Chap - 1 To 5

CHAPTER – IV
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATIONS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter deals with the analysis and interpretation of the study. For the analysis
following statistical tools have been applied
 Percentage Analysis
 Chi – square test
 Anova
4.2 PERCENTAGE ANALYSIS
Percentage refers to a special kind of ratio in making comparison between two or more
data and to describe relationships. Percentage can also be used to compare the relation terms in
the distribution of two or more sources of data.
Number of Respondents
Percentage of Respondents = --------------------------------- X 100
Total Respondents
1
4.2.1 AGE STRUCTURE
The table 4.1 classified the age ratio of the respondents. The classifications are Below 25
years, 25 to 35 years, 36 - 45 years and Above 46 years.
Table: 4.1
Age Wise Classification of the respondents
Age No. of respondents (n=90) Percentage
Below 25 years 11 12
Between 25 and 35 years 51 57
Between 36 and 45 years 17 19
Above 46 years 11 12
Total 90 100
From the above table it is seen that out of 90 respondents, 11 (12%) respondents are
belonging to the age group of below 25 years, 51 (57%) respondents belonging to the age group
between 25-35 years, 17 (19%) respondents belonging to the age group between 36-45 years and
remaining 11 (12%) respondents belonging to the age group of above 46 years.
2
Chart : 4.1
Age Wise Classification of the respondents
60 57
50
40
Percentage
30
19
20
12 12
10
0
Below 25 years Between 25 and Between 36 and Above 46 years
35 years 45 years
Age
3
4.2.2 GENDER COMPOSITION
The Gender composition is made with the following namely classification a male and
female respectively.
Table: 4.2
Gender Wise Classification of the respondents
Gender No. of respondents (n=90) Percentage
Male 37 41
Female 53 59
Total 90 100
The above table 4.2 seen that out of 90 respondents, 37 (41%) of the respondents are
male and remaining 53 (59%) of the respondents are female.
4
Chart : 4.2
Gender Wise Classification of the respondents
70
59
60
50
41
40
Percentage
30
20
10
0
Male Female
Gender
5
4.2.3 EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION
The Educational qualification of the respondents are classified namely No formal

education, Up to 12th Standard and Graduate.
Table: 4.3
Educational Qualification Wise Classification of the respondents
Educational Qualification No. of respondents (n=90) Percentage
No formal Education 20 22
Upto HSC 25 28
Graduate 45 50
Total 90 100
The above table 4.3 seen that out of 90 respondents, 20 (22%) of the respondents have no
formal education, 25 (28%) of the respondents are educated up to 12th standard and remaining 45
(50%) of the respondents are graduate holders.
6
Chart : 4.3
Educational Qualification Wise Classification of the respondents
60
50
50
40
Percentage
30 28
22
20
10
0
No formal Education Upto HSC Graduate
Educational Qualification
7
4.2.4 ANNUAL INCOME
The table classifies the Annual income of the respondents. The Classification are done by
4 categories that are Less than Rs.10,000, Rs.10001 - Rs.50,000 and Rs.20,001 - Rs.50,000.
Table: 4.4
Annual Income Wise Classification of the respondents
Annual Income No. of respondents (n=90) Percentage
Less than Rs.10,000 6 7
Rs.10,001 - Rs.20,000 65 72
Rs.20,001 - Rs.50,000 19 21
Total 90 100
The above table 4.4 seen that out of 90 respondents, 6 (7%) respondents Annual Family
income is below Rs.10,000, 65 (72%) respondents Annual Family income is between Rs.10,001
and Rs.20,0000 and remaining 19 (21%) respondents Annual Family income is between
Rs.20,001 and Rs.50,000.
8
Chart : 4.4
Annual Income Wise Classification of the respondents
80
72
70
60
50
Percentage
40
30
21
20
10 7
0
Less than Rs.10,000 Rs.10,001 - Rs.20,000 Rs.20,001 - Rs.50,000
Annual Income
9
4.2.5 MARITAL STATUS
The table 4.4 classified the marital status ratio of the respondents. The classifications are
single and married.
Table: 4.5
Marital Status Wise Classification of the respondents
Marital Status No. of respondents (n=90) Percentage
Married 86 96
Unmarried 4 4
Total 90 100
married and remaining 4 (4%) of the respondents are unmarried.
10
Chart : 4.5
Marital Status Wise Classification of the respondents
120
100 96
80
Percentage
60
40
20
0
Married Unmarried
Marital Status
11
4.2.6 AREA OF RESIDENCE
The table classifies the area of residence of the respondents. The area of residence have
been classified into 3 categories that are Rural, Semi – urban and urban area.
Table: 4.6
Place of living Wise Classification of the respondents
Place of living No. of respondents (n=90) Percentage
Urban 11 12
Semi-urban 7 8
Rural 72 80
Total 90 100
The above table 4.6 seen that out of 90 respondents, 11 (12%) respondents are residing in
urban area, 7 (8%) respondents are residing in semi urban area and remaining 72 (80%)
respondents are residing in rural area.
12
Chart : 4.6
Place of living Wise Classification of the respondents
80
80
70
60
50
Percentage
40
30
20
12
8
10
0
Urban Semi-urban Rural
Place of living
13
4.2.7 TYPE OF FAMILY
The Classification of the type of family is done namely Nuclear and Joint family.
Table: 4.7
Type of family Wise Classification of the respondents
Type of family No. of respondents (n=90) Percentage
Joint 23 26
Nuclear 67 74
Total 90 100
The above table 4.7 seen that out of 90 respondents, 23 (26%) respondents belong to joint
family and remaining 67 (74%) respondents belong to nuclear family.
14
Chart : 4.7
Type of family Wise Classification of the respondents
80 74
70
60
Percentage
50
40
26
30
20
10
0
Joint Nuclear
Type of family
15
4.2.8 DESIGNATION OF THE RESPONDENTS
The table classifies the Designation of the respondents. The Designation have been
classified into 4 categories that are Manager, Assistant, Staffs and workers.
Table: 4.8
Designation Wise Classification of the respondents
Designation No. of respondents (n=90) Percentage

Manager 3 3
Assistant 10 11
Staff 16 18
Worker 61 68
Total 90 100
managers, 10 (11%) of the respondents are Assistant staffs, 16 (18%) of the respondents are
staffs and remaining 61 (68%) of the respondents are workers of the company.
16
Chart : 4.8
Designation Wise Classification of the respondents
80
70 68
60
50
Percentage
40
30
20 18
11
10
3
0
Manager Assistant Staff Worker
Designation
17
4.2.9 EXPERIENCE CLASSIFICATION
The Experience of the respondents are classified namely Below 5 years, 6 - 10 years, 11 -
25 years and Above 25 years.
Table: 4.9
Working Experience Wise Classification of the respondents
Working Experience No. of respondents (n=90) Percentage

Below 5 years 37 41
6 to 10 years 46 51
11 to 25 years 5 6
Above 25 years 2 2
Total 90 100
The above table 4.9 seen that out of 90 respondents, 37 (41%) of the respondents had
below 5 years of Experience in the organisation, 46 (51%) of the respondents had 6 to 10 years
of experience in the organization, 5 (6%) of the respondents had 11 to 25 years of experience in
the organisation and remaining 2 (2%) of the respondents had above 25 years of experience in
the organisation.
18
Chart : 4.9
Working Experience Wise Classification of the respondents
60
51
50
41
40
Percentage
30
20
10
6
2
0
Below 5 years 6 to 10 years 11 to 25 years Above 25 years
Working Experience
19
4.2.10 OPINION ABOUT WORKING CONDITION
The table classifies the opinion about working condition of the organisation. The
Classifications are Very Good, Good, Average, Poor and Need Improvement.
Table: 4.10
Opinion about Working Condition
Opinion about Working

No. of respondents (n=90) Percentage
Condition
Very Good 23 26
Good 37 41
Average 17 19
Poor 9 10
Need Improvement 4 4
Total 90 100
said working condition of the organisation is very good, 37 (41%) of the respondents are said
working condition of the organisation is good, 17 (19%) of the respondents are said average
working condition of the organisation, 9 (10%) of the respondents are said working condition of
the organisation is very poor and remaining 4 (4%) of the respondents are said need
improvement of working condition of the organisation.
20
Chart : 4.10
45
41
40
35
30
26
Percentage
25
20 19
15
10
10
5 4
0
Very Good Good Average Poor Need
Improvement
21
4.2.11 RELATIONSHIP WITH SUPERIOR
The table 4.11 classified the relationship with superior. The classifications are Cordial,
Moderate and Not cordial.
Table: 4.11
Relationship with superior
Relationship with
superior
Cordial 32 36
Moderate 40 44
Not cordial 18 20
Total 90 100
cordial relationship with superior, 40 (44%) of the respondents are moderate relationship with
superior and remaining 18 (20%) of the respondents not cordial relationship with superior.
22
Chart : 4.11
44
45
36
40
35
30
Percentage
25 20
20
15
10
0
Cordial Moderate Not cordial
23
4.2.12 OPINION ABOUT PROMOTIONAL OPPORTUNITIES
The respondents are classified on the basis of their leader relationship have attended
classified into four categories. Those are Cordial, Formal, Workable and Others.
Table: 4.12
Opinion about Promotional opportunities
Opinion about Promotional

opportunities
Very Good 27 30
Good 24 27
Average 28 31
Poor 11 12
Total 90 100
said very good opinion about promotional opportunities given by the organisation, 24 (27%) of
the respondents are good opinion about promotional opportunities given by the organisation, 28
(31%) of the respondents are average opinion about promotional opportunities given by the
organisation and remaining 11 (12%) of the respondents are poor opinion about promotional
opportunities given by the organisation.
24
Chart : 4.12
35
31
30
30
27
25
20
Percentage
15
12
10
0
Very Good Good Average Poor
25
4.2.13 GRIEVANCE HANDLING SYSTEM
The respondents are classified on the basis of their grievance handling system have
classified into two categories. That is yes or no.
Table: 4.13
Grievance handling system
Grievance handling
system
Yes 84 93
No 6 7
Total 90 100
follow any grievance handling system in the organisation and remaining 6 (7%) of the
respondent are not using the grievance handling system.
26
Chart : 4.13
100 93
90
80
70
60
Percentage
50
40
30
20
7
10
0
Yes No
27
4.2.14 PERIOD OF SOLVING GRIEVANCE
The table classifies the period of solving grievance. The period have been classified into
4 categories that are Immediately, Delayed, Unsolved and Unnoticed.
Table: 4.14
Period of Solving Grievance
Period of Solving
No of respondents (n=84) Percentage
Grievance
Immediately 46 55
Delayed 13 15
Unsolved 10 12
Unnoticed 15 18
Total 84 100
immediately solving the grievance, 13 (15%) of the respondents are time taken to solve the
grievance is delayed, 10 (12%) of the respondents are unsolved the grievance handling system
and remaining 15 (18%) of the respondents are unnoticed the grievance handling system.
28
Chart : 4.14
60
55
50
40
Percentage
30
20 18
15
12
10
0
Immediately Delayed Unsolved Unnoticed
29
4.2.15 RELATIONSHIP WITH CO WORKERS
The table 4.15 classified the relationship with co workers. The classifications are Good,
Cordial, Co-operative and Not Co-operative.
Table: 4.15
Relationship with Co workers
Relationship with Co
workers
Good 35 39
Cordial 15 17
Co-operative 28 31
Not Co-operative 12 13
Total 90 100
good relationship with coworkers, 15 (17%) of the respondents are cordial relationship with
coworkers, 28 (31%) of the respondents are cooperative with coworkers and remaining 12 (13%)
of the respondents are not cooperatives with coworkers.
30
Chart : 4.15
45
40 39
35
31
30
Percentage
25
20
17
15 13
10
0
Good Cordial Co-operative Not Co-operative
31
4.2.16 DECISION MAKING
To examine the decision making of the respondents, it is classified into two categories are
shown below. Those are yes or no.
Table: 4.16
Decision making
Decision making No. of respondents (n=90) Percentage

Yes 82 91
No 8 9
Total 90 100
The above table 4.16 seen that out of 90 respondents, 82 (91%) of the respondents are our
views asked in decision making and remaining 8 (9%) of the respondents are not asked in
decision making.
32
Chart : 4.16
Decision making
100
91
90
80
70
60
Percentage
50
40
30
20
9
10
0
Yes No
Decision making
33
4.2.17 DECISION MAKING EXTENT
The table classifies the extent of decision making, it is classified into four categories that
are Frequently, Often, Sometimes and Not at all.
Table: 4.17
Decision making Extent
Extent of opinion No. of respondents (n=90) Percentage

Frequently 23 28
Often 47 57
Sometimes 8 10
Not at all 4 5
Total 82 100.00
The above table 4.17 seen that out of 82 respondents, 23 (28%) of the respondents
frequently asked in decision making, 47 (57%) of the respondents are very often asked in
decision making, 8 (10%) of the respondents are sometimes asked in decision making and
remaining 4 (5%) of the respondents are not at all asked in decision making.
34
Chart : 4.17
Decision making Extent
60 57
50
40
Percentage
30 28
20
10
10
5
0
Frequently Often Sometimes Not at all
Axis Title
35
4.3 CHI – SQUARE
The chi square test is an important test among the several tests of signification developed
by satisfaction. Chi-square, symbolically written x2 is a statistical measure used in the contexts
of sampling analysis for comparing a variance to a theoretical variance. It can also be used to
make comparison between theoretical population and actual data when categories as used.
Table: 4.18
Age and Job Satisfaction
H0 = There exist no significant association between age of the respondents and their level of job
satisfaction.
Level of Satisfaction
Age Total
High Moderate Low
Below 25 years 5 2 4 11
Between 25 and 35 years 23 8 20 51
Between 36 and 45 years 13 2 2 17
Above 46 years 9 2 0 11
Total 50 14 26 90
Calculated χ2 Value: 11.164

Degree of freedom: 6
Table Value: Five per cent level: 12.592
Since the calculated χ2 value (11.164) is less than the table value (12.592) at five percent
level of significance. H0 is accepted. Hence it is concluded that there is no significant association
between age of the respondents and their level of job satisfaction.
36
Table: 4.19
Gender and Job Satisfaction
H0 = There exist no significant association between gender of the respondents and their level of
job satisfaction.
Gender Total
High Moderate Low
Male 29 4 4 37
Female 21 10 22 53
Total 50 14 26 90

level of significance. H0 is rejected. Hence it is concluded that there is a significant association
between gender of the respondents and their level of job satisfaction.
37
Table: 4.20
Educational Qualification and Job Satisfaction
H0 = There exist no significant association between educational qualification of the respondents

and their level of job satisfaction.
Educational Level of Satisfaction

Total
Qualification High Moderate Low
No formal Education 16 2 2 20
Upto HSC 22 2 1 25
Graduate 12 10 23 45
Total 50 14 26 90

Since the calculated χ2 value (31.771) is more than the table value (9.488) at five percent
level of significance. H0 is rejected. Hence it is concluded that there is a significant association
between educational qualification of the respondents and their level of job satisfaction.
38
Table: 4.21
Annual Income and Job Satisfaction
H0 = There exist no significant association between annual income of the respondents and their
level of job satisfaction.
Annual Income Total
High Moderate Low
Less than Rs.10,000 4 0 2 6
Rs.10,001 - Rs.20,000 33 10 22 65
Rs.20,001 - Rs.50,000 13 4 2 19
Total 50 14 26 90

between annual income of the respondents and their level of job satisfaction.
39
Table: 4.22
Marital Status and Job Satisfaction
H0 = There exist no significant association between marital status of the respondents and their
Marital Status Total
High Moderate Low
Married 48 12 26 86
Unmarried 2 2 0 4
Total 50 14 26 90

between marital status of the respondents and their level of job satisfaction.
40
Table: 4.23
Place of living and Job Satisfaction
H0 = There exist no significant association between place of residence of the respondents and
their level of job satisfaction.
Place of living Total
High Moderate Low
Urban 7 2 2 11
Semi-urban 5 2 0 7
Rural 38 10 24 72
Total 50 14 26 90

between place of residence of the respondents and their level of job satisfaction.
41
Table: 4.24
Designation and Job Satisfaction
H0 = There exist no significant association between designation of the respondents and their
level of satisfaction.
Designation Total
High Moderate Low
Manager 1 0 2 3
Assistant 8 0 2 10
Staff 4 4 8 16
Worker 37 10 14 61
Total 50 14 26 90

between designation of the respondents and their level of job satisfaction.
42
4.4 ANOVA
A statistical analysis tool that separates the total variability found within a data set into
two components: random and systematic factors. The random factors do not have any statistical
influence on the given data set, while the systematic factors do. The ANOVA test is used to
determine the impact independent variables have on the dependent variable in a regression
analysis.
Table No: 4.25

Anova table showing the Difference in Mean Scores Between
Job Satisfaction & Age
Sum of Mean
Age df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 4.159 2 2.080 5.430 0.006
Within Groups 37.151 97 0.383
Total 41.310 99
INTERPRETATION
The above table shows that the P value (0.006) is less than 0.05. So there is a significant
difference in the mean scores of the respondents based on level of Job Satisfaction with respect
to different age group of the respondents. It is inferred that age group its influence the Job
Satisfaction of the respondent.
43
Table No: 4.26
Job Satisfaction & Gender
Sum of Mean
Gender df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 2.766 2 1.383 6.380 0.002
Within Groups 21.024 97 .217
Total 23.790 99
INTERPRETATION
The above table shows that the P value (0.002) is less than 0.05. So there is a significant
to gender of the respondents. It is inferred that gender its influence the Job Satisfaction of the
respondent.
44
Table No: 4.27
Job Satisfaction & Educational Qualification
Educational Sum of Mean

df F Sig.
Qualification Squares Square
Between Groups 5.437 2 2.719 2.947 0.057
Total 94.910 99
INTERPRETATION
The above table shows that the P value (0.057) is equal to 0.05. So there is a significant
to educational qualification of the respondents. It is inferred that educational qualification its
influence the Job Satisfaction of the respondent.
45
Table No: 4.28
Job Satisfaction & Monthly Income
Sum of Mean
Monthly Income df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 4.075 2 2.037 5.947 0.004
Total 37.310 99
INTERPRETATION
The above table shows that the P value (0.004) is less than to 0.05. So there is a significant
to Monthly income of the respondents. It is inferred that Monthly income its influence the Job
Satisfaction of the respondent.
46
Table No: 4.29
Job Satisfaction & Type Of Family
Sum of Mean
Type of family df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups .557 2 .279 4.539 0.013
Total 6.510 99
INTERPRETATION
The above table shows that the P value (0.013) is less than to 0.05. So there is a significant
to Family type of the respondents. It is inferred that Family type its influence the Job Satisfaction
of the respondent.
47
Table No: 4.30
Job Satisfaction & Marital Status
Sum of Mean
Marital Status df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 1.905 2 .953 1.717 0.185

Total 55.710 99
INTERPRETATION
The above table shows that the P value (0.185) is more than to 0.05. So there is no
significant difference in the mean scores of the respondents based on level of Job Satisfaction
with respect to marital status of the respondents. It is inferred that department does not influence
the Job Satisfaction of the respondent.
48
Table No: 4.31
Job Satisfaction & Experience
Sum of Mean
Experience df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups .456 2 .228 0.600 0.551

Total 37.360 99
INTERPRETATION
The above table shows that the P value (0.551) is more than to 0.05. So there is no
significant difference in the mean scores of the respondents based on level of Job Satisfaction
with respect to experience of the respondents. It is inferred that department does not influence
the Job Satisfaction of the respondent.
49
CHAPTER – V
FINDINGS, SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUSION
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The main objective is to identify the satisfaction level of the employees on the
environment and infrastructure. A structured questionnaire was prepared to collect the data from
the respondents. The major findings of the study and suitable suggestion are presented in this
chapter.
5.2 FINDINGS
5.2.1 Percentage Analysis

 Majority, 51 (57%) respondents are belonging to, the age group between 25-35 years.
 Majority, 53 (59%) of the respondents are female.
 Majority, 45 (50%) of the respondents are graduate holders.
 Majority, 65(72%) respondents, Annual Family income is between Rs.10,001 and
Rs.20,0000.
 Majority, 86 (96%) of the respondents are married.
 Majority, 72 (80%) respondents are residing in rural area.
 Majority, 67 (74%) respondents belong to Nuclear family.
 Maximum, 61 (68%) of the respondents belong to workers category.
 The majority, 46 (51%) of the respondents have worked in production department.
 Majority, 46 (51%) of the respondents had 6 to 10 years of experience in the
organization.
 The majority, 37 (41%) of the respondents says working condition of the organisation is
good.
 The majority, 40 (44%) of the respondents have moderate relationship with superior.
 The majority, 28 (31%) of the respondents are on average opinion about promotional
opportunities given by the organisation.
50
 The majority, 84 (93%) of the respondents are following grievance handling system in
the organisation.
 The majority, 46 (55%) of the respondents are immediately solving the grievances
through grievance handling system.
 35 (39%) of the respondents have good relationship with coworkers and forms the
majority.
 The majority, 82 (91%) of the respondents views are asked in decision making.
 Majority, 47 (57%) of the respondents very often involved in decision making.
 The majority, 53 (58%) of the respondents are satisfied with target related incentives.
 The majority, 60 (67%) of the respondents have over coat equipment given by the
organisation.
 Majority, 58 (64%) of the respondents enjoy holiday compensation facilities provided by
the organisation.
 Majority, 51 (57%) of the respondents feel good about pay package.
 Majority, 86 (96%) of the respondents are said our jobs are recognized by the company.
 The majority, 69 (77%) of the respondents are highly satisfied with financial incentives
provided by the organisation.
 The majority, 45 (50%) of the respondents are highly satisfied with non financial
incentives provided by the organisation.
 The majority, 45 (50%) of the respondents are highly satisfied with working hours of the
organisation.
 The majority, 40 (45%) of the respondents are highly satisfied with accident
compensation paid given by the organisation.
 The majority, 48 (53%) of the respondents are satisfied with welfare facilities provided
by the organisation.
 The majority, 58 (65%) of the respondents are satisfied with quality of food and serves in
canteen.
 The majority, 57 (63%) of the respondents are satisfied with restroom facilities of the
organisation.
51
 The majority, 55 (61%) of the respondents are satisfied with promotion system of the
organisation.
 The majority, 54 (60%) of the respondents are satisfied with job security system provided
by the organisation.
 The majority, 52 (58%) of the respondents are satisfied with Employee counseling
scheme provided by the organisation.
 The majority, 52 (58%) of the respondents are satisfied with existing committees of the
organisation.
 The majority, 55 (61%) of the respondents are satisfied with Grievance Procedures
provided by the organisation.
 The majority, 46 (51%) of the respondents are satisfied with working condition of the
organisation.
5.2.2 Chi – Square Test
 There is no significant association between age of the respondents and their level of job
satisfaction.
 There is a significant association between gender of the respondents and their level of job
satisfaction.
 There is a significant association between educational qualification of the respondents
and their level of job satisfaction.
 There is no significant association between annual income of the respondents and their
 There is no significant association between marital status of the respondents and their
 There is no significant association between place of residence of the respondents and
their level of job satisfaction.
 There is no significant association between designation of the respondents and their level
of job satisfaction.
52
5.2.3 ANOVA
 The P value (0.006) is less than 0.05. So there is a significant difference in the mean
scores of the respondents based on level of Job Satisfaction with respect to different age
group of the respondents.
 The P value (0.002) is less than 0.05. So there is a significant difference in the mean
scores of the respondents based on level of Job Satisfaction with respect to gender of the
respondents.
 The P value (0.057) is equal to 0.05. So there is a significant difference in the mean
scores of the respondents based on level of Job Satisfaction with respect to educational
qualification of the respondents.
 The P value (0.004) is less than to 0.05. So there is a significant difference in the mean
scores of the respondents based on level of Job Satisfaction with respect to Monthly
income of the respondents.
 The P value (0.013) is less than to 0.05. So there is a significant difference in the mean
scores of the respondents based on level of Job Satisfaction with respect to Family type
of the respondents.
 The P value (0.185) is more than to 0.05. So there is no significant difference in the mean
scores of the respondents based on level of Job Satisfaction with respect to marital status
of the respondents.
 The P value (0.551) is more than to 0.05. So there is no significant difference in the mean
scores of the respondents based on level of Job Satisfaction with respect to experience of
the respondents.
53
5.3 SUGGESTION
Based on the findings of the study, the following suggestions are offered as feasible to achieve
the improvement of Satisfaction among employees.
 To there was no freedom of the employees , it is suggested to the management reasonable

freedom to the employees.
 The employee feels that the work-loads are not equal between colleagues. So equal
distribution of workloads should be done to improve the satisfaction of employee
especially in the media sector.
 In the media sector, there must be brain storming between employees and employers
relating to their job profile, job stress, and salary from time to time in order to increase
their job-commitment.
 Reward and recognition system should be fair and transparently to be adapted to each and
every employee in the Organization in both the sectors.
 Training Programmes should be conducted for both personal as well as technical
development. Management should recognize talents and encourage them to grow in the
organization.
54
5.4 CONCLUSION
Workplace happiness is very important to keep our mind fresh and stress less. Employee
job satisfaction can improve service quality and increase employee happiness and satisfaction. In
this circumstance, policy makers and managers have turned their attention to provide different
kinds of facilities to their employees in order to satisfy their employees. The results suggest that
the factors had satisfactorily explained job satisfaction and that the policy makers and managers
should focus on the factors that affect employee job satisfaction, if they want to enhance their
businesses. Based on the results for the standardized values, we are able to see that work
conditions, fairness, promotion, and pay, are key factors affecting media industries employees
job satisfaction.
Money is a good motivator, actually all employees work for money, employees need the
money, a good salary and good compensations are key factors in satisfying the employee. We
can increase the employee salary and compensation to motivate the employee, the good pay back
can be one of the key factors affecting job satisfaction, also in this way one can increase the
service quality and organizational performance. A good work environment and good work
conditions can increase employee happiness and satisfaction and the employees will try to give
their best which can increase the employee work performance.
55
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
 K. Aswathappa, Human Resource and Personnel management, Forth Edition, The

McGraw-Hill companies, 2006.
 B.R Virmani and Premila Seth, Evaluating Management Training and Development,
Vision Books, New Delhi, 1985.
 C.R. Kothari, Research Methodology Methods and Techniques (second revised edition),
P1, New Age International (P) Limited, 2011.
Articles
 Aarti Chahal (2013), “Job Satisfaction among Bank Employees: An Analysis Of The
Contributing Variables Towards Job Satisfaction”. IOSR Journal of Humanities and
Social Science (IOSR-JHSS) Volume 19, Issue 3, PP 57-62.
 Amir Abou Elnaga and Amen Imran (2014), “The Impact of Employee Empowerment
on Job Satisfaction”. International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 3, No. 12;
January 2014.
 Annelore Deprez and Karin Raeymaeckers (2012), “A Longitudinal Study of Job
Satisfaction among Flemish Professional Journalists”. Organizational Behavior
(Handbook), Page: 106–123.
 Bandana Nayak (2013), “Employee Satisfaction Leveraging Employee Relations and
Overall Job Satisfaction”. World Applied Sciences Journal 20 (8): 1152-1158, 2012,
ISSN 1818-4952.
 Bidyut Bijoya Neog and Dr. Mukulesh Barua (2014), “Factors Influencing
Employee’s Job Satisfaction: An Empirical Study among Employees of Automobile
Service Workshops in Assam”. International Journal of Management & Business Studies,
IJMBS Vol. 1, Issue 4, pp.78-93.
 C. P. Akpan (2013), “Job Security and Job Satisfaction as Determinants of
Organizational Commitment”. International Journal of Business, Management and Social
Sciences Vol. 2, No. 1, 2010, pp. 33-42.
56
 C. Swarnalatha and G. Sureshkrishna (2012), “Job Satisfaction among Employees of
Automotive Industries in India”. International Journal of Application or Innovation in
Engineering & Management (IJAIEM), Volume 3, Issue 2, February 2012.
 Chengedzai Mafini and Nobukhosi Dlodlo (2014), “The relationship between extrinsic
motivation, job satisfaction and life satisfaction amongst employees in a public
organisation”. A Journal of Economics and Management Vol.1 Issue 2, ISSN
2278‐0629 .
 Coetzee (2012), “Exploring the Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment of
Employees in the Information Technology Environment”. International Journal of
Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM), Volume 3, Issue 2,
February 2012.
 Daniel Bo and Moses I. Ukeh (2013), “Stress and job satisfaction among journalists in
Benue state, Nigeria”. Journal of Global Strategic Management | 12| 2014, December.
 Dr Ruchi Jain and Surinder Kaur (2014), “Impact of Work Environment on Job
Satisfaction”. Journal of Exercise Science and Physiotherapy, Vol. 8, No. 1: 43-47.
 Dr. D. Rajasekar and K.Bhuvaneswari (2014), “An Empirical Evaluation on Job
Satisfaction of Employees”. European Research Studies, Volume XIII, Issue (1).
 Dr. Muhammad Falah Qudah, Dr. Mnawer Bayan Al-Rajihi and Dr. Zuhair Yassin
Al-Tahat (2013), “Job Satisfaction of Employees of Jordan and Television Field Study”.
International Journal of Training and Development, 14(4).
 Dr. Shikha Bhargava and Dr. Shiva Johri (2014), “Job Satisfaction and Dimensions of
Commitment Ensuing Improved Productivity in Private Organizations”. International
Review of Business Research Papers, Vol. 3 No.5 November 1999 Pp.193-208.
 Dr.R.Anitha (2011), “A Study on Job Satisfaction of Paper Mill Employees with Special
Reference to Udumalpet and Palani Taluk”. International Journal of Engineering and
Management Research, Volume-4, Issue-1, February-2011, ISSN No.: 2250-075..
 Ekta Sinha (2013), “A research work on Employee Satisfaction measurement with
special reference to KRIBHCO, Surat”. Journal of Applied Psychology © 2009 American
Psychological Association 2013, Vol. 94, No. 1, 122–141.
57
 Ekta Sinha (2013), “A Research Work On Employee Satisfaction Measurement With
Special Reference To Kribhco, Surat”. The International Journal Of Management, Vol 2
Issue 4, pp.78-82.
 Fatema Mohammed and MuathEleswed (2013), “Job Satisfaction and Organizational
Commitment”. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Management Review, ISSN 2319-
2836 Vol.2 (9).
 Fisnik Bytyqi, Vllaznim Reshani and Vyrtyt Hasani (2010), “Work Stress, Job
Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment among Public Employees before
Privatization”. Journal of European Industrial Training, 27(/2/3/4):137-146.
 Himani Grover and Supreet Juneja Wahee (2013), “Study on Factors Influencing Job
Satisfaction of Employees”. International Refereed Research Journal, Vol.– IV, Issue –
2, April 2013[144.]
 Jamal Nazrul Islam (2012), “ A Study On Job Satisfaction And Morale Of Commercial
Banks In Bangladesh”. Personnel Review, 37(6), 680-70.
 Javad Eslami and Davood Gharakhani (2012), “Organizational Commitment and Job
Satisfaction”. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 100-112.
 Jitendra Kumar Singh and Dr. Mini Jain (2013), “A Study of Employees Job
Satisfaction and Its Impact on their Performance”. International Journal of Business
Economics & Management Research Vol.2 Issue 1.
 Lai Chai Hong and Nik Intan Norhan (2013), “A Study on the Factors Affecting Job
Satisfaction amongst Employees of a Factory in Seremban, Malaysia”. Asian Academy
of Management Journal, Vol. 16, No. 2, 149–165.
 Mohsin Altaf, UsmanYousaf, MisbahTahir and Mohammad Majid Mehmood
Bagram (2013), European Research Studies, Volume XIII, Issue (1).
 Mrs. Pallavi Kumari (2013), “Analyzing the Role of Management In Enhancing Job
Satisfaction”. IOSR Journal of Business and Management (IOSR-JBM) e-ISSN : 2278-
487X, p-ISSN : 2319-7668, PP 57-60.
 Ms. Chetna Pandey and Mrs. Rajni Khare (2012), “Impact of Job Satisfaction And
Organizational Commitment on Employee Loyalty”. Global Business and Management
Research: An International Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.72-74.
58
 Mucahit Ceik1 (2011), “A Theoretical Approach To The Job Satisfaction”, Global
Journal of Management and Business Research, 11(7).
 Muhammad Javed, Muhammad Rafiq, Maqsood Ahmed and Mustajab Khan
(2012), “Impact of HR Practices on Employee Job Satisfaction in Public Sector
Organizations of Pakistan”. Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research, January
2012, vol 3, no 9.
 Muhammad Rizwan (2010), “Empirical Study of Employee Job Satisfaction”.
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Management Studies Vol.1 Issue 3, December
2011, ISSN 2249 8834.
 Muhammad Rizwan and Waqas Mehmood Khan (2012), “Empirical study of
Employee job Satisfaction”. IOSR Journal of Business and Management (IOSR-JBM) e-
ISSN : 2278-487X, p-ISSN : 2319-7668, PP 17-19.
 Muhammad Umair Manzoor and Muhammad Usman (2009), “A Study of Job Stress
and Job Satisfaction among Universities Faculty in Lahore, Pakistan”. International
Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, Vol. 1 Issue 6, pp.79-84.
 Ndum Etim Victor (2014), “Employee motivation and job satisfaction in formal
organization - a case study of junior staff of Cross River University of Technology”.
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 11, 38-52.
 Nilufar Ahsan and Zaini Abdullah (2009), “A Study of Job Stress on Job Satisfaction
among University Staff in Malaysia”. The quarterly journal of Administration, 12 (1): 45-
54.
 Rezvan Mirsafaei Rizi, Aida Azadi, Maryam Eslami Farsani and Shahram
Aroufzad (2013), “Relationship between leadership styles and job satisfaction”. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 68, pp. 653-663.
 Sadegh Rast (2012), “Evaluation of Employees job Satisfaction And Role Of Gender
Difference: An Empirical Study At Airline Industry In Iran”. Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, 24(6) 309 – 317.
 Sadegh Rast (2012), “Evaluation of Employees’ Job Satisfaction and Role Of Gender
Difference: An Empirical Study At Airline Industry In Iran”. Managerial Auditing
Journal, 18 (2), 150 – 155.
59
 Samuel Emeka Mbah and C. O . Ikemefuna (2012), “Job Satisfaction and Employees’
Turnover Intentions in total Nigeria plc. in Lagos State”. Journal of Psychology and
Behavioral Science, June 2014, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 221-255, ISSN: 2374-2380 (Print)
2374-2399 (Online).
 Senbounsou Khamlub and Md. Harun-Or-Rashid (2013), “Job Satisfaction of Health-
Care Workers at Health Centers in Vientiane Capital and Bolikhamsai Province, Lao
PDR”. Bulletin of Environment, Pharmacology and Life Sciences , Bull. Env. Pharmacol.
Life Sci., Vol 3 (Spl issue I): 11-15.
 Serhan Ercikti (2011), “Major Determinants of Job Satisfaction among Police
Managers”.
 Shagufta Sarwar and James Abugre (2011), “The Influence of Rewards and Job
Satisfaction on Employees in the Service Industry”. Journal of Exercise Science and
Physiotherapy, Vol. 8, No. 1: 43-47,
 Sharon Ruvimbo Terera and Hlanganipai Ngirande (2014), “The Impact of Training
on Employee Job Satisfaction and Retention”. International Journal of Business and
Management Vol. 6, No. 1; January 2014.
 Vrinda N N and Nisha Ann Jacob (2015), “The Impact of Job Satisfaction on Job
Performance”. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73,473–487.
 Wong Yvonne (2014), “Employee Job Satisfaction And Job Performance: A Case Study
In A Franchised Retail- Chain Organization”. Asian Social Science Vol. 8, No. 9; July
1997.
 Wong Yvonne, Rabeatul Husna Abdull Rahman and Choi Sang Long (2014),
“Employee Job Satisfaction and Job Performance”. International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management, 11, 38-52.
60
ANNEXURE
A STUDY ON EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION WITH SPECIAL
REFERENCE TO V.G.TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED, UDUMALPET
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
1. Name: -----------------------------------------------
2. Age
a) Below 25 years b) Between 25 and 35years
c) Between 36 and 45 years d) 46 & above
3. Gender
a) Male b) Female
4. Educational Qualification
a) No formal education b) Upto HSC
c) Graduate d) Post graduate
e) Others specify ------------------------------
5. Annual income
a) Less than Rs 10,000 b) Rs 10,001-20,000
c) Rs 20,001-50,000 d) Rs. 50,000 & above
6. Marital status
a) Married b) Unmarried
7. Place of living
a) Urban b) Semi-urban
c) Rural
8. Type of family
a) Joint b) Nuclear
9. Designation
a) Manager b) Assistant c) Staff d) Worker
e) Others specify ----------------------------
II. EMPLOYEE DETAILS
10. Working Experience
a) Below 5 years b) 6 to 10 years c) 11 to 25 years d) Above 25 years
61
11. Your Opinion about working condition
a) Very good b) Good c) Average
d) Poor e) Need Improvement
12. How is your relationship with superior?
a) Cordial b) Moderate c) Not cordial
13. Your Opinion about promotional opportunities
a) Very good b) Good c) Average d) Poor
14. Does the time follow any grievance handling system?
a) Yes b) No
15. If yes, the time period taken to solve the grievance is
a) Immediately b) Delayed c) Unsolved d) Unnoticed
16. How are your co – workers?
a) Good b) Cordial c) Co – operative d) Not- co-operative
17. Are your views asked in decision making?
a) Yes b) No
18. If yes to what extent you opinion is considered
a) Frequently b) Often
c) Sometimes d) Not at all
III. EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION
19. Your level of satisfaction on target related incentives
a) Highly Satisfied b) Satisfied c) Neutral
d) Dissatisfied e) Highly Dissatisfied
20. What are the safety equipment given by the organization?
a) Cap b) Helmet
c) Over coat d) Shoes
e) Gloves f) Eye glass g) Others specify ----------------------------
21. What are the family welfare facilities provided by the organization?
a) Education allowance b) Family group Insurance c) EPF
d) Holiday compensation e) Vehicle loans f) Housing loan
g) Others specify ----------------------------
62
22. What do you feel about pay package?
a) Good b) Adequate c) Neutral
d) Satisfactory e) Not Adequate
23. Do your jobs are recognized by your company?
a) Yes b) No
IV.JOB SATISFACTION
24. Kindly put a tick mark any one of five response category of (1) strongly agree [SA], (2) agree
[A], (3) Neutral [N], (4) disagree [D], (5) strongly disagree [SD] which suits you the best. Kindly
respond to each item. All information will be kept confidential.
S.No Statement SA A N DA SD
1 My job is like a hobby to me.
My job is usually interesting enough to keep
2
me from getting bored.
It seems that my friends are interested in my
3
jobs.
4 I consider my job rather unpleasant
5 I enjoy my work more than my leisure time.
6 I am satisfied with my present job.
Most of the time I have to force my self to go
7
to work.
I feel that my job is no more interesting than
8
others I could get.
9 I definitely dislike my work.
I feel that I am happy in my work than most
10
other people.
11 Most days I am enthusiastic about my work.
12 Each day of work seems like it will never end.
I like my job better than the average worker
13
does.
14 My job is pretty uninteresting.
63
15 I feel pleasure in my work.
16 I am disappointed that I ever took this job.
I often feel that my employer will not
17
terminate me if I commit a mistake
18 My Job is more varied and less monotonous
19 I feel badly if I do not perform well on my job
I have various avenues open for refreshing my
20
knowledge in my field
The respect and regards that people shown on
21
me is because of the job I hold.
The most important thing that happens to me
22
is involved with my job.
My present job demands a high degree of
23
accuracy.
I will quit the present job if I am offered
24
another at a higher pay.
I have never felt at ease in the present job as
25
the ways of doing things are rapidly changing.
I have faced a situation when undeserving
26
candidate was promoted.
Recreational facilities are negligible in my
27
institution
28 I like and respect my colleagues
I have substantial discretion in scheduling the
29 work and determining the procedures in
carrying out work.
I have to work very hard here if am to keep
30
my job secure.
The activities of my superiors are governed
31
with self-interest.
64
32 I have control over the pace of my work.
Present job gives me a tremendous sense of
33
accomplishment.
Present job requires use of different talents
34
which are present in me.
Canteen and catering facilities are available at
35
appropriate time.
36 My opinions are given due consideration
25. Give any suggestion

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
65

Chap - 1 To 5

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chap - 1 To 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER – IV

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATIONS

4.2 PERCENTAGE ANALYSIS

Age No. of respondents (n=90) Percentage

Between 25 and 35 years 51 57

Between 36 and 45 years 17 19

Gender No. of respondents (n=90) Percentage

The Educational qualification of the respondents are classified namely No formal

Educational Qualification No. of respondents (n=90) Percentage

Annual Income No. of respondents (n=90) Percentage

Less than Rs.10,000 6 7

Marital Status No. of respondents (n=90) Percentage

Place of living No. of respondents (n=90) Percentage

Type of family No. of respondents (n=90) Percentage

Designation No. of respondents (n=90) Percentage

Working Experience No. of respondents (n=90) Percentage

Opinion about Working

Opinion about Promotional

Decision making No. of respondents (n=90) Percentage

Extent of opinion No. of respondents (n=90) Percentage

Calculated χ2 Value: 11.164

Calculated χ2 Value: 13.908

H0 = There exist no significant association between educational qualification of the respondents

Educational Level of Satisfaction

Calculated χ2 Value: 31.771

Calculated χ2 Value: 5.083

Marital Status and Job Satisfaction

Calculated χ2 Value: 4.425

Place of living and Job Satisfaction

Calculated χ2 Value: 4.438

Calculated χ2 Value: 12.252

Table No: 4.25

Between Groups 4.159 2 2.080 5.430 0.006

Within Groups 37.151 97 0.383

Within Groups 21.024 97 .217

Educational Sum of Mean

Between Groups 5.437 2 2.719 2.947 0.057

Within Groups 89.473 97 0.922

Between Groups .557 2 .279 4.539 0.013

Within Groups 5.953 97 .061

Between Groups 1.905 2 .953 1.717 0.185

Between Groups .456 2 .228 0.600 0.551

FINDINGS, SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUSION

5.2.1 Percentage Analysis

5.2.2 Chi – Square Test

 To there was no freedom of the employees , it is suggested to the management reasonable

 K. Aswathappa, Human Resource and Personnel management, Forth Edition, The

25. Give any suggestion

You might also like