DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Data analysis and interpretation is the process of assigning meaning to the collected information
which will serve as basis for drawing conclusions, providing recommendations and identifying
the implications of the findings.
TABLE 4.1
TABLE SHOWING AGE OF THE RESPONDENTS

  Frequency Percentage
20 -30 65 69.2
30 - 40 19 20.2
40 - 50 8 8.5
Above 50 2 2.1
Total 94 100
INTERPRETATION:
From the above table, it was observed that most of the respondents that 69% of them fall under
the age group of 20 - 30 followed by 20% under the age group 30 – 40 and 9% of them in the age
group of 40 - 50 and the remaining 2% of them were Above 50 age

Age
2%
9%

20%

69%

20 -30 30 - 40 40 - 50 Above 50

TABLE 4.2
 TABLE SHOWING THE MARITAL STATUS OF THE RESPONDENTS

  Frequency Percentage
Single 62 66
Married 32 34
Total 94 100

INTERPRETATION:

From the above table, it was observed that 65.9% of respondents are Single and 34.1% were
married.

Marital Status

34%

66%

Single Married

TABLE 4.3
TABLE SHOWING THE EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION OF THE RESPONDENTS
   Frequency Percentage

Diploma 3 3.2
Bachelor's Degree /
54 57.4
UG
Master's Degree /
36 38.3
PG
Above PG Level 1 1.7

Total 94 100
INTERPRETATION:
From the above table, 57.4% respondents are undergraduates followed by 38% of post graduate
respondents and 3.2% of respondents have done diploma and 1.7% studied above the PG level.

Educational Qualification
2%3%

38%

57%

Diploma Bachelor's Degree / UG Master's Degree / PG Above PG Level

TABLE 4.4
TABLE SHOWING THE INCOME LEVEL OF THE RESPONDENTS
   Frequency Percentage
Below 15,000 15 15.9
15,000 - 30,000 36 38.3
30,000 - 50,000 23 24.4
Above 50,000 14 14.8
Above 1,00,000 6 6.5
Total 94 100

INTERPRETATION:

From the above table, it was observed that 77% of respondents earn 30.000 – 50,000, 12% earn
around 15,000 – 30,000, 5% earn Below 15,000, 5% earn Above 50,000 and 2% of the
respondents earn Above 1,00,000.

Income Level

7% 16%
15%

24% 38%

Below 15,000 15,000 - 30,000 30,000 - 50,000 Above 50,000 Above 1,00,000

TABLE 4.5
 TABLE SHOWING THE LEVEL OF MANAGEMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS

  Frequency Percentage
Lower Level 36 38.3
Middle Level 49 52.1
Upper Level 9 9.5
Total 94 100

INTERPRETATION:
From the above table, it was understood that 38% of the respondents are lower-level staff, 52%
of the respondents are middle level staffs and the remaining 10% are senior staff.

Management Level
Lower Level Middle Level Upper Level

10%

38%

52%

TABLE 4.6
 TABLE SHOWING THE OVERTIME WORK OF THE RESPONDENTS

  Frequency Percentage
Daily 18 19.14
Weekly 26 27.65
Monthly 15 15.95
Rarely 27 28.72
Never 8 8.5
Total 94 100

INTERPRETATION:
From the above table, 28.72% of the respondents work overtime weekly, 28.72% of the
respondents rarely work overtime, 15.95% of the respondents work Overtime monthly, 19.14%
of the respondents work overtime daily and 8.5% of them never work overtime.

Overtime Work
Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely Never

9%
19%

29%

28%

16%

TABLE 4.7
 TABLE SHOWING THE WORKING MODEL OF THE RESPONDENTS

  Frequency Percentage
Remote 29 30.8
Hybrid 30 31.9
Work From Office 35 37.2
Total 94 100

INTERPRETATION:
From the above analyzed data, 37% of the respondents go to office, 32% of them prefer Hybrid
model and 31% prefer Remote Working Model.

Working Model
Remote Hybrid Work From Office

31%
37%

32%

TABLE 4.8
 TABLE SHOWING HOW THE RESPONDENTS COMMUTE TO WORKPLACE

  Frequency Percentage
Public Transport 31 32.9
Private Transport 44 46.8
Arranged by the
19 20.1
company
Total 94 100

INTERPRETATION:
From the above table, 47% of the respondents prefer Private Transport, 33% Public Transport
and 20% of them use transport arranged by the company.

Commutation to Work Place

20%
33%

47%

Public Transport Private Transport Arranged by the company

TABLE 4.9
 TABLE SHOWING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TRAINING PROGRAMS

  Frequency Percentage
Yes 56 59.5
No 38 40.4
Total 94 100

INTERPRETATION:
From the above table, 59.5% of the respondents have agreed that the training provided was
effective and 40.4% of the respondents have disagreed.

Effectiveness of Training Program

40.43
No
38

59.57
Yes
56

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Training Effectiveness Percentage Training Effectiveness Frequency

TABLE 4.10
Table showing the response for finding out whether the employee can give attention for
urgent family or personal issues immediately.

  Frequency Percentage
AGREE 11 11.7
NEUTRAL 20 21.27
DISAGREE 63 67.02
  94 100

INTERPRETATION:
From the above analysed data, it was observed that 12% of the respondents have agreed that they
can give attention for urgent family or personal issues immediately and 21% of the respondents
have neither agreed nor disagreed and the remaining 67% have disagreed.

67.02
DISAGREE
63

21.27
NEUTRAL
20

11.7
AGREE
11

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

OC1 Percentage OC1 Frequency

TABLE 4.11
Table showing of the response for finding out whether the employees discuss issues relating
to Work Life Balance with the superior.

  Frequency Percentage
AGREE 24 26
NEUTRAL 21 22
DISAGREE 49 52
Total 94 100

INTERPRETATION:
From the above table, 12% of the respondents have agreed that they discuss issues relating to
WLB with their superior and 21% of the respondents have neither agreed nor disagreed and the
remaining 67% have disagreed.

52
DISAGREE
49

22
NEUTRAL
21

26
AGREE
24

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

OC2 Percentage OC2 Frequency

TABLE 4.12
Table showing the response for finding out whether the organization supports the
employees in terms of combining professional life with family life.

  Frequency Percentage
AGREE 21 22.34
NEUTRAL 23 24.46
DISAGREE 50 53.19
Total 94 100

INTERPRETATION:
From the above table, it was observed that 22% of the respondents have agreed that their
organisation supports the employees in terms of combining professional life with family life and
24% of the respondents have neither agreed nor disagreed and the remaining 53% have
disagreed.

53.19
DISAGREE
50

24.46
NEUTRAL
23

22.34
AGREE
21

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

OC3 Percentage OC3 Frequency

TABLE 4.13
Table showing the response for finding out whether Counselling facility is provided for
work as well as family related issues.

  Frequency Percentage
AGREE 29 30.8
NEUTRAL 21 22.3
DISAGREE 44 46.8
Total 94 100

INTERPRETATION:
From the above table, it was observed that 30.8% of the respondents have agreed that their
organization provides Counselling facility for work as well as family related issues.
And 22.3% of the respondents have neither agreed nor disagreed and the remaining 46.8% have
disagreed.

46.81
DISAGREE
44

22.34
NEUTRAL
21

30.85
AGREE
29

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

OC4 Percentage OC4 Frequency

TABLE 4.14
Table showing the response for finding out whether their job keeps the employees away
from their family too much.

  Frequency Percentage
AGREE 19 20.2

NEUTRAL 21 22.3

DISAGREE 54 57.4

Total 94 100

INTERPRETATION:
From the above table, it was observed that 20.2% of the respondents have agreed that their job
keeps the employees away from their family too much and 57.4% of the respondents have
neither agreed nor disagreed and the remaining 22.3% have disagreed.

57.44
DISAGREE
54

22.34
NEUTRAL
21

20.21
AGREE
19

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

ST1 Percentage ST1 Frequency

TABLE 4.15
Table showing the response for finding out whether the employees get stressed often due to
their income level.

  Frequency Percentage

AGREE 20 21.2

NEUTRAL 19 20.2

DISAGREE 55 58.5

Total 94 100

INTERPRETATION:
From the above table, it was observed that 21.2% of the respondents have agreed that they get
stressed often due to their income level and 20.2% of the respondents have neither agreed nor
disagreed and the remaining 58.5% have disagreed.

58.51
DISAGREE
55

20.21
NEUTRAL
19

21.27
AGREE
20

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

ST2 Percentage ST2 Frequency

TABLE 4.16
Table showing the response for finding out whether the employees are provided with good
compensation for their work.

  Frequency Percentage

AGREE 18 19.2

NEUTRAL 30 31.9

DISAGREE 46 48.9

Total 94 100

INTERPRETATION:
From the above table, it was observed that 19.2% of the respondents have agreed that they are
provided with good compensation for their work and 31.9% of the respondents have neither
agreed nor disagreed and the remaining 48.9% have disagreed.

48.95
DISAGREE
46

31.91
NEUTRAL
30

19.15
AGREE
18

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

ST3 Percentage ST3 Frequency

TABLE 4.17
Table showing the response for finding out whether the respondents are satisfied with the
challenging opportunities they get.

  Frequency Percentage
AGREE 10 10.6
NEUTRAL 18 19.1
DISAGREE 66 70.2
Total 94 100

INTERPRETATION:
From the above table, it was observed that 10.6% of the respondents have agreed that they are
satisfied with the challenging opportunities they get and 19.1% of the respondents have neither
agreed nor disagreed and the remaining 70.2% have disagreed.

70.21
DISAGREE
66

19.14
NEUTRAL
18

10.63
AGREE
10

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

ST4 Percentage ST4 Frequency

TABLE 4.18
Table showing the response for finding out whether the organization provides family -
friendly policies that help the employees to fulfill family commitments.

  Frequency Percentage
AGREE 8 8.5
NEUTRAL 26 27.6
DISAGREE 60 63.8
Total 94 100

INTERPRETATION:
From the above table, it was observed that 8.5% of the respondents have agreed that they are
provided with good compensation for their work and 27.6% of the respondents have neither
agreed nor disagreed and the remaining 63.8% have disagreed.

WLP1

63.83
DISAGREE
60

27.65
NEUTRAL
26

8.51
AGREE
8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

WLP1 Percentage WLP1 Frequency

TABLE 4.19
Table showing the response for finding out whether employees are expected to work from
home outside normal working hours.

  Frequency Percentage
AGREE 15 15.9
NEUTRAL 27 28.7
DISAGREE 52 55.3

INTERPRETATION:
From the above analyzed data, it was observed that 15.96% of the respondents have agreed that
they are expected to work from home outside normal working hours and 28.72% of the
respondents have neither agreed nor disagreed and the remaining 55.32% have disagreed

55.32
DISAGREE
52

28.72
NEUTRAL
27

15.96
AGREE
15

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

WLP2 Percentage WLP2 Frequency

TABLE 4.20
Table showing the response for finding out whether WLB policies implemented in the
organization makes the employee’s job easier.

  Frequency Percentage
AGREE 13 13.8
NEUTRAL 25 26.5
DISAGREE 56 59.5
Total 94 100

INTERPRETATION:
From the above table, it was observed that 13.8% of the respondents have agreed that WLB
policies implemented in the organisaton makes their job easier and 26.5% of the respondents
have neither agreed nor disagreed and the remaining 59.5% have disagreed.

59.57
DISAGREE
56

26.59
NEUTRAL
25

13.83
AGREE
13

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

WLP3 Percentage WLP3 Frequency

TABLE 4.21
Table showing the response for finding out whether the employees have enough time to
think, plan and to schedule their day-to-day activities.

  Frequency Percentage
AGREE 10 10.6
NEUTRAL 21 22.3
DISAGREE 63 67.2
Total 94 100

INTERPRETATION:
From the above analyzed data, it was observed that 10.6% of the respondents have agreed that
the have enough time to think, plan and to schedule their day-to-day activities and 22.3% of the
respondents have neither agreed nor disagreed and the remaining 67.2% have disagreed.

67.02
DISAGREE
63

22.34
NEUTRAL
21

10.64
AGREE
10

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

SM1 Percentage SM1 Frequency

TABLE 4.22
Table showing the response for finding out whether the employees can spend the time they
want on their own self-development.

  Frequency Percentage
AGREE 14 14.8
NEUTRAL 27 28.7
DISAGREE 53 56.8
Total 94 100

INTERPRETATION:
From the above analyzed data, it was observed that 14.9% of the respondents have agreed that
they find time for their own Self-Development and 28.7% of the respondents have neither agreed
nor disagreed and the remaining 56.3% have disagreed.

56.38
DISAGREE
53

28.72
NEUTRAL
27

14.89
AGREE
14

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

SM2 Percentage SM2 Frequency

TABLE 4.23
Table showing the response for finding out whether the employees have time and energy to
engage in any leisure activities that they want to do.

  Frequency Percentage
AGREE 16 17.02
NEUTRAL 26 27.65
DISAGREE 52 55.32
Total 94 100

INTERPRETATION:
From the above analyzed data, it was observed that 17% of the respondents have agreed that they
have time and energy to engage in any leisure activity and 28% of the respondents have neither
agreed nor disagreed and the remaining 55.32% have disagreed.

55.32
DISAGREE
52

27.65
NEUTRAL
26

17.02
AGREE
16

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

SM3 Percentage SM3 Frequency

TABLE 4.24
Table showing the response for finding out whether the employees can relax for a
minimum of 2 hours per day.

  Frequency Percentage
AGREE 15 15.9
NEUTRAL 26 27.6
DISAGREE 53 56.3
Total 94 100

INTERPRETATION:
From the above table, it was observed that 15.9% of the respondents have agreed that they can
relax for a minimum of 2 hours per day and 27.6% of the respondents have neither agreed nor
disagreed and the remaining 56.3% have disagreed.

SM4

56.38
DISAGREE
53

27.65
NEUTRAL
26

15.95
AGREE
15

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

SM4 Percentage SM4 Frequency

Table 4.25
 ASSOCIATION BETWEEN MARITAL STATUS AND WORKING MODEL

Marital Status * Working Model Crosstabulation

Working Model
Work from
Remote Hybrid Office Total
Marital Single 19 19 24 62
Status Married 10 11 11 32

Total 29 30 35 94

Chi-Square Tests

Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 0.201 2 .904
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is
9.87.

H0 = There is no significant association between Marital status and Working Model

H1 = There is a significant association between Marital status and Working Model.

INTERPRETATION:
From the above table, the chi square value is 0.201, which shows that there is a significant
association between marital status and working model of respondents (P ≤ 0.904), Hence,
alternate hypothesis is accepted.

TABLE 4.26
 ASSOCIATION BETWEEN AGE AND DESIGNATION

Age * Designation Crosstabulation

Designation

Lower Level Middle Level Upper Level Total

Age 20 - 30 33 29 3 65
30 - 40 3 16 0 19
40 - 50 0 3 5 8
Above 50 0 1 1 2

Total 36 49 9 94

Chi-Square Tests

Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 44.076a 6 .001
a. 7 cells (58.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .19.

H0 = There is no significant association between Age and Designation.

H1 = There is a significant association between Age and Designation.

INTERPRETATION:
From the above table, the chi square value is 44.076, which shows that there is no significant
association between age and designation of respondents (P ≥ 0.001), Hence, null hypothesis is
accepted.

TABLE 4.27
 ASSOCIATION BETWEEN WORK OVERTIME AND DESIGNATION

Overtime Work * Designation Crosstabulation

Designation
Lower Middle Upper
Level Level Level Total
Overtime Daily 7 8 3 18
Work Weekly 14 12 0 26
Monthly 2 13 0 15

Rarely 10 13 4 27
Never 3 3 2 8
Total 36 49 9 94

Chi-Square Tests

Asymptotic
Significance
Value df (2-sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square 15.955 8 .043
a. 7 cells (46.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .77.

H0 = There is no significant association between Work Overtime and Designation.

H1 = There is a significant association between Work Overtime and Designation.

INTERPRETATION:
From the above table, the chi square value is 15.955, which shows that there is no significant
association between work overtime and designation of respondents (P ≥ 0.043), Hence, null
hypothesis is accepted.

TABLE 4.28
 ASSOCIATION BETWEEN INCOME LEVEL AND QUALIFICATION

Income Level * Qualification Crosstabulation

Qualification
Above
Bachelor's Master's PG
Diploma Degree / UG Degree / PG Level
Income Below 15,000 1 7 7 0
Level 15,000 - 1 22 13 0
30,000
30.000 - 0 10 13 0
50,000
Above 50,000 0 13 1 0
Above 1 2 2 1
1,00,000
Total 3 54 36 1

Chi-Square Tests

Asymptotic
Significance
Value df (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 30.581a 12 .002

a. 12 cells (60.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum

expected count is .06.

H0 = There is no significant association between income level and qualification.

H1 = There is a significant association between income level and qualification.
INTERPRETATION:
From the above table, the chi square value is 30.581, which shows that there is no significant
association between income level and qualification of respondents (P ≥ 0.002), Hence, null
hypothesis is accepted.
TABLE 4.29
 ASSOCIATION BETWEEN INCOME LEVEL AND COMMUTATION TO
WORKPLACE.

Income Level * Commutation To Workplace Crosstabulation

Commutation To Workplace

Arranged
Public Private by the
Transport Transport company
Income Level Below 15,000 8 5 2
15,000 - 30,000 11 15 10

30.000 - 50,000 4 14 5

Above 50,000 6 6 2
Above 1,00,000 2 4 0

Total 31 44 19

Chi-Square Tests

Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 9.220a 8 .324
a. 8 cells (53.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is
1.21.

H0 = There is no significant association between income level and commutation to workplace.

H1 = There is a significant association between income level and commutation to workplace.
INTERPRETATION:
From the above table, the chi square value is 9.220, which shows that there is no significant
association between income level and commutation to the workplace of respondents (P ≥ 0.324),
Hence, null hypothesis is accepted.

TABLE 4.30
 t- Test measuring mean differences between Marital Status and Support from Family.
H0 = There is no mean difference between Marital Status and Support from Family.
H1 = There is a significant mean difference between Marital Status and Support from Family.

Group Statistics

Marital Std. Std. Error

Status N Mean Deviation Mean
ConsoFS Single 62 9.81 7.213 .916
Married 32 14.56 4.127 .729

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for

Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Std.
Interval of the
Mean Error
Difference
Sig. (2- Differen Differen
F Sig. t df tailed) ce ce Lower Upper
Cons Equal 28.531 0.001 - 92 .001 -4.756 1.381 -7.498 -2.014
oFS variances 3.445
assumed
Equal - 90.93 .000 -4.756 1.171 -7.082 -2.430
variances not 4.061 7
assumed

INTERPRETATION:
From the above table F value (28.531) measuring the mean difference between marital status and
Support from family is not significant (P ≥ 0.001). Hence, null hypothesis is accepted. This
reveals there is no significant mean difference between marital status and Support from family.

Table 4.31
 t- Test measuring mean differences between Marital Status and Level of Stress.
H0 = There is no mean difference between Marital Status and Level of Stress.
H1 = There is a significant mean difference between Marital Status and Level of stress.

Group Statistics
Std. Std. Error
Marital Status N Mean Deviation Mean
ConsoST Single 62 13.76 2.533 .322
Married 32 14.72 4.394 .777

Independent Samples Test

Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Std.
Interval of the
Mean Error
Difference
Sig. (2- Differenc Differe
F Sig. t df tailed) e nce Lower Upper
ConsoST Equal 4.544 .036 -1.346 92 0.182 -.961 .714 -2.379 .457
variances
assumed
Equal -1.143 41.92 .260 -.961 .841 -2.657 .736
variances 0
not
assumed

INTERPRETATION:
From the above table F value (4.544) measuring the mean difference between marital status and
Level of stress is not significant (P ≥ 0.182). Hence, null hypothesis is accepted. This reveals
there is no significant mean difference between marital status and level of stress.

TABLE 4.32
 t- Test measuring mean differences between Marital Status and Self-Management.
H0 = There is no mean difference between Marital Status and Self-Management.
H1 = There is a significant mean difference between Marital Status and Self-Management.

Group Statistics

Marital Std. Std. Error

Status N Mean Deviation Mean
ConsoSM Single 62 13.98 3.380 .429
Married 32 14.56 3.473 .614

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for
Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Mean Std. Error
Difference
Sig. (2- Differenc Differenc
F Sig. t df tailed) e e Lower Upper
Cons Equal .379 .539 -.779 92 .438 -.579 .743 -2.054 .896
oSM variances
assumed
Equal -.772 61.2 .443 -.579 .749 -2.076 .919
variances 82
not
assumed

INTERPRETATION:
From the above table F value (0.379) measuring the mean difference between marital status and
Sels-Managment is significant (P ≤ 0.438). Hence, alternate hypothesis is accepted. This reveals
there is a significant mean difference between marital status and self-management.

TABLE 4.33
 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN AGE AND LEVEL OF STRESS

Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 13.980 12 1.165 2.486 0.008

Within Groups 40.770 87 .469

Total 54.750 99

H0 = There is no significant mean difference between Age and Level of Stress.

H1 = There is a significant mean difference between Age and Level of Stress.

INTERPRETATION:
In the above table F value is 2.486 for the mean difference between Age and Level of Stress is
not significant (p ≥ 0.008). It reveals that there is no significant difference between age and level
of stress. Hence null hypothesis is accepted.

TABLE 4.34
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN DESIGNATION AND SELF-MANAGEMENT

Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between 7.295 13 .561 1.468 0.146
Groups
Within Groups 32.865 86 .382
Total 40.160 99

H0 = There is no significant mean difference between designation and self-management.

H1 = There is a significant mean difference between designation and self-management.

INTERPRETATION:
In the above table F value is 1.468 for the mean difference between designation and self-
management is not significant (p ≥ 0.146). It reveals that there is no significant difference
between designation and self-management. Hence null hypothesis is accepted.

TABLE 4.35
 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN AGE AND SELF-MANAGEMENT

Sum of Mean
Squares df Square F Sig.
Between 21.229 3 7.076 .603 0.615
Groups
Within Groups 1056.696 90 11.741
Total 1077.926 93

H0 = There is no significant mean difference between age and self-management.

H1 = There is a significant mean difference between age and self-management.

INTERPRETATION:
In the above table F value is 0.603 for the mean difference between age and self-management is
significant (p ≤ 0.615). It reveals that there is a significant difference between age and self-
management. Hence alternate hypothesis is accepted.

TABLE 4.36
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN INCOME LEVEL AND ORGANISATIONAL
CULTURE

Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 27.291 14 1.949 1.753 .060

Within Groups 94.499 85 1.112

Total 121.790 99

H0 = There is no significant mean difference between income level and organizational culture.
H1 = There is a significant mean difference between income level and organizational culture.

INTERPRETATION:
In the above table F value is 1.753 for the mean difference between income level and
organizational culture is not significant (p ≥ 0.060). It reveals that there is no significant
difference between income level and organizational culture. Hence null hypothesis is accepted.