sDATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION:

The data analysis and interpretation of the under-study research are discussed below:

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS:

The descriptive statistics demonstrate the attributes of the under-study data including its

mean, median, mode, standard deviation, variance, and similar. (Bybee et al., 1982) The

descriptive statistic of the under-study variables is discussed below:

Statistics

Gender Nationality Age current Type ofSuffering Experience

position work experience

Valid 466 466 466 466 466 466 466

N
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mean 1.4764 5.0129 2.5064 2.3026 1.8433 2.3026 2.6974

Median 1.0000 5.0000 2.0000 2.0000 2.0000 2.0000 3.0000

Mode 1.00 8.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 2.00

Std. Deviation .49998 2.97225 .89019 1.17349 .85202 .96424 1.28877

Variance .250 8.834 .792 1.377 .726 .930 1.661

1
  Mean:

Mean represents the central value of the data. the mean for gender is 1.4, for nationality, the

mean is 5.01, for age, the mean is 2.51, for current position the mean is 2.3, for the type of

work the mean is 1.8, for suffering experience the mean is 2.4 and for experience the mean is

2.69.

 Median:

Median is the middle number of the data set. The median for gender is 1 showing males,

median for age is 2 showing age between 21-30, median for nationality is 5 showing Syrian,

median for current position is 2 showing employees, median for suffering experience is 2

showing boss/ managers and median for experience is 2 showing team work issues.

 Mode:

It shows the value which appears the most often in the data set. The mode of gender is 1

showing males, mode of nationality is 8 showing UAE, the mode of age is 2 showings 20-30

years age, the mode of the current position is 2 showing employee.

 Standard deviation:

The standard deviation shows the deviation of data values from its mean. The standard

deviation of all the variables depicts fewer deviations from the mean which shows that the

data is good and reliable.

2
  Variance:

The variance shows the squared deviation of data values from its mean. The variance of all

the variables depicts fewer deviations from the mean which shows that the data is good and

reliable.

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION:

Frequency distribution refers to the occurrence of an object in an event. It depicts the number

of times an object appeared in the event. (Blakely et al., 2009) The frequency distribution of

the under-study research is shown below:

Gender
. (Blakely et al., 2009) Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Male 244 52.4 52.4 52.4
Valid Female 222 47.6 47.6 100.0
Total 466 100.0 100.0

3
The graph and calculations demonstrate that 244 respondents were males while 222 were

female.

Nationality

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Egyptian 93 20.0 20.0 20.0

Pakistan 15 3.2 3.2 23.2

Valid Emirati 89 19.1 19.1 42.3

Jordanian 26 5.6 5.6 47.9

Syrian 37 7.9 7.9 55.8

4
Turkish 13 2.8 2.8 58.6

Indian 18 3.9 3.9 62.4

Saudi 148 31.8 31.8 94.2

Bahrain 11 2.4 2.4 96.6

Lebanese 6 1.3 1.3 97.9

Kuwait 10 2.1 2.1 100.0

Total 466 100.0 100.0

5
The graph and calculations show that 93 respondents were Egyptians, 15 were Pakistani, 89

belonged to UAE, 26 were Jordanian, 37 were Syrian, 13 were Turkish, 18 were Indians, 148

were Saudi, 11 were Bahrain, 6 from Lebanese, and 10 from Kuwait.

Age

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

20 or younger 39 8.4 8.4 8.4

21-30 224 48.1 48.1 56.4

31-40 144 30.9 30.9 87.3

Valid 41-50 48 10.3 10.3 97.6

51-60 9 1.9 1.9 99.6

61-70 2 .4 .4 100.0

Total 466 100.0 100.0

6
The graph and calculations show that 39 respondents had an age of 20 years and younger, 22

were between 21-30 years, 144 were of the age 31-40 years, 48 were 41-50 years, 9 were 51-

60 years and only 2 were 61-70 years.

current position

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Student 84 18.0 18.0 18.0

Employee 269 57.7 57.7 75.8

Valid
Manager 58 12.4 12.4 88.2

Executive 16 3.4 3.4 91.6

7
 other 21 4.5 4.5 96.1

Director 18 3.9 3.9 100.0

Total 466 100.0 100.0

The graph and calculations show that 84 respondents were students, 269 were employees, 58

were managers, 16 were executives, 18 were directors and 21 belonged to some other

category.

Type of work

8
 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Private 211 45.3 45.3 45.3

Semi-government 117 25.1 25.1 70.4

Valid
Government 138 29.6 29.6 100.0

Total 466 100.0 100.0

The graph and calculations show that 211 respondents were private employees, 117 belonged

to semi-government organizations and 138 belonged to government organizations.

Suffering experience

9
 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Colleague/co-workers 124 26.6 26.6 26.6

Boss/managers 110 23.6 23.6 50.2

Organization 207 44.4 44.4 94.6

Valid Nothing 19 4.1 4.1 98.7

the very high target 4 .9 .9 99.6

Facility management 2 .4 .4 100.0

Total 466 100.0 100.0

10
The graph and calculations show that 124 respondents had an issue with colleagues, 110 had

issued from the boss, 207 had an issue with the organization, while19 had no issue and the

rest had some other issues.

Experience

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

less salary 106 22.7 22.7 22.7

teamwork 117 25.1 25.1 47.9

management 98 21.0 21.0 68.9

Valid
policies 102 21.9 21.9 90.8

online work 43 9.2 9.2 100.0

Total 466 100.0 100.0

11
The graph and calculations show that 106 respondents had an issue of less salary 117 had an

issue in doing teamwork, 98 had issues with the management, 102 had policies issues while

43 had issues with doing work online.

CORRELATION:

The correlation demonstrates the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable

and identifies the direction of the relationship between them. The correlation of under-study

variables is shown below:

Correlations

12
 Gender Nationalit Age Current Type Suffering Experience

y position of experience

work
Pearson Correlation 1 .054 -.079 .007 -.001 -.045 .047
Gender Sig. (2-tailed) .247 .087 .885 .981 .328 .308
N 466 466 466 466 466 466 466
Pearson Correlation .054 1 .065 .111 .281 -.011 -.070
Nationality Sig. (2-tailed) .247 .161 .016 .000 .811 .133
N 466 466 466 466 466 466 466
Pearson Correlation -.079 .065 1 .458** .162* .129** .036
Age Sig. (2-tailed) .087 .161 .000 .000 .005 .433
N 466 466 466 466 466 466 466
Pearson Correlation .007 .111* .458** 1 .073 .023 .054
Current
Sig. (2-tailed) .885 .016 .000 .114 .614 .249
position
N 466 466 466 466 466 466 466
Pearson Correlation -.001 .281** .162** .073 1 .013 .043
Type of
Sig. (2-tailed) .981 .000 .000 .114 .774 .355
work
N 466 466 466 466 466 466 466
Pearson Correlation -.045 -.011 .129** .023 .013 1 .031
Suffering
Sig. (2-tailed) .328 .811 .005 .614 .774 .510
experience
N 466 466 466 466 466 466 466
Pearson Correlation .047 -.070 .036 .054 .043 .031 1
Experience Sig. (2-tailed) .308 .133 .433 .249 .355 .510
N 466 466 466 466 466 466 466

All the variables show a positive correlation with each other. This means that all the variables

are significantly and positively related to each other.

REGRESSION ANALYSIS:
13
The regression analysis shows the relationship between the dependent and independent

variables along with the direction of the relationship between them and demonstrates the

extent of the relationship between all the variables. (Murray, 1991) the regression analysis of

under-study research variables is given below:

ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression .658 3 .219 .235 .022b

1 Residual 431.679 462 .934

Total 432.337 465

a. Dependent Variable: Suffering experience

b. Predictors: (Constant), Experience, Type of work, current position

Coefficientsa

Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.

Coefficients

B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) 2.182 .159 13.710 .000

current position .017 .038 .021 .453 -.011

1

Type of work .012 .053 .011 .226 -.022

Experience .022 .035 .029 .622 -.034

a. Dependent Variable: Suffering experience

14
  Overall process significance:

The p-stat for overall process significance is 0.022 which is less than 0.05 which shows that

the process is overall significant.

 Current position:

The current position shows a p-stat of -0.011 which is less than 0.05 and shows a negative

and significant relationship between the suffered experience and the current position. As the

current position will increase the suffering experience will gradually decline. Therefore, a 1

unit increase in the current position will decline the suffering experience by 0.011 units.

 Type of work:

Type of work shows a p-stat of -0.022 which is less than 0.05 and shows a negative and

significant relationship between the suffered experience and type of work. As the type of

work will upgrade the suffering experience will gradually decline. Therefore, a 1 unit

increase in the type of work will decline the suffering experience by 0.22 units.

 Experience:

Experience shows a p-stat of -0.034 which is less than 0.05 and shows a negative and

significant relationship between the suffered experience and jo experience. As the current job

experience will increase the suffering experience will gradually decline. Therefore, a 1 unit

increase in the current job experience will decline the suffering experience by 0.034 units.

15
 RESULTS SUMMARY:

There are different businesses in the world running presently each with a different

experience. Employees must face many different good and bad experiences during their job.

As the current position of the employees enhances, the suffered experience declines as the

post of the employee increases. Similarly, if the type of work of the employee is favourable,

he will have good job experience and vice versa. as the employee face worse and good

experience, he becomes used to it and feels less for the bad experiences. Therefore, the

employees must learn from the bad and good experiences they are facing during their job

tenure and must step forward with a positive attitude in the working organization.

16
References

Bybee, C., Robinson, D., & Turow, J. (1982). Determinants of parental guidance of children's

television viewing for a special subgroup: Mass media scholars. Journal Of

Broadcasting, 26(3), 697-710. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838158209364038

Blakely, G., Skirton, H., Cooper, S., Allum, P., & Nelmes, P. (2009). Educational gaming in

the health sciences: systematic review. Journal Of Advanced Nursing, 65(2), 259-269.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04843.x

Murray, G. (1991). Statistical aspects of research methodology. British Journal Of

Surgery, 78(7), 777-781. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800780704

17