1. Are there any relationships among EMP, SAL, TRA, EXP, MAS, SUP and HWL?

Whi

Correlations
EMP SAL TRA
Pearson Correlation 1 .622** .665**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0
EMP N 450 450 450
Pearson Correlation .622** 1 .679**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0
SAL N 450 450 450
Pearson Correlation .665** .679** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0
TRA N 450 450 450
Pearson Correlation .663** .661** .696**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0 0
EXP N 450 450 450
Pearson Correlation .668** .646** .707**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0 0
MAS N 450 450 450
Pearson Correlation .094* .179** .171**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.045 0 0
SUP N 450 450 450
Pearson Correlation 0.006 0.063 0.053
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.892 0.184 0.258
HWL N 450 450 450
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

The relationships among EMP, SAL, TRA, EXP, MAS, SUP and HWL:

" EMP : With SAL, TRA, EXP, MAS and SUP, EMP both has the significant < 0.05. It means that there is a
Particularly, r betwen EMP and these factors are 0.622, 0.665, 0.663, 0.668, 0.094, it indicates that there are
factors. Meanwhiles, the significant for EMP and HWL is 0.892 > 0.05, so the HWL does not have the strong e

" SAL: For TRA, EXP, MAS and SUP, SAL both has the significant at 0 < 0.05, and r are 0.679, 0.661, 0.6
between SAL and these factors. However, the significant between SAL and HWL is 0.184, it indicates that the
other.

" TRA: The significants between TRA and EXP, MAS, SUP are both < 0.05, and r are 0.696, 0.707, 0.171
strongly positive effects on each other. Meanwhiles, the significant between TRA and HWL is 0.258 > 0.05, so

" EXP: With MAS and SUP, EXP both has the significant at 0, and r are 0.853 and 0.197, so it means tha
these factors. However, the signifant for EXP and HWL is 0.065, it means that there is no strong relation betw

" MAS: The sigfinicant between MAS and SUP, HWL are both < 0.05, and r are 0.194 and 0.098, so it ind
effect on each other.

" SUP: for HWL , SUP has the significant at 0 < 0.05 and r at 0.76, so there is significantly positive betwe
SUP and HWL? Which of them are significant?

tions
EXP MAS SUP HWL
.663** .668** .094* 0.006
0 0 0.045 0.892
450 450 450 450
.661** .646** .179** 0.063
0 0 0 0.184
450 450 450 450
.696** .707** .171** 0.053
0 0 0 0.258
450 450 450 450
1 .853** .197** 0.087
0 0 0.065
450 450 450 450
.853** 1 .194** .098*
0 0 0.038
450 450 450 450
.197** .194** 1 .760**
0 0 0
450 450 450 450
0.087 .098* .760** 1
0.065 0.038 0
450 450 450 450

5. It means that there is a dramatical effects between EMP and these factors.
t indicates that there are strongly positive relationship between EMP and these
oes not have the strong effect on EMP.

nd r are 0.679, 0.661, 0.646, 0.179, it means that there are strongly positve effects
.184, it indicates that the HWL and SAL don't have the significant impact on each

r are 0.696, 0.707, 0.171, so it means that TRA and these factors have the
HWL is 0.258 > 0.05, so there is no relation between TRA and HWL.

nd 0.197, so it means that there are significantly positive effects between EXP and
s no strong relation between EXP and HWL.

0.194 and 0.098, so it indicates that MAS and SUP, HWL have strongly positive

gnificantly positive between HWL and SUP.

2.Whether increasing salary is a good solution for improving employees' performanc

Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
EMP 5.109 1.259 450
SAL 5.26 1.337 450

Correlations
EMP SAL
Pearson EMP 1 0.622
Correlation SAL 0.622 1
EMP . 0
Sig. (1-tailed) SAL 0 .
EMP 450 450
N SAL 450 450

Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the
Estimate
1 .622a 0.387 0.386 0.9867
a. Predictors: (Constant), SAL

ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square
Regression 275.542 1 275.542
Residual 436.122 448 0.973
1 Total 711.664 449
a. Dependent Variable: EMP
b. Predictors: (Constant), SAL

Coefficien
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 2.027 0.189
1 SAL 0.586 0.035 0.622
a. Dependent Variable: EMP

From the ANOVA table, we have the significance at 0 < 0.05, so it is relevant to use the information from

Based on the coefficient table, we have the significant at 0 < 0.05, so there is a significant impact of SA

EMP = 2.027 +
g employees' performance? To which extent employees' salary predicts their performance?

F Sig.
283.046 .000b

Coefficientsa
t Sig. Correlations Collinearity Statistics

Zero-order Partial Part Tolerance

10.724 0.000
16.824 0.000 0.622 0.622 0.622 1

vant to use the information from this data. Additionally, adjusted r2 is 38.6%, it means that 38.6% of EMP can be explained by SAL.

here is a significant impact of SAL on EMP. Particularly, the increase in 1 unit of SAL will lead to the increase in 0.586 unit of EMP.

EMP = 2.027 + 0.586SAL

mance?

Collinearity Statistics

VIF

an be explained by SAL.

e in 0.586 unit of EMP.

3.Whether providing more supports from managers is a good solution for improving

Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N

EMP 5.109 1.259 450

SUP 4.884 1.548 450

Correlations
EMP SUP

EMP 1 0.094
Pearson CorrelationSUP 0.094 1
EMP . 0.023
Sig. (1-tailed) SUP 0.023 .
EMP 450 450
N SUP 450 450

Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the
Estimate
1 .094a 0.009 0.007 1.2547
a. Predictors: (Constant), SUP

ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square

Regression 6.35 1 6.35

Residual 705.314 448 1.574
1 Total 711.664 449
a. Dependent Variable: EMP
b. Predictors: (Constant), SUP

Coefficien
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) 4.734 0.196

1 SUP 0.077 0.038 0.094
a. Dependent Variable: EMP

Based on the ANOVA table, we have the significant at 0.045 < 0.05, so it is relevant to use the information f

From the coefficient table, we have the significant at 0.045 < 0.05, so there is a significant impact of SU

EMP = 4.4734 +
Based on the ANOVA table, we have the significant at 0.045 < 0.05, so it is relevant to use the information f

From the coefficient table, we have the significant at 0.045 < 0.05, so there is a significant impact of SU

EMP = 4.4734 +
d solution for improving employees' performance? Identify the extent to which employees' performance i

F Sig.

4.034 .045b

Coefficientsa
t Sig. Correlations Collinearity Statistics
Zero-order Partial Part Tolerance

24.154 0
2.008 0.045 0.094 0.094 0.094 1

relevant to use the information from this data. Additionally, adjusted r2 is 0.7%, it means that 0.7 % of EMP can be explained by SUP.

here is a significant impact of SUP on EMP. Particularly, the increase in 1 unit of SUP will lead to the increase in 0.077 unit of EMP.

EMP = 4.4734 + 0.077SUP

ployees' performance i

Collinearity Statistics
VIF

P can be explained by SUP.

se in 0.077 unit of EMP.

performance is explained by all these factors? Among the influencing factors, which
performance?

ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square

Regression 394.834 6 65.806

Residual 316.831 443 0.715
1 Total 711.664 449
a. Dependent Variable: EMP
b. Predictors: (Constant), HWL, TRA, SAL, EXP, SUP, MAS

Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the
Estimate
1 .745a 0.555 0.549 0.8457
a. Predictors: (Constant), HWL, TRA, SAL, EXP, SUP, MAS

Coefficien
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) 1.442 0.201

SAL 0.184 0.044 0.196
TRA 0.247 0.046 0.269
EXP 0.164 0.059 0.177
MAS 0.197 0.06 0.211
SUP -0.038 0.041 -0.047
1 HWL -0.014 0.034 -0.021
a. Dependent Variable: EMP

Based on the ANOVA table, we have the significant at 0 < 0.05, so it is relevant to use the information from
EXP, MAS, SUP

From the coefficient table, we both have the significant of SAL, TRA, EXP, and MAS is < 0.05. So, it mean
significant > 0.05, it indicates that they don't have the significant impacts on EMP. We still kee

EMP = 1.442 + 0.184SAL + 0.247TRA + 0.164E

Besides, TRA has the most important impact on EMP cause it has
nfluencing factors, which is the most and the least important factor in determining employees’

F Sig.

92.011 .000b

Coefficientsa
t Sig. Correlations Collinearity Statistics
Zero-order Partial Part Tolerance

7.166 0.000
4.208 0.000 0.622 0.196 0.133 0.464
5.382 0.000 0.665 0.248 0.171 0.404
2.77 0.006 0.663 0.13 0.088 0.245
3.296 0.001 0.668 0.155 0.104 0.245
-0.929 0.354 0.094 -0.044 -0.029 0.4
-0.426 0.671 0.006 -0.02 -0.013 0.415

vant to use the information from this data. Additionally, adjusted r2 is 54,9%, it means that % of EMP can be explained by SAL, TRA,
EXP, MAS, SUP and HWL.

and MAS is < 0.05. So, it means that they both have the significant impact on EMP. However, for SUP and HWL, they both have the
ant impacts on EMP. We still keep this model cause SUP and HWL will impact in some independent factors. So we have:

0.184SAL + 0.247TRA + 0.164EXP + 0.197MAS - 0.038SUP - 0.014HWL.

ant impact on EMP cause it has beta at 0.269 and HWL is less significant with beta at -0.014.
mployees’

Collinearity Statistics
VIF

2.157
2.478
4.083
4.088
2.497
2.41

be explained by SAL, TRA,

HWL, they both have the

So we have: