arrangements in the office are satisfactory
of the respondents
9. Chart showing I have too much work to do of the respondents

10. Chart showing safety measures provided by the company of the respondents

11. Chart showing My relationship with my supervisors is cordial of the respondents

12. Chart showing my supervisor in not partial of the respondents

13. Chart showing my supervisor considers my idea too while taking decision of the
respondents
14. Chart showing I’m satisfied with the support from my co-workers of the
respondents
15. Chart showing People here have concern over one another and tend to help one
another of the respondents
16. Chart showing I’m happy with the refreshment facilities of the respondents

17. Chart showing we are provided with the rest and lunch room facilities and they
are good of the respondents
18. Chart showing the parking space for our facilities of the respondents

19. Chart showing I’m satisfied with the first aid facilities of the respondents.

20 Chart showing I’m satisfied with the loan facilities and other personal welfare
facilities offered by the company of the respondents
21 Chart showing I feel I’m paid a fair amount for the work I do of the respondents

22. Tale showing I’ m satisfied with the chances for my promotion of the respondents.

23. Chart showing the salary we receive are good as other organizations offer of the
respondents
24. Chart showing I’m satisfied with the allowances provided by the organization of
the respondents
25. Chart showing I feel my boss motivates me to achieve the organizational goals of
the respondents
26. Chart showing my supervisor motivates me to increase my productivity when I’m
unproductive of the respondents.
27. Chart showing communication seems good within this organization of the
respondents
28. Chart showing work assignments are explained clearly to me of the respondents

29 Chart showing I love this job and to work in this organization of the respondents.

30 Chart showing My work life is meaningful to me of the respondents

31 Chart showing my work life is valuable in attaining organizational goals of the


respondents
32 Chart showing I have adequate opportunities to use my ability of the respondents

33 Chart showing overall I’m satisfied with the job of the respondents

Chapter -I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Job Satisfaction:
Job Satisfaction is the favorableness or un-favorableness with
which the employee views his work. It expresses the amount of
agreement between one’s expectation of the job and the rewards that the
job provides. Job Satisfaction is a part of life satisfaction. The nature of
one’s environment of job is an important part of life as Job Satisfaction
influences one’s general life satisfaction.

Job Satisfaction, thus, is the result of various attitudes possessed by an


employee. In a narrow sense, these attitudes are related to the job under
condition with such specific factors such as wages. Supervisors of
employment, conditions of work, social relation on the job, prompt
settlement of grievances and fair treatment by employer.

However, more comprehensive approach requires that many factors are


to be included before a complete understanding of job satisfaction can be
obtained. Such factors as employee’s age, health temperature, desire and
level of aspiration should be considered. Further his family relationship,
Social status, recreational outlets, activity in the organizations etc.
Contribute ultimately to job satisfaction.

1.2 FACTORS INFLUENCING JOB SATISFACTION


The major factors influencing job satisfaction are presented below:

SUPERVISION
To a worker, Supervision is equally a strong contributor to the job
satisfaction as well as to the job dissatisfaction. The feelings of workers
towards his supervisors are usually similar to his feeling towards the
company. The role of supervisor is a focal point for attitude formation.
Bad supervision results in absenteeism and labor turnover. Good
supervision results in higher production and good industrial relations.

CO-WORKERS
Various studies had traced this factor as a factor of intermediate
importance. One’s associates with others had frequently been motivated
as a factor in job satisfaction. Certainly, this seems reasonable because
people like to be near their friends. The workers derive satisfaction when
the co-workers are helpful, friendly and co-operative.

PAY
Studies also show that most of the workers felt satisfied when they are
paid more adequately to the work performed by them. The relative
important of pay would probably changing factor in job satisfaction or
dissatisfaction.

AGE
Age has also been found to have a direct relationship to level job of
satisfaction of employees. In some groups job satisfaction is higher with
increasing age, in other groups job satisfaction is lower and in other
there is no difference at all.
MARITAL STATUS

Marital status has an important role in deciding the job satisfaction.


Most of the studies have revealed that the married person finds
dissatisfaction in his job than his unmarried counterpart. The reasons
stated to be are that wages were insufficient due to increased cost of
living, educations to children etc.

EDUCATION
Studies conducted among various workers revealed that most of workers
who had not completed their school education showed higher satisfaction
level. However, educated workers felt less satisfied in their job.

WORKING CONDITION
The result of various studies shows that working condition is an
important factor. Good working atmosphere and pleasant surroundings
help increasing the production of industry. Working conditions are more
important to women workers than men workers.

1.3 REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

JOB SATISFACTION OF BANK OFFICERS IN BANGLADESH


– by NAZRUL ISLAM & GOUR CHANDRA SAHA
This study attempts to evaluate job satisfaction of bank officers in
Bangladesh. It focuses on the relative importance of job satisfaction
factors and their impacts on the overall job satisfaction of officers. It also
investigates the impacts of bank type, work experience, age, and sex
differences on the attitudes toward job Satisfaction.

The result shows that salary, efficiency in work, fringe


supervision, and co-worker relation are the most important factors
contributing to job satisfaction. Private bank officers have higher levels
of job satisfaction than those from public sectors as they enjoy better
facilities and supportive work environment. Sex and age differences have
relatively lower level of impact on it. The overall job satisfaction of the
bank officers is at the positive level.

Factors affecting Job satisfaction among academic professionals in


tertiary institutions in Zimbabwe

– By P. Chimanikire, E. Mutandwa, C. T.
Gadzirayi, N. Muzondo and B. Mutandwa
The broad objective of this study was to determine factors affecting
job satisfaction among academic professionals in tertiary institutions of
Zimbabwe against the backdrop of high brain drain in the sector. A total
of eighty respondents were selected randomly from departmental lists
and interviewed using structured questionnaires.

The results of the study showed that a greater proportion of the


academic staff was not satisfied with their jobs. Reasons for
dissatisfaction include high volume of work, inadequate salaries,
allowances, loans to facilities purchase of housing stands and cars.

1.4 Objective of the study:


1. To Study the job satisfaction of employees in Cholamandalam MS
General Insurance, Chennai.

2. To Measure the satisfaction levels of employees on various factors


and give suggestions for improving the same.

3. To find out whether experience have an effect on Job Factors.

4. To find the significance difference among age groups with respect


to job Factors.

5. To find the significance difference among male and female


employees with respect to job Factors.

1.5 Limitations of the study:

1. Sample size of the study is only 100.

2. Some of the respondents were not responding to some of the


questions.

3. Due to time constraint the researcher was not able to complete the
project to desired level.
INDUSTRY PROFILE

2.1 Industry
INSURANCE:

We face a lot of risks in our daily lives. Some of these lead to financial
losses. Insurance is a way of protecting against these financial losses.
For a payment (premium), an insurance company will take the
responsibility of compensating your financial losses.

Insurance can be termed as a form of risk management which is mainly


used to protect an individual against the risk of prospective finan cial
loss, if any. Insurance can be used as a tool to shield an individual
against potential risks like travel accidents, death, unemployment, theft,
property destruction by natural calamities, fire mishaps etc.

Life insurance:

Loss of a family member is a catastrophe which glooms a family’s life.


But even more tragic is the death of a sole bread earner for the family,
who then has to go through the pain of losing their loved one, as well as
the financial loss putting their survival in jeopardy.

This financial hardship due to a sudden death of a family member or a


disability resulting to a loss of job or inability to
Work can be avoided to a great extent by taking up a life insurance
policy.

A Life insurance or disability insurance covers such losses and pays a


family, compensation to restore the earnings lost by them due to a
Sudden death or disability.

The monthly premiums for a life insurance are generally based upon the
age, health, and occupation information of the applicant, in addition to
the total benefits to be paid to him for his policy.

General Insurance:

Insurance other than ‘Life Insurance’ falls under the category of General
Insurance. General Insurance comprises of insurance of property against
fire, burglary etc, personal insurance such as Accident and Health
Insurance, and liability insurance which covers legal liabilities. There are
also other covers such as Errors and Omissions insurance for
professionals, credit insurance etc.

Non-life insurance companies have products that cover property against


Fire and allied perils, flood storm and inundation, earthquake and so on.
There are products that cover property against burglary, theft etc. The
non-life companies also offer policies covering machinery against
breakdown, there are policies that cover the hull of ships and so on. A
Marine Cargo policy covers goods in transit including by sea, air and
road. Further, insurance of motor vehicles against damages and theft
forms a major chunk of non-life insurance business.

In respect of insurance of property, it is important that the cover is taken


for the actual value of the property to avoid being imposed a penalty
should there be a claim. Where a property is undervalued for the
purposes of insurance, the insured will have to bear a ratable proportion
of the loss. For instance if the value of a property is Rs.100 and it is
insured for Rs.50/-, in the event of a loss to the extent of say Rs.50/-,
the maximum claim amount payable would be Rs.25/- (50% of the loss
being borne by the insured for underinsuring the property by 50%). This
concept is quite often not understood by most insured.

Personal insurance covers include policies for Accident, Health etc.


Products offering Personal Accident cover are benefit policies. Health
insurance covers offered by non-life insurers are mainly hospitalization
covers either on reimbursement or cashless basis. The cashless service is
offered through Third Party Administrators who have arrangements with
various service providers, i.e., hospitals. The Third Party Administrators
also provide service for reimbursement claims. Sometimes the insurers
themselves process reimbursement claims.

Accident and health insurance policies are available for individuals as


well as groups. A group could be a group of employees of an organization
or holders of credit cards or deposit holders in a bank etc. Normally
when a group is covered, insurers offer group discounts.

Liability insurance covers such as Motor Third Party Liability Insurance,


Workmen’s Compensation Policy etc offer cover against legal liabilities
that may arise under the respective statutes— Motor Vehicles Act, The
Workmen’s Compensation Act etc. Some of the covers such as the
foregoing (Motor Third Party and Workmen’s Compensation policy) are
compulsory by statute. Liability Insurance not compulsory by statute is
also gaining popularity these days. Many industries insure against Public
liability. There are liability covers available for Products as well.
COMPANY PROFILE
2.2 The Murugappa Group:

The Murugappa Group, a century old group with a turnover of Rs.7300


crores, is a 1.85 billion USD conglomerate with business interests. It has
29 companies under its umbrella of which eight are listed and actively
traded as the National Stock Exchange and the Bombay Stock Exchange.

The Murugappa Group is the recipient of the Distinguished Family


Business Award – 2001 from the International Institute of Management
Development (IIMD) in Switzerland. It is the only business group in Asia to
have received this prestigious award.

The Murugappa Group, a century old group with a turnover of Rs.7300


crores.

• Diversified businesses – abrasives, engineering, farm inputs,


plantations, sugar, bio-products, chemicals, nutraceuticals and
financial services.

• Industry leader in many fields – first Indian corporate house that


evolved from being a family-owned business to a professionally run
organization, committed to corporate governance.

• Key Strengths – highly people-oriented people, with a workforce of nearly


28,000 satisfied employees.
• Deeply committed to various social concerns – be it healthcare,
education or field research to help rural India.
Group Companies

The Major group Companies are:

Tube Investments of India Ltd. – Core business areas are in the


manufacturing of bicycles, steel strips tubing and auto components.
Leading Brands – BSA and Hercules.

EID Parry India Ltd. – The Company has interest in Sugar and bio-
chemicals. Erstwhile Sanitary ware division was recently spun off as Joint
Venture with ROCA, Spain.

Carborundum Universal Ltd. – A pioneer and industry leader in


abrasives, electro chemicals, refractories and industrial ceramics. Leading
brands – Ball master, Ajax and Jawan.

Coromandel Fertilizers – Bringing world-class technology to the


Indian farmer enabling him to produce more from small land holdings.
Assisting India achieve self-sufficiency in food.

Godavari Fertilisers – Godavari Fertilizers, a Company acquired from


the Government of Andhra Pradesh manufacturers phosphatic fertilizers in
Kakinada.

Chola DBS Finance Company LTd. – Strong presence in the


financial service sector, with a solid reputation in automobile financing.
Parry Agro Industries Ltd. – Part of the Group’s plantation business,
has many firsts to its credit. It is the first tea factory in the world to be
computerized and the first CTC factory to obtain the ISO 9000 certification.

Parry Nutraceuticals Ltd. – A major player in the field of healthcare.


Leading Brands - Beta Carotene and Spirulina, both highly successful
nutritional supplements.

Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Group

Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Group is one of the largest insurance groups in


the world. Today the group operates in non-life insurance, life insurance,
financial services and risk management services.

With non-life insurance as its core business, the Mitsui Sumitomo


Insurance Groups operations span 38 countries across the globe. With A
GWP of 13.74 billion USD in 2005, MS is the second largest insurance
group in Japan, in terms of net premium and is rated AA – Standard &
Poor and Aa3 by Moody’s

Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance has 733 sales bases, 257 claims handling
offices and approximately 75,000 agents throughout Japan to form a sales
network of the highest class in the industry. The company also offers global
services with 61 sales bases in 38 countries and regions overseas.
Cholamandalam Financial Services Group

Chola DBS Finance Company LTd. is a financial service conglomerate that


has achieved a high compound annual growth rate. Cholamandalam today
has a strong presence in the financial service sector, with a solid reputation
in automobile financing. With a strong focus on growth, Cholamandalam
has widened its services by diversifying into mutual funds, insurance sector
and recently into personal finance.

The Business Units

The business units within Cholamandalam are:

• Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. (General


Insurance )
• Chola DBS Finance Company Ltd (CDFL)

(Asset Finance: Leasing, Hire purchase, Corporate Finance, Capital


market Finance)

• DBS Cholamandalam Asset Management Co. Ltd. (CAMC)

(Mutual Funds)

• DBS Cholamandalam Distribution Services Ltd. (CDS)

(Retail Distribution of Financial Products)

• DBS Cholamandalam Securities Ltd. (CSec)(Stock Broking)


• Cholamandalam MS Risk Management Services Ltd. (CMSRS)(Risk
Inspection and Management Consulting)
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd:

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. is a Joint Venture


between the $2.0 billion Murugappa Group, one of India’s largest family-
promoted, professionally managed business groups enjoying leadership
position in many of its several diversified businesses and Mitsui
Sumitomo Insurance Group of Japan, one of the top ten General
Insurance companies globally and Japans second largest Insurance
Group.

Cholamandalam MS offers a rich range of comprehensive product


solutions panning almost all non-life Insurance offerings ranging from
Motor Insurance, Health, Home, Travel, to Accident, Property, Marine
and Engineering. The Organizations’ commitment to consumer
orientation is seen right from Underwriting and product development, its
product differentiation, high operational efficiency for policy issuances, to
excellent customer redressal mechanisms for fair and quick Claims
settlement. With its competencies and consumer focus, Cholamandalam
MS is poised to become one of the large players in the Industry.

The company was incorporated as Cholamandalam General Insurance


Company Limited on November 2, 2001 under the companies Act, 1956
and received its Certificate of Registration from the Insurance Regulatory
and Development Authority on July 15, 2002 to transact general insurance
business.

During the year 2003-2004 the company inducted Mitsui Sumitomo


Insurance Company Limited, Japan as a strategic alliance partner with a
26% stake and the company’s name was consequently changed to
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited effective May 8,
2003.

Board of Directors
M A Alagappan Chairman
M Anandan Managing Director
(w.e.f. April 1, 2006)
V Natarajan Director
R Srinivasan Director
Suresh N Talwar Director
Makoto Toyoshima Director
Isamu Endo Director
(w.e.f. April 25, 2006)
Susumu Uchida Director
(till April 25, 2006)
Junichi Kitamura Wholetime Director

Senior Management Team


M Anandan Managing Director
Junichi Kitamura Wholetime Director
S S Gopalarathnam Executive Vice President
V Suryanarayanan Vice President -Finance
Shivkumar Shankar Business Head-Retail
M Subramanian Business Head-Commercial
S N Roy Head-Information Technology
Kaira Gangaiah Head-Human Resources
Suresh Krishnan Company Secretary
Auditors
M/s. Price Waterhouse, Chennai
M/s. S.B. Billimoria & Co., Chennai

Bankers
Standard Chartered Bank, Chennai
Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation, Chennai
HDFC Bank Ltd., Chennai
ICICI Bank Ltd., Chennai
Bank of Tokyo- Mitsubishi Ltd., Chennai
American Express Bank Ltd., Chennai
CHAPTER – III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:
The methodology followed for conducting the study includes the specification of research
design, sample design, questionnaire design, data collection and statistical tools used for
analyzing the collected data.

3.1 Research design:


The research design used for this study is of the descriptive type. Descriptive research

studies are those studies which are concerned with describing the characteristics of a

particular individual or a group.

3.2 Sample size:


The sample size consisting of 100 respondents were selected for the study.

3.3 Sampling design:


Since it is difficult to contact the entire population, sampling technique was adopted. The
employees were interviewed using convenience sampling techniques.

\
3.4 Questionnaire design:
Questionnaire was designed in consultation with the experts of Cholamandalam MS
General Insurance Company in such a manner that it would facilitate the respondents to
reveal maximum infor mation.

3.5 Data collection


The primary data was collected by using questionnaires. The questionnaire has 28
questions excluding marital status, age, factor prompted to join reliance. A five point
scale was used such as strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree and strongly agree.

3.6 Statistical tools used for analysis:


The collected data were analyzed by using following techniques:

• Percentage analysis

• One-way ANOVA
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
Chapter -IV
Table no: 1

Ge nde r

Cumulative
Frequen cy Percen t Valid Percent Pe rce nt
Valid male 7 4 74 .0 7 4.0 74.0
female 2 6 26 .0 2 6.0 100.0
Total
10 0 100 .0 10 0.0

Chart no: 1

Gender
80

60

40

20

0
ma le f emale

Gender

Table no: 2
M ont hly AIncome

Cumulative
Fr equency Percent Valid Percent Per cent
Valid below r s.10000 8 8.0 8.0 8.0
10000- 20000 45 45.0 45.0 53.0
20000- 30000 31 31.0 31.0 84.0
above 30000 16 16.0 16.0 100.0
Total
100 100.0 100.0

Chart no: 2

Mo nthly AInc ome


50

40

30

20

10

0
below rs . 10000 10000-200 00 20000-3 0000 abov e 30000

Monthly AIncome

Table No: 3

Education qualification

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid P.G 46 46.0 46.0 46.0
U.G 54 54.0 54.0 100.0
Total
100 100.0 100.0
Chart No: 3
Education qualification
60

50

40

30

20

10

0
P. G U .G

Education qualification

Tale No: 4
M ar ital Statu s

Cumulative
Frequ ency Pe rcent Valid Percen t Pe rcent
Va lid marrie d 55 55.0 5 5.0 5 5.0
Un married 45 45.0 4 5.0 10 0.0
To ta l
100 1 00.0 10 0.0

Chart no: 4
Mari tal Status
60

50

40

30

20

10

0
marr ied Unmar ried

Marital Status

Table No: 5

Ye a rs of Exp e rie nce

Cumulative
Frequ ency Percent Valid Percent Pe rcent
Valid Le ss than 1yr 8 8.0 8.0 8.0
1-2 yrs 26 26.0 2 6.0 34.0
2-3yrs 20 20.0 2 0.0 54.0
3-4yrs 26 26.0 2 6.0 80.0
Ab ove 4yrs 20 20.0 2 0.0 100 .0
To tal
100 1 00.0 10 0.0

Chart Mo: 5
Ye ars of Experie nc e
30

20

10

0
Les s t han 1y r 1- 2 y rs 2- 3y r s 3- 4y r s Ab ov e 4y r s

Years of Experience

Table No: 6

Working hours are conv e nient for me

Cumulative
Frequency Per cent Valid Percent Percent
Valid strongly agree 34 34.0 34.0 34.0
agree 32 32.0 32.0 66.0
neither agree nor
disagree 18 18.0 18.0 84.0
disagree
strongly disagree 13 13.0 13.0 97.0
Total 3 3.0 3.0 100.0
100 100.0 100.0
Chart No: 6

Working hours are convenient for me


40

30

20

10

0
st ro ngly agr ee n eith er a gre e nor d i st ro ngly disag re e
a gre e disag re e

Working hours are convenient for me

Interpretation:

From the above chart and table it is clearly evident that 34% of the
respondents strongly agree that working hours are convenient from them
and 32% agree with that and 18% neither agree nor disagree and 13%
disagree with the working hours and 3% are strongly against working
hours.

Table No: 7
I'm hap py iwt h my work place

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid strongly agree 30 30.0 30.0 30.0
agree 39 39.0 39.0 69.0
neither agree nor
disagree 18 18.0 18.0 87.0
disagree
strongly disagree 8 8.0 8.0 95.0
Total 5 5.0 5.0 100.0
100 100.0 100.0

Chart No: 7
I'm happy iwth my work place
50

40

30

20

10

0
s t ro ngly a gr ee n eit he r ag re e no r di s t ro ngly d is ag re e
ag re e disa gr ee

I'm happy iwth m y work plac e

Interpretation:

From the above table it is clear that 30% respondents strongly agree and
39% respondents agree that they are happy with their work place only
13% disagreed and 18% have no idea towards their work place.

Table No: 8
Th e lig ht ing s and ot he r arran ge men ts wit h o ffice are satisfactory

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid str ongly agree 33 33.0 33.0 33.0
agree 37 37.0 37.0 70.0
neither agree nor
disagree 18 18.0 18.0 88.0
disagree
str ongly disagree 5 5.0 5.0 93.0
T otal 7 7.0 7.0 100.0
100 100.0 100.0

Chart No: 8
The lightings and other arrangements with office are satisfactory
40

30

20

10

0
s t ro ngly a gr ee n eit he r ag re e no r di s t ro ngly d is ag re e
ag re e disa gr ee

The lightings and other arrangements with office are satis fac tory

Interpretation:

From the above table its is evident that 33% respondents strongly
agree with the lightings and arrangements in the office, 37% agree with
that and 12% disagree with the lightings and arrangements and 18%
have no idea towards lightings and arrangements.
Table No: 9

I fe el i h ave to o much wo rk t o d o

Cumulative
F requency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid strongly agree 7 7.0 7.0 7.0
agree 9 9.0 9.0 16.0
neither agree nor
disagree 25 25.0 25.0 41.0
disagree
strongly disagree 37 37.0 37.0 78.0
Total 22 22.0 22.0 100.0
100 100.0 100.0

Chart No: 9
I feel i have too much work to do
40

30

20

10

0
s tr o ng ly ag re e ne it h er ag re e n or di s t ro ng ly dis ag re e
a gr ee d isa gr e e

I feel i have too muc h work to do

Interpretation:

From the above table it is quite clear that the work load is not
high, 37% of the respondents disagreed with the question” I feel I have
too much work” and another 22% strongly disagreed, 18% admits they
have too much work and 23% have no idea towards this question.
Table No: 10

s afe ty me as ure s prov ide d by the company

Cumulative
Freq uen cy Percent Valid Percent Pe rcen t
Valid stro ngly ag ree 28 28.0 28.0 28.0
agree 31 31.0 31.0 59.0
neither a gree nor
disagre e 24 24.0 24.0 83.0
disagre e
stro ngly disag ree 11 11.0 11.0 94.0
Total 6 6.0 6.0 100.0
100 100. 0 1 00.0

Chart No: 10
safety measures provided by the company
40

30

20

10

0
st ro ngly agr ee n eith er a gre e nor d i st ro ngly disag re e
a gre e disag re e

safety m easures provided by the com pany

Interpretation:

From the above table it is evident that the safety measures


provided by the organizations are good as 28 and 31% of the respondents
agree with that and only 11& 6% disagreed and 24% neither agreed nor
disagreed.
TableNo: 11

M y relationship w ith my supe rvisor is cordial

Cumulative
Frequency Per cent Valid Percent Percent
Valid strongly agree 30 30.0 30.0 30.0
agree 41 41.0 41.0 71.0
neither agree nor
disagree 16 16.0 16.0 87.0
disagree
strongly disagree 6 6.0 6.0 93.0
Total 7 7.0 7.0 100.0
100 100.0 100.0

Chart No: 11

My relati onship with my supervis or is c ordial


50

40

30

20

10

0
s t ron gly agre e neit her agree nor di s t rongly dis agree
agree dis agre e

My relationship with my supervisor is cordial

Interpretation:

From the above table it is clear that relationship between


employees and their supervisors are cordial because 30% of respondents
strongly agreed to it and 41% agreed to it and only 13% disagreed and
16% of respondents have neither agreed nor disagreed.
Tale No: 12

M y sup erviso r is no t partial

Cumulative
F requency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid strongly agree 18 18.0 18.0 18.0
agree 30 30.0 30.0 48.0
neither agree nor
disagree 15 15.0 15.0 63.0
disagree
strongly disagree 19 19.0 19.0 82.0
Total 18 18.0 18.0 100.0
100 100.0 100.0

Chart No: 12

My supervisor is not partial


40

30

20

10

0
s tr o ng ly ag re e ne it h er ag re e n or di s t ro ng ly dis ag re e
a gr ee d isa gr e e

My s upervis or is not partial

Interpretation:

From the above table it is evident that the supervisors are not
partial to the employees as 18% strongly agreed and 30% agreed to the
question but 19% disagreed and 18% strongly disagreed this level is
quite high compared to other questions.
Table No: 13

My supe rvisor con sid ers my ide a to o wh ile takin g d ecision

Cumulative
F requency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid strongly agree 26 26.0 26.0 26.0
agree 43 43.0 43.0 69.0
neither agree nor
disagree 26 26.0 26.0 95.0
disagree
strongly disagree 2 2.0 2.0 97.0
Total 3 3.0 3.0 100.0
100 100.0 100.0

Chart No: 13

My supervisor considers my idea too while taking decision


50

40

30

20

10

0
st ro ngly agr ee n eith er a gre e nor d i st ro ngly disag re e
a gre e disag re e

My supervisor c onsiders m y idea too while taking decision

Interpretation:

From the above table it is clear that 26 and 42% of the


respondents agree that supervisors consider their employees ideas also
and only 5% disagreed and 26% neither agreed nor disagreed.
Table No: 14

I'm satisfied with the sup po rt fro m my co -worke rs

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid str ongly agree 21 21.0 21.0 21.0
agree 47 47.0 47.0 68.0
neither agree nor
disagree 16 16.0 16.0 84.0
disagree
str ongly disagree 9 9.0 9.0 93.0
T otal 7 7.0 7.0 100.0
100 100.0 100.0

Chart No: 14

I'm satisfied with the support from my co-workers


50

40

30

20

10

0
s t ro ngly a gr ee n eit he r ag re e no r di s t ro ngly d is ag re e
ag re e disa gr ee

I'm s atisfied with the support from my co-workers

Interpretation:

From the above table it is clear that relation with co-workers is

quite good as nearly 68% of the respondents agree that they are satisfied

with support from co-workers and only 15% disagreed and 16% have no

answer to this
Table No: 15

Peop le h ere have con ce rn fro m one an oth er and tend to help o ne an othe r

Cumulative
F requency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid strongly agree 26 26.0 26.0 26.0
agree 41 41.0 41.0 67.0
neither agree nor
disagree 19 19.0 19.0 86.0
disagree
strongly disagree 9 9.0 9.0 95.0
Total 5 5.0 5.0 100.0
100 100.0 100.0

Chart No: 15
People here have concern from one another and tend to help one another
50

40

30

20

10

0
s t ro ngly a gr ee n eit he r ag re e no r di s t ro ngly d is ag re e
ag re e disa gr ee

People here have concern from one another and tend to help one another

Interpretation:

From the above table it is clear that in this organization people


have concern over each other as 26% strongly agreed and 41% agreed
and only 14% disagreed and 19% neither agreed nor disagreed.
Table No: 16
I'm satisfie d with th e refre sh me nt f acilities

Cumulative
F requency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid strongly agree 9 9.0 9.0 9.0
agree 20 20.0 20.0 29.0
neither agree nor
disagree 30 30.0 30.0 59.0
disagree
strongly disagree 26 26.0 26.0 85.0
Total 15 15.0 15.0 100.0
100 100.0 100.0

Chart No: 16
I'm satisfied with the refreshment facilities
40

30

20

10

0
st ro ngly agr ee n eith er a gre e nor d i st ro ngly disag re e
a gre e disag re e

I'm satisfied with the refreshm ent facilities

Interpretation:

From the above table it is clear that the employees are not satisfied
with the refreshment facilities offered by the company as 26% of
respondents disagreed and 15% strongly disagreed and 30% neither
agreed nor disagreed and only 29% agreed.
Table No: 17

We are provided with the rest an d lun ch roo m and th ey are go od

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid strongly agree 8 8.0 8.0 8.0
agree 16 16.0 16.0 24.0
neither agree nor
disagree 22 22.0 22.0 46.0
disagree
strongly disagree 34 34.0 34.0 80.0
Total 20 20.0 20.0 100.0
100 100.0 100.0

Chart No: 17
W e are pro vi ded wit h the re st and lunch roo m and t hey ar e good
40

30

20

10

0
s t ron gly ag ree ne it her a gree no r di s t rong ly dis ag ree

agr ee dis agr ee

W e are provided with the rest and lunch room and they are good

Interpretation:

From the above table it is quite evident that 24% strongly


disagreed and 30% of the respondents disagreed and 22% neither agreed
nor disagreed and only 24% of the respondents are satisfied with the rest
and lunch room provided.
Table No: 18

The parking space for our ve hicle s are satisfactory

Cumulative
Frequency Per cent Valid Percent Percent
Valid strongly agree 4 4.0 4.0 4.0
agree 9 9.0 9.0 13.0
neither agree nor
disagree 24 24.0 24.0 37.0
disagree
strongly disagree 32 32.0 32.0 69.0
Total 31 31.0 31.0 100.0
100 100.0 100.0

Chart No: 18
The parking space for our vehicles are satisfactory
40

30

20

10

0
s t ro ngly a gr ee n eit he r ag re e no r di s t ro ngly d is ag re e
ag re e disa gr ee

The parking spac e for our vehicles are satisfactory

Interpretation:

From the above table it is clear that respondents are not satisfied
with the parking facilities provided by the company as 31% of
respondents strongly disagreed and 32% of respondents disagreed and
only 13% of respondents are satisfied with the parking facilities and 24%
have neither agreed nor disagreed.
Table No: 19
I'm satisfie d with th e first aid facilitie s

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid str ongly agree 5 5.0 5.0 5.0
agree 12 12.0 12.0 17.0
neither agree nor
disagree 31 31.0 31.0 48.0
disagree
str ongly disagree 31 31.0 31.0 79.0
T otal 21 21.0 21.0 100.0
100 100.0 100.0

Chart No: 19
I'm satisfied with the first aid facilities
40

30

20

10

0
s t ro ngly a gr ee n eit he r ag re e no r di s t ro ngly d is ag re e
ag re e disa gr ee

I'm s atisfied with the first aid facilities

Interpretation:

From the above table it is clear that employees are not satisfied
with the first aid facilities as more than 52% ( 31% disagree and 21%
strongly disagree) disagreed and only 17% agreed and 31% of
respondents neither agreed nor disagreed.
Table No: 20
I'm sat isf ie d with th e loan facilities and o the r p erson al we lfare faclitie s of fere d by
the comp any

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid str ongly agree 7 7.0 7.0 7.0
agree 12 12.0 12.0 19.0
neither agree nor
disagree 30 30.0 30.0 49.0
disagree
str ongly disagree 34 34.0 34.0 83.0
T otal 17 17.0 17.0 100.0
100 100.0 100.0

Chart No: 20

I'm s atisfied with the loan facilities and other personal welfare faclit
40

30

20

10

0
s tr o ng ly ag re e ne it h er ag re e n or di s t ro ng ly dis ag re e
a gr ee d isa gr e e

I'm s atis fied w ith the loan facilities and other personal welfare faclit
Interpretation:

From the above table it is quite clear that respondents are not
satisfied with the loan facilities offered by the organization as 34% of
respondents disagree and 17% of respondents strongly disagree 30% of
respondents neither agree nor disagree and only 19% are satisfied with
the loan facilities.
Table No: 21

I fell I'm paid a fair amou nt fo r the work i do

Cumulative
F requency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid strongly agree 15 15.0 15.0 15.0
agree 39 39.0 39.0 54.0
neither agree nor
disagree 25 25.0 25.0 79.0
disagree
strongly disagree 13 13.0 13.0 92.0
Total 8 8.0 8.0 100.0
100 100.0 100.0

Chart No: 21
I fell I'm pa id a fa ir a mount fo r the wo rk i do
50

40

30

20

10

0
s t ron gly ag ree ne it her a gree no r di s t rong ly dis ag ree
agr ee dis agr ee

I fell I'm paid a fair amount for the work i do

Interpretation:

From the above table it is evident that the respondents are


satisfied with their salary as 39% agree and 15% strongly agree. Only
`3% disagree and 8% strongly disagree, 25% neither agree nor disagree.

Table No: 22
I'm sa ti sfie d with the chance s for my promotion

Cu mula tive
Frequen cy Percent Valid Percent Percent
Va lid strongly agree 27 27.0 27.0 27.0
agree 43 43.0 43.0 70.0
neithe r a gree nor
disag ree 13 13.0 13.0 83.0
disag ree
strongly disagree 9 9.0 9.0 92.0
To tal 8 8.0 8.0 1 00.0
100 100.0 100.0

Chart No: 22
I'm satisfied with the chances for my promotion
50

40

30

20

10

0
st ro ngly agr ee n eith er a gre e nor d i st ro ngly disag re e
a gre e disag re e

I'm satisfied with the chances for m y promotion

Interpretation:

From the above table it is quite clear that employees are satisfied
with their chances for promotion as 43% agree and 27% strongly agree.
Only 9% disagree and 8% strongly disagree, 13% neither agree nor
disagree.
Table No: 23
The salary we re ce iv e are good as other organizations offe r pay to the ir e mploye e s

Cu mula tive
Frequen cy Percent Valid Percent Percent
Va lid strongly agree 27 27.0 27.0 27.0
agree 37 37.0 37.0 64.0
neithe r a gree nor
disag ree 26 26.0 26.0 90.0
disag ree
strongly disagree 6 6.0 6.0 96.0
To tal 4 4.0 4.0 1 00.0
100 100.0 100.0

Chart No: 23
The salary we receive are good as other organizations offer pay to their
40

30

20

10

0
st ro ngly agr ee n eith er a gre e nor d i st ro ngly disag re e
a gre e disag re e

The salary we receive are good as other organizations offer pay to their

Interpretation:

From the above table it is quite clear that the salary in this
organization is at par to the industry as 37% agree and 27% strongly
agree. Only 6% disagree and 4% strongly disagree, 26% neither agree nor
disagree.
Table No: 24
I'm satisfie d with th e allown ace s p rovided by th e o rgan ization

Cumulative
F requency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid strongly agree 19 19.0 19.0 19.0
agree 42 42.0 42.0 61.0
neither agree nor
disagree 21 21.0 21.0 82.0
disagree
strongly disagree 11 11.0 11.0 93.0
Total 7 7.0 7.0 100.0
100 100.0 100.0

Chart No: 24

I'm sa tis fie d wi th t he allownac es pro vided by the o rga ni za tion


50

40

30

20

10

0
s t ron gly ag ree ne it her a gree no r di s t rong ly dis ag ree
agr ee dis agr ee

I'm satisfied with the allownaces provided by the organization

Interpretation:

From the above table it is clear that the employees are satisfied
with the allowances and other benefits provided by the organization as
42% agree and 19% strongly agree. Only 11% disagree and 7% strongly
disagree, 21% neither agree nor disagree.
Table No: 25

I fe el my boss motiv ate me t o achie v e the organizational goals

Cumulative
Frequency Per cent Valid Percent Percent
Valid strongly agree 11 11.0 11.0 11.0
agree 33 33.0 33.0 44.0
neither agree nor
disagree 25 25.0 25.0 69.0
disagree
strongly disagree 22 22.0 22.0 91.0
Total 9 9.0 9.0 100.0
100 100.0 100.0

Chart No: 25
I fee l my bos s motiva te me to achieve the organizatio nal goals
40

30

20

10

0
s t ron gly agre e neit her agree nor di s t rongly dis agree
agree dis agre e

I feel my boss motivate me to achieve the organizational goals

Interpretation:

From the above table it is evident that employees boss are


motivating to achieve organizational goals as 33% agree and 11%
strongly agree. 22% disagree this is quite high compared to other factors
and 9% strongly disagree and 25% neither agree nor disagree.
Table No: 26
M y s upe rv isor motiv a te s me to incre as e my e fficie nc y a t time s whe n i 'm not
producti v e

Cumulative
Fre quen cy Percent Valid Percent Perce nt
Valid stro ngly ag ree 18 18. 0 18.0 18. 0
agree 44 44. 0 44.0 62. 0
neither a gree nor
disagre e 18 18. 0 18.0 80. 0
disagre e
stro ngly disag ree 13 13. 0 13.0 93. 0
Total 7 7. 0 7.0 100. 0
100 100. 0 1 00.0

Chart No: 26
My supervisor motivates me to increase my efficiency at times when i'm n
50

40

30

20

10

0
st ro ngly agr ee n eith er a gre e nor d i st ro ngly disag re e
a gre e disag re e

My supervisor m otivates me to increase my efficiency at tim es when i'm n

Interpretation:

From the above table it is evident that employees boss motivates


the employee when he is unproductive and help him to be productive as
44% agree and 18% strongly agree. Only 7% strongly disagree and 7%
disagree, 18% neither agree nor disagree.
Table Nio: 27
Co mmu nicat ion se ems goo d within this o rganization

Cumulative
F requency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid strongly agree 26 26.0 26.0 26.0
agree 39 39.0 39.0 65.0
neither agree nor
disagree 17 17.0 17.0 82.0
disagree
strongly disagree 10 10.0 10.0 92.0
Total
8 8.0 8.0 100.0
100 100.0 100.0

Chart No: 27
Communication seems good within this organization
50

40

30

20

10

0
st ro ngly agr ee n eith er a gre e nor d i st ro ngly disag re e
a gre e disag re e

Com munication seem s good within this organization

Interpretation:

From the above table it is clear that communication seems good in this
organization as 39% agree and 26% strongly agree. Only 10% disagree
and 8% strongly disagree. 17% neither agree nor disagree.
Table No: 28

Wo rk assig nmen ts are exp laine d clearly to me

Cumulative
F requency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid strongly agree 17 17.0 17.0 17.0
agree 41 41.0 41.0 58.0
neither agree nor
disagree 15 15.0 15.0 73.0
disagree
strongly disagree 17 17.0 17.0 90.0
Total 10 10.0 10.0 100.0
100 100.0 100.0

Chart No: 28
W ork a ssignments a re explained c learly to me
50

40

30

20

10

0
s t ron gly agre e neit her agree nor di s t rongly dis agree
agree dis agre e

W ork assignments are explained clearly to me

Interpretation:

From the above table it is evident that respondents are quite happy
with the way work assignments are explained as 41% agree and 17%
strongly agree. Only 10% strongly disagree and 17% agree, 15% neither
agree nor disagree.
Table No: 29

I l ov e my job a nd to wo rk in this orga niza tion

Cumulative
Fre quen cy Percent Valid Percent Perce nt
Valid stro ngly ag ree 19 19. 0 19.0 19. 0
agree 38 38. 0 38.0 57. 0
neither a gree nor
disagre e 20 20. 0 20.0 77. 0
disagre e
stro ngly disag ree 14 14. 0 14.0 91. 0
Total 9 9. 0 9.0 100. 0
100 100. 0 1 00.0

Chart No: 29
I love my job and to work in this organization
40

30

20

10

0
s t ron gly agre e neit her agree nor di s t rongly dis agree
agree dis agre e

I love my job and to w ork in this organization

Interpretation:

From the above table it is clear that employees love their job as
38% agree for this question and 19% strongly agree. Only 9% strongly
disagree and 14% disagree, 20% neither agree nor disagree.
Table No: 30
My work life is mean ingful

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid strongly agree 25 25.0 25.0 25.0
agree 40 40.0 40.0 65.0
neither agree nor
disagree 16 16.0 16.0 81.0
disagree
strongly disagree 7 7.0 7.0 88.0
Total 12 12.0 12.0 100.0
100 100.0 100.0

Chart No: 30
My work life is meaningful
50

40

30

20

10

0
strongly agree neither agree nor di strongly disagree
agree disagree

My work life is m eaningful

Interpretation:

From the above table it is clear that respondents feel that their job
is meaningful for them as 40% agree and 25% strongly agree. Only 7%
disagree and 12% strongly disagree, 16% neither agree nor disagree.

Table No: 31
I conside r that my work is valu ab le in attainin g my org an izatio nal g oals

Cumulative
F requency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid strongly agree 25 25.0 25.0 25.0
agree 47 47.0 47.0 72.0
neither agree nor
disagree 12 12.0 12.0 84.0
disagree
strongly disagree 7 7.0 7.0 91.0
Total 9 9.0 9.0 100.0
100 100.0 100.0

Chart No: 31

I consider that my work is valuable in attaining my organizational goals


50

40

30

20

10

0
s t ron gly ag ree ne it her a gree no r di s t rong ly dis ag ree
agr ee dis agr ee

I consider that m y work is valuable in attaining m y organizational goals

Interpretation:

From the above table it is quite clear that most respondents feel
that their job is contributing for organizational goals as 47% agree and
25% strongly disagree. Only 9% strongly disagree and 7% disagree, 12%
neither agree nor disagree.
Table No: 32
I have ade qu ate op po rtun ity t o u se my ab ility

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid str ongly agree 12 12.0 12.0 12.0
agree 30 30.0 30.0 42.0
neither agree nor
disagree 24 24.0 24.0 66.0
disagree
str ongly disagree 21 21.0 21.0 87.0
T otal 13 13.0 13.0 100.0
100 100.0 100.0

Chart No: 32

I have adequate opportunity to use my ability


40

30

20

10

0
st ro ngly agr ee n eith er a gre e nor d i st ro ngly disag re e

a gre e disag re e

I have adequate opportunity to use my ability

Interpretation:

From the above table it is quite clear that respondents have


adequate opportunity to use their ability as 30% agree and 12% disagree.
Only 13% strongly disagree and 21% disagree and 24% neither agree nor
disagree.
Table No: 33
Ov erall I'm satisfied with my job

Cumulative
F requency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid strongly agree 21 21.0 21.0 21.0
agree 33 33.0 33.0 54.0
neither agree nor
disagree 25 25.0 25.0 79.0
disagree
strongly disagree 15 15.0 15.0 94.0
Total
6 6.0 6.0 100.0
100 100.0 100.0

Chart No: 33

Ov erall I 'm s atis fie d wi th my job


40

30

20

10

0
s t ron gly ag ree ne it her a gree no r di s t rong ly dis ag ree
agr ee dis agr ee

O verall I'm satisfied with m y job

Interpretation:

From the above table it is evident that Overall satisfactions of the


respondents are good as 33% agree and 21% strongly agree. Only 6%
strongly disagree and 15% disagree and 25% neither agree nor disagree.
ONE WAY ANOVA

H0:
There is no significant difference among respondents of various
experience groups with regard to Environment and nature of work factor.

H1:
There is significant difference among respondents of various
experience groups with regard to Environment and nature of work factor

Table No: 34

ANOVA
Environment and Nature of work

Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups .591 4 .148 .465 .761
Within Groups 30.168 95 .318
Total 30.758 99

Interpretation:
Since the significant difference is greater than 0.05 accept null
hypothesis and reject alternate hypothesis which says, there is no
significant difference among respondents of various experience with
respect to environment and nature of work.

H0:
There is no significant difference among respondents of various
experience groups with regard to the factor Relationship with supervisors
and colleagues.

H1:
There is significant difference among respondents of various
experience groups with regard to the factor Relationship with supervisors
and colleagues.

Table No: 35

ANOVA

Relationship with supervisors and colleagues


Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 1.199 4 .300 1.273 .286
Within Groups 22.376 95 .236
Total 23.576 99

Interpretation:
Since the significant difference is greater than 0.05 accept null
hypothesis and reject alternate hypothesis which says, there is no
significant difference among respondents of various experience with
respect to Relationship with supervisors and colleagues.

H0:
There is no significant difference among respondents of various
experience groups with regard to the factor Welfare facilities

H1:
There is significant difference among respondents of various
experience groups with regard to the factor Welfare facilities

Table No: 36
ANOVA
Welfare facilities
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 1.741 4 .435 1.441 .227
Within Groups 28.699 95 .302
Total 30.440 99

Interpretation:

Since the significant difference is greater than 0.05 accept null


hypothesis and reject alternate hypothesis which says, there is no
significant difference among respondents of various experience with
respect to welfare facilities.

H0:

There is no significant difference among respondents of various


experience groups with regard to the factor Pay and Promotion

H1:

There is significant difference among respondents of various


experience groups with regard to the factor Pay and Promotion

Table No: 37
ANOVA
Pay and Promotion
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 3.148 4 .787 2.135 .082
Within Groups 35.017 95 .369
Total 38.165 99

Interpretation:

Since the significant difference is greater than 0.05 accept null


hypothesis and reject alternate hypothesis which says, there is no
significant difference among respondents of various experience with
respect to Pay and promotion.

H0:
There is no significant difference among respondents of various
experience groups with regard to the factor Communication and
Motivation.

H1:
There is significant difference among respondents of various
experience groups with regard to the factor Communication and
Motivation.

Table No: 38
ANOVA
Communication and Motivation
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups .937 4 .234 .652 .627
Within Groups 34.100 95 .359
Total 35.037 99

Interpretation:
Since the significant difference is greater than 0.05 accept null
hypothesis and reject alternate hypothesis which says, there is no
significant difference among respondents of various experience with
respect to communication and motivation.

H0:
There is no significant difference among respondents of various
experience groups with regard to Job Factors.

H1:
There is significant difference among respondents of various
experience groups with regard to Job Factors

Table No: 39

ANOVA

job factor
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 1.437 4 .359 .867 .487
Within Groups 39.360 95 .414
T otal 40.798 99

Interpretation:
Since the significant difference is greater than 0.05 accept null
hypothesis and reject alternate hypothesis which says, there is no
significant difference among respondents of various experience with
respect to Job factors

H0:
There is no significant difference among respondents of various
Age groups with regard to Job Factors.

H1:
There is significant difference among respondents of various Age
groups with regard to Job Factors.

Table No: 40

ANOVA

job factor
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups .007 2 .004 .009 .991
Within Groups 40.790 97 .421
Total 40.798 99

Interpretation:
Since the significant difference is greater than 0.05 accept null
hypothesis and reject alternate hypothesis which says, there is no
significant difference among respondents of various age groups with
respect to Job factors.

H0:
There is no significant difference among respondents of various
genders with regard to Job Factors.

H1:
There is significant difference among respondents of various
genders with regard to Job Factors.

Table No: 41

ANOVA

job factor
Sum of
Squar es df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups .036 1 .036 .086 .770
Within Groups 40.762 98 .416
Total 40.798 99

Interpretation:

Since the significant difference is greater than 0.05 accept null


hypothesis and reject alternate hypothesis which says, there is no
significant difference among respondents of various genders with respect
to Job factors.

Chapter -V
Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation


environment and
100 1.40 4.20 2.4960 .55740
nature of work
ationship with
supervisors and 100 1.00 3.80 2.3620 .48799
colleagues
welfare facilities
pay and promotion 100 2.00 4.60 3.4600 .55450
communiction and 100 1.00 4.00 2.3900 .62089
motivation
job factors 100 1.25 4.00 2.5725 .59490
Valid N (listwise) 100 1.20 4.40 2.5400 .56174
100

5.1 Findings:

The descriptive statistics table helps us to derive satisfaction level of


employees on various factors:

The respondents are satisfied with the environment and nature of work
factors as their mean value is near to 2.50

The respondent’s relationship with the superiors and colleagues are quite
good as their mean value is 2.36 is an agreeable level.

The Respondents are not provided with proper welfare facilities that’s the
reason the mean value is quite high at 3.46 levels which is disagree level.

The communication and motivation of employees by their superiors in


this organization is reasonable as the mean value is 2.57.

The Pay and promotion activities in this organization is also good as their
mean value is 2.4
The Respondents are overall satisfied with their job as their mean value
is 2.54 which is an agreeable level.

The Parking facilities provided by the organization are not good that’s
why most respondents disagree with this question.

The refreshment facilities are also need to be improved because most of


the employees are dissatisfied on this factor.

The Rest room facilities in the company are not good and they are not
satisfied with the lunch facilities.

Suggestions:
Questionnaire
“A study on Job Satisfaction of Employees in
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Ltd”

1. Name:
………………………………………………………………………
…………
2. Age: ………………
3. Gender: Male Female

4. Monthly Income:
A) Below Rest. 10,000 B) 10,000- 20000 C) 20,000-30000 D) Above
30,000

5. Education Qualification:
A) Under graduation B) Post – graduation

6. Marital Status
A) Married B) Unmarried

7. Years of experience:
A) Less than 1yr B) 1-2 yrs C) 2-3 yrs D) 3-4 yrs E) Above 4yrs

Please indicate your level of agreement in connection with various


factors:
1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Disagree
5. Strongly Disagree
Work Environment and nature of work
S. Particulars 12345
No
1. Working hours are convenient for me
2. I’m happy with my work place
3. The lighting and other arrangements in
the office are satisfactory
4. I feel I have too much work to do
5. I’m satisfied with the safety measures
provided by my company

Relationship with supervisors and colleagues


S. Particulars 12345
No
6. My
21 Myrelationship
supervisor motivates
with my supervisor
me to increase
is
cordial
my efficiency at times when I’m not
productive
7. My supervisor is not partial
22 Communication
8. My seem good
supervisor considers my within this
ideas too
while making decision
organization
23 Work
9. I’m assignments
satisfied aresupport
with the explained
fromclearly
my co-to
workers
me
10. People here have concern for one another
and tend to help one another

Job factors
Welfare Facilities
S. Particulars 12345
S.
No Particulars 12345
24
NoI love my job and to work in this
organization
11 I’m satisfied with the refreshment facilities
25
12 My
We work life is meaningful
are provided with the rest and lunch
26 I consider
room that
and my
theywork is valuable in
are good
attainingfacilities
13 The parking my organizational
provided for goals
our
27 I have
vehicles
adequate areopportunity
satisfactoryto use my
ability
14 I’m satisfied with the first aid facilities
28
15 Overall, I’m satisfied
I’m satisfied with the with
Loanmy job and
facilities
other personal welfare benefits offered by
company

Pay and promotion

S. Particulars 12345
No
16 I feel I’m being paid a fair amount for the
work I do
17 I’m satisfied with my chances for
promotion
18 The salaries we receive are good as other
organizations pay to their employees.
19 I’m satisfied with the allowances provided
by my organization

Communication and motivation

S. Particulars 12345
No
20 I feel that my Boss motivate me to achieve
the organization goal