9 ch4

Chapter-4
Data Analysis and Interpretation

TABLE 4.1
TABLE SHOWING DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
No of Respondents
S. No Demographic profile Percentage
(n:200)
1. Age
Below 25 years 42 21.0
25 to 30 years 65 32.5
31 to 35 years 77 38.5
Above 35 years 16 8.0
2. Educational qualification
School level 143 71.5
Under Graduate 38 19.0
Post Graduate 19 9.5
3. Days of work in a week
6 days 48 24.0
7 days 152 76.0
4. Hours of work in a day
9 – 10 hours 132 66.0
11 – 12 hours 28 14.0
More than 12 hours 40 20.0
5. Shift work
Alternative shift 200 100.0
6. Time spend in travelling to work place
Less than half an hour 86 43.0
Nearly one hour 38 19.0
Nearly two hours 29 14.5
More than two hours 47 23.5
7. Monthly income
Rs.20000 to Rs.30000 80 40.0
Rs.30001 to Rs.40000 57 28.5
Above Rs.40000 63 31.5
51
Continued………
No of Respondents
S. No Demographic profile Percentage
(n:200)
Experience
Below 10 yrs 36 18.0
8. 10 to 15 yrs 98 49.0
16 to 20 yrs 26 13.0
Above 20 yrs 40 20.0
9. Marital status
Married 149 74.5
Unmarried 51 25.5
Type of family
Joint 75 37.5
Nuclear 125 62.5
10. Domicile
Rural 74 37.0
Urban 88 44.0
Semi-urban 38 19.0
11. Number of family members
Upto 2 members 58 29.0
3 to 4 members 96 48.0
5 to 6 members 31 15.5
Above 6 members 15 7.5
Source: Primary Data
Interpretation:
It is found from the table 4.1 that one-third (i.e.) 38.5 per cent of the
respondents belong to the age group of 31 to 35 years, 32.5 per cent of the respondents
are in the age group of 25 to 30 years, 21.0 per cent of the respondents are less than the
age group of than 25 years old and 8.0 per cent of the respondents are more than 35
years old.
It is understood from the table that less than three-fourth (i.e.) 71.5 per cent of
the respondents are qualified at School level, 19.0 per cent of the respondents are Under
Graduates and 9.5 per cent of the respondents are Post Graduates.
52
It is evident that more than three-fourth (i.e.) 76 per cent of the respondents are
working 7 days in a week and 24.0 per cent of the respondents are working 6 days in a
week.
It is known that majority (i.e.) 66.0 per cent of the respondents are working 9 –
10 hours in a day, 20.0 per cent of the respondents are working more than 12 hours in a
day and 14.0 per cent of the respondents are working 11 – 12 hours in a day.
It is observed that 100.0 per cent of the respondents are working in Alternative
shift.
It is obvious that nearly half (i.e.) 43.0 per cent of the respondents spent less
than half an hour to travel to work place, 23.5 per cent of the respondents spent more
than two hours to travel to work place, 19.0 per cent of the respondents spent nearly
one hour to travel to work place and 14.5 per cent of the respondents spent nearly two
hours to travel to work place.
It is revealed that nearly half (i.e.) 40.0 per cent of the respondents get monthly
income of Rs.20000 to Rs.30000, 31.5 per cent of the respondents get monthly income
of more than Rs.40000 and 28.5 per cent of the respondents get monthly income of
Rs.30001 to Rs.40000.
It is inferred that nearly half (i.e.) 49.0 per cent of the respondents are in an
experience of 10 to 15 years, 20.0 per cent of the respondents are in an experience of
more than 20 years, 18.0 per cent of the respondents have an experience of less than 10
years and 13.0 per cent of the respondents have an experience of 16 to 20 years.
It is found that nearly three-fourth (i.e.) 74.5 per cent of the respondents are
married and 25.5 per cent of the respondents are unmarried.
It is evident that majority (i.e.) 62.5 per cent of the respondents belong to
nuclear family and 37.5 per cent of the respondents belong to joint family.
53
It is understood that nearly half (i.e.) 44.0 per cent of the respondents are living
in urban area, 37.0 per cent of the respondents are living in rural area and 19.0 per cent
of the respondents are living in semi-urban area.
It is known that nearly half (i.e.) 48.0 per cent of the respondents have 3 to 4
family members, 29.0 per cent of the respondents have upto 2 family members, 15.5
per cent of the respondents have 5 to 6 family members and 7.5 per cent of the
respondents have more than 6 family members.
54
CHART 4.1
CHART SHOWING AGE
Age
38.5
40 32.5
35
30
21 Below 25 years
25
25 to 30 years
20
15 31 to 35 years
8
10 Above 35 years
5
0
Below 25 25 to 30 years 31 to 35 years Above 35
years years
CHART 4.2
CHART SHOWING EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION
Educational qualification
80 71.5
70
60
50 School level
40 Under Graduate
19 Post Graduate
30
9.5
20
10
0
School level Under Graduate Post Graduate
55
CHART 4.3
CHART SHOWING DAYS OF WORK IN A WEEK
Days of work in a week
24
76 6 days
7 days
CHART 4.4
CHART SHOWING HOURS OF WORK IN A DAY
Hours of work in a day

66
70
60
50
9 – 10 hours
40
20 11 – 12 hours
30
14 More than 12 hours
20
10
0
9 – 10 hours 11 – 12 hours More than 12
hours
56
CHART 4.5
CHART SHOWING MONTHLY INCOME
Monthly income
Rs.20000 to Rs.30000 Rs.30001 to Rs.40000 Above Rs.40000
40
31.5
40 28.5
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Rs.20000 to Rs.30000 Rs.30001 to Rs.40000 Above Rs.40000
CHART 4.6
CHART SHOWING EXPERIENCE
Experience
49
50
45
40
35
30 20
25 18
20 13
15
10
5
0
Below 10 yrs 10 to 15 yrs 16 to 20 yrs Above 20 yrs
57
TABLE 4.2
TABLE SHOWING DESIGNATION
S.No Designation No of Respondents Percentage
1. Constable(LandO) 60 30.0
2. Head Constable(LandO) 23 11.5
3. Sub Inspector(LandO) 28 14.0
4. Inspector(LandO) 4 2.0
5. Constable (Armed Reserve ) 62 31.0
6. Head Constable (Armed Reserve ) 13 6.5
7. Sub Inspector (Armed Reserve ) 7 3.5
8. Inspector (Armed Reserve ) 3 1.5
Total 200 100.0
Interpretation:
It is found from the table 4.2 that Under Law and order One-third (i.e.) 30.0 per
cent of the respondents are constables, 14.0 per cent of the respondents are head
constables, 11.5 per cent of the respondents are sub inspectors and 2.0 per cent of the
respondents are inspectors
Under Armed reserve One-third (i.e.) 31.0 per cent of the respondents are
constables, 6.5 per cent of the respondents are head constables, 3.5 per cent of the
respondents are sub inspectors, and 1.5 per cent of the respondents are inspectors.
58
CHART 4.7
CHART SHOWING DESIGNATION
Designation
35
31
30
30
25
20
14
15 11.5
10 6.5
2 3.5 1.5
5
59
TABLE 4.3
TABLE SHOWING PERSONALITY
No of
S.No Personality Respondents Percentage
(n:200)
1. Longing for excitement
No 48 24.0
Yes 152 76.0
2. Need to understand friends
No 48 24.0
Yes 152 76.0
3. Normally carefree
No 24 12.0
Yes 176 88.0
4. Find it very hard to tell 'no' for an answer
No 57 28.5
Yes 143 71.5
Stop and think things over before doing
5.
anything
No 95 47.5
Yes 105 52.5
6. Mood often go up and down
No 71 35.5
Yes 129 64.5
Generally do anything quickly without
7.
stopping to think
No 31 15.5
Yes 169 84.5
8. Feel just miserable for no good reason
No 61 30.5
Yes 139 69.5
9. Doing almost anything for a dare
No 97 48.5
Yes 103 51.5
Suddenly feel shy when to talk to an
10.
attractive stranger
No 67 33.5
Yes 133 66.5
60
Continued.........
No of
S.No Personality Respondents Percentage
(n:200)
Once in a while lose temper and get
11.
angry
No 42 21.0
Yes 158 79.0
12. Often troubled about feelings of guilty
No 77 38.5
Yes 123 61.5
13. Habits good and desirable ones
No 105 52.5
Yes 95 47.5
14. Tense or highly strong
No 140 70.0
Yes 60 30.0
15. Sometimes gossip
No 100 50.0
Yes 100 50.0
Interpretation:
It is understood from the table 4.3 that more than three-fourth (i.e.) 76.0 per cent
of the respondents agreed that they long for excitement and 24.0 per cent of the
respondents did not agree that they long for excitement.
It is found that more than three-fourth (i.e.) 76.0 per cent of the respondents
consented that they often needed to understand friends and 24.0 per cent of the
respondents did not consent that they often needed to understand friends.
It is evident that high majority (i.e.) 88.0 per cent of the respondents mentioned
that they are normally carefree and 12.0 per cent of the respondents mentioned that they
are not normally carefree.
61
It is known form the above table that nearly three-fourth (i.e.) 71.5 per cent of
the respondents found it very hard to tell „No‟ for an answer and 28.5 per cent of the
respondents did not find it very hard to tell „No‟ for an answer.
It is understood form the above table that more than half (i.e.) 52.5 per cent of
the respondents stopped and thought things over before doing anything and 47.5 per
cent of the respondents did not stop and think things over before doing anything.
It is obvious that majority (i.e.) 64.5 per cent of the respondents accepted that
their mood often go up and down and 35.5 per cent of the respondents did not accept
that their mood often go up and down.
It is observed that high majority (i.e.) 84.5 per cent of the respondents generally
did things quickly without stopping to think and 15.5 per cent of the respondents
generally did not do things quickly without stopping to think.
It is revealed that majority (i.e.) 69.5 per cent of the respondents felt just
miserable for no good reason and 30.5 per cent of the respondents did not feel just
miserable for no good reason.
It is inferred that more than half (i.e.) 51.5 per cent of the respondents did
almost anything for a dare and 48.5 per cent of the respondents did not do anything for
a dare.
It is found that majority (i.e.) 66.5 per cent of the respondents suddenly felt shy
when they wanted to talk to an attractive stranger and 33.5 per cent of the respondents
did not feel shy when they wanted to talk to an attractive stranger.
It is evident that more than three-fourth (i.e.) 79.0 per cent of the respondents
once in a while lost temper and got angry and 21.0 per cent of the respondents did not
lose temper and get angry.
It is understood that majority (i.e.) 61.5 per cent of the respondents are often
troubled about feelings of guilty and 38.5 per cent of the respondents they are not
troubled about feelings of guilty.
62
It is known that more than half (i.e.) 52.5 per cent of the respondents are of the
opinion that their habits are not good and desirable ones and 47.5 per cent of the
respondents are of the opinion that their habits are good and desirable ones.
It is observed that majority (i.e.) 70.0 per cent of the respondents are of the
opinion that they are under tense and 30.0 per cent of the respondents are of the opinion
that they are highly strong.
It is revealed that exactly half (i.e.) 50.0 per cent of the respondents sometimes
gossiped and 50.0 per cent of the respondents did not gossip.
63
TABLE 4.4
FRIEDMAN TEST FOR PERSONALITY AMONG WOMEN POLICE
PERSONNEL
S. No Personality Mean Rank Rank
1. Longing for excitement 8.86 4
2. Need to understand friends 8.86 4
3. Normally carefree 9.76 1
4. Find it very hard to tell 'no' for an answer 8.52 5
5. Stop and think things over before doing anything 7.10 10
6. Mood often go up and down 8.00 8
7. Generally do anything quickly without stopping to think 9.50 2
8. Feel just miserable for no good reason 8.37 6
9. Doing almost anything for a dare 7.02 11
10. Suddenly feel shy when to talk to an attractive stranger 8.14 7
11. Once in a while lose temper and get angry 9.08 3
12. Often troubled about feelings of guilty 7.77 9
13. Habits good and desirable ones 6.72 13
14. Tense or highly strong 5.41 14
15. Sometimes gossip 6.91 12
Interpretation:
The table 4.4 shows personality among women police personnel. It is known
from the table that normally carefree obtained first rank (mean rank: 9.76), followed by
generally do anything quickly without stopping to think obtained second rank (mean
rank: 9.50), once in a while lose temper and get angry obtained third rank (mean rank:
9.08), longing for excitement and need to understand friends obtained fourth rank
(mean rank: 8.86), find it very hard to tell 'no' for an answer obtained fifth rank (mean
64
rank: 8.52), feel just miserable for no good reason obtained sixth rank (mean rank:
8.37), suddenly feel shy when to talk to an attractive stranger obtained seventh rank
(mean rank: 8.14), mood often go up and down obtained eighth rank (mean rank: 8.00),
often troubled about feelings of guilty obtained ninth rank (mean rank: 7.77), stop and
think things over before doing anything obtained tenth rank (mean rank: 7.10), doing
almost anything for a dare obtained eleventh rank (mean rank: 7.02), sometimes gossip
obtained twelfth rank (mean rank: 6.91), habits good and desirable ones obtained
thirteenth rank (mean rank: 6.72) and tense or highly strong obtained fourteenth rank
(mean rank: 5.41), with regard to personality among women police personnel.
65
I. EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
TABLE 4.5
TABLE SHOWING LOW AND HIGH LEVEL OF EMOTIONAL

INTELLIGENCE IN VARIOUS DIMENSIONS
No of Respondents
S.No Emotional Intelligence Percentage
(n:200)
1. Self awareness
Low level 82 41.0
High level 118 59.0
2. Managing emotions
Low level 77 38.5
High level 123 61.5
3. Motivating oneself
Low level 93 46.5
High level 107 53.5
4. Empathy
Low level 93 46.5
High level 107 53.5
5. Social skill
Low level 85 42.5
High level 115 57.5
Interpretation:
It is understood from the table 4.5 that more than half (i.e.) 59.0 per cent of the
respondents had high level and 41.0 per cent of the respondents had low level with
regard to self awareness among women police personnel.
It is inferred that majority (i.e.) 61.5 per cent of the respondents acquired high
level and 38.5 per cent of the respondents acquired low level with regard to managing
emotions among women police personnel.
66
It is found that more than half (i.e.) 53.5 per cent of the respondents obtained
high level and 46.5 per cent of the respondents obtained low level with regard to
motivating oneself among women police personnel.
It is evident that more than half (i.e.) 53.5 per cent of the respondents got high
level and 46.5 per cent of the respondents got low level with regard to empathy among
women police personnel.
It is understood that more than half (i.e.) 57.5 per cent of the respondents had
high level and 42.5 per cent of the respondents had low level with regard to social skill
among women police personnel.
67
TABLE 4.5.1
KARL PEARSON’S CO-EFFICIENT OF CORRELATION BETWEEN

RESPONDENTS’ AGE AND EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IN VARIOUS
DIMENSIONS
S.No Emotional Intelligence Correlation value Statistical Interface
1. Age and Self awareness 0.182** P < 0.01

Significant
2. Age and Managing emotions 0.089 P > 0.05

Not Significant
3. Age and Motivating oneself 0.149* P < 0.05

Significant
P < 0.05
4. Age and Empathy 0.151*
Significant
P > 0.05
5. Age and Social skill 0.091
Not Significant
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level
H0: There is no significant correlation between respondents‟ age and Emotional

Intelligence in various dimensions.
Statistical tool: „Correlation‟-test
Interpretation:
The table 4.5.1 shows Karl Pearson‟s correlation between the age and various
dimensions of Emotional Intelligence. There is a highly significant correlation between
respondents‟ Age and Self awareness (r= 0.182**, P < 0.01). It is found that there is no
68
significant correlation between respondents‟ age and Managing emotions (r= 0.089, P >
0.05). It is known that there is a significant correlation between respondents‟ age and
Motivating oneself (r= 0.149*, P < 0.05). In addition, there is a significant correlation
between respondents‟ age and Empathy (r= 0.151*, P < 0.05). There is no significant
correlation between respondents‟ age and Social skill (r= 0.091, P > 0.05).
H1: It is found that there is a significant correlation between respondents‟ age and
Emotional intelligence in various dimensions.
Hence null hypothesis is rejected.
69
TABLE 4.5.2

RESPONDENTS’ NUMBER OF FAMILY MEMBERS AND EMOTIONAL
INTELLIGENCE IN VARIOUS DIMENSIONS
Correlation Statistical
S.No Emotional Intelligence
value Interface
Number of family members and Self

1. 0.166* P < 0.05
awareness
Significant
Number of family members and

2. 0.147* P < 0.05
Managing emotions
Significant
Number of family members and

3. 0.150* P < 0.05
Motivating oneself
Significant
Number of family members and P < 0.01

4. 0.184**
Empathy Significant
Number of family members and Social P > 0.05

5. 0.095
skill Not Significant

H0: There is no significant correlation between respondents‟ Number of family

members and Emotional Intelligence in various dimensions.
Interpretation:
The above table 4.5.2 shows Karl Pearson‟s correlation between Number of
family members and various dimensions of Emotional Intelligence. There is a
significant correlation between respondents‟ Number of family members and Self
awareness (r= 0.166*, P < 0.05). It is found that there is a significant correlation
70
between respondents‟ Number of family members and Managing emotions (r= 0.147*,
P < 0.05). It is known that there is a significant correlation between respondents‟
Number of family members and Motivating oneself (r= 0. 0.150*, P < 0.05). In
addition, there is a highly significant correlation between respondents‟ Number of
family members and Empathy (r= 0.184**, P < 0.01). There is no significant correlation
between respondents‟ age and Social skill (r=0.095, P > 0.05).
H1: It is found that there is a significant correlation between respondents‟ Number of

family members and Emotional intelligence in various dimensions.
TABLE 4.5.3
INTER CORRELATION MATRIX AMONG VARIOUS DIMENSIONS OF

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
Self Managing Motivating Empathy Social

awareness emotions oneself skill
Self
1
awareness
Managing
.775** 1
emotions
Motivating
.875** .796** 1
oneself
Empathy .910** .877** .846** 1
Social skill .718** .894** .880** .790** 1

H0: There is no significant inter correlation matrix among various dimensions of

emotional intelligence.
Statistical tool: „Inter Correlation Matrix‟-test
71
Interpretation:
The table 4.5.3 shows that there is a highly significant relationship among the
various dimensions of emotional intelligence such as Self awareness, Managing
emotions, Motivating oneself, Empathy and Social skill at 0.01 level.
It also depicts that Self awareness had influence on the other dimensions such as
Managing emotions, Motivating oneself, Empathy and Social skill. The above table
depicts that Managing emotions had influence on the other dimensions such as
Motivating oneself, Empathy and Social skill. The above table depicts that Motivating
oneself had influence on the other dimensions such as Empathy and Social skill.
H1: It is found that there is a significant inter correlation matrix among various
dimensions of Emotional Intelligence.
72
TABLE 4.5.4
‘z’ TEST BETWEEN RESPONDENTS’ MARITAL STATUS AND VARIOUS
DIMENSIONS OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
Statistical
S.No Emotional Intelligent X S.D S.E
Inference
1. Self awareness z =2.149
Married (N:149) 35.7315 5.32159 .43596 df=198
p < 0.05
Unmarried (N:51) 33.7647 6.49796 .90990 Significant
2. Managing emotions z =2.122
Married (N:149) 34.3221 5.26496 .43132 df=198
p < 0.05
Unmarried (N:51) 32.5686 6.00418 .84075
Significant
3. Motivating oneself z =2.113
Married (N:149) 36.6443 4.60475 .37724 df=198
p < 0.05
Unmarried (N:51) 35.0196 5.11660 .71647
Significant
4. Empathy z =2.242
Married (N:149) 35.5638 6.14391 .50333 df=198
p < 0.05
Unmarried (N:51) 33.1961 7.48871 1.04863
Significant
5. Social skill z =2.143
Married (N:149) 35.0604 5.65832 .46355 df=198
p < 0.05
Unmarried (N:51) 33.0588 6.04123 .84594
Significant
H0: There is no significant difference between respondents‟ marital status and various
dimensions of emotional intelligence.
Statistical tool: „z‟-test
Interpretation:
From the table 4.5.4 it is evident that there is a significant difference between
respondents‟ marital status and Self awareness (z=2.149, p < 0.05), mean score
indicates that married women Police possessed higher level (mean=35.7315) when
compared to unmarried women Police (mean=33.7647) with respect to Self awareness.
Similarly, there is a significant difference between respondents‟ marital status and
73
Managing emotions (z=2.122, p < 0.05), mean score indicates that married women
Police possessed higher level (mean=34.3221) when compared to unmarried women
Police (mean=32.5686) with respect to Managing emotions. Further, there is a
significant difference between respondents‟ marital status and Motivating oneself
(z=2.113, p < 0.05), mean score indicates that married women Police possessed higher
level (mean=36.6443) when compared to unmarried women Police (mean=35.0196)
with respect to Motivating oneself. In addition, there is a significant difference between
respondents‟ marital status and Empathy (z=2.242, p < 0.05)), mean score indicates that
married women Police possessed higher level (mean=35.5638) when compared to
unmarried women Police (mean=33.1961) with respect to Empathy. Similarly, there is
a significant difference between respondents‟ marital status and Social skill (z=2.143, p
< 0.05), mean score indicates that married women Police possessed higher level
(mean=35.0604) when compared to unmarried women Police (mean=33.0588) with
respect to Social skill.
H1: It is found that there is a significant difference between respondents‟ marital

status and various dimensions of Emotional Intelligence.
74
TABLE 4.5.5
‘z’ TEST BETWEEN RESPONDENTS’ TYPE OF FAMILY AND VARIOUS
Statistical
S.No Emotional Intelligent X S.D S.E
Inference
1. Self awareness z =2.962

df=198
Joint (N:75) 33.7200 6.52968 .75398 p < 0.05
Nuclear (N:125) 36.1360 4.93562 .44146 Significant
2. Managing emotions z =2.024
Joint (N:75) 32.9333 6.41858 .74115 df=198
p < 0.05
Nuclear (N:125) 34.4400 4.80826 .43006
Significant
3. Motivating oneself z =2.676
df=198
Joint (N:75) 35.0800 5.26272 .60769
p < 0.05
4. Empathy z =2.778
Joint (N:75) 33.3200 7.90340 .91261 df=198
p < 0.05
Nuclear (N:125) 35.9440 5.43184 .48584
Significant
5. Social skill z =2.034
Joint (N:75) 33.4800 6.61358 .76367 df=198
p < 0.05
Nuclear (N:125) 35.1920 5.19102 .46430
Significant
H0: There is no significant difference between respondents‟ type of family and various
dimensions of emotional intelligence.
Interpretation:
From the table 4.5.5 it is found that there is a significant difference between
respondents‟ type of family and Self awareness (z=2.962, p < 0.05), mean score
indicates that Nuclear family of women Police got higher level (mean=36.1360) when
75
compared to joint family of women Police (mean=33.7200) with respect to Self
awareness. Likewise, there is a significant difference between respondents‟ type of
family and Managing emotions (z=2.024, p < 0.05), mean score indicates that Nuclear
family of women Police got higher level (mean=34.4400) when compared to joint
family of women Police (mean=32.9333) with respect to Managing emotions. Further,
there is a significant difference between respondents‟ type of family and Motivating
oneself (z=2.676, p < 0.05), mean score indicates that Nuclear family of women Police
got higher level (mean=36.9200) when compared to joint family of women Police
(mean=35.0800) with respect to Motivating oneself. In addition, there is a significant
difference between respondents‟ type of family and Empathy (z=2.778, p < 0.05)),
mean score indicates that Nuclear family of women Police got higher level
(mean=35.9440) when compared to joint family of women Police (mean=33.3200) with
respect to Empathy. Similarly, there is a significant difference between respondents‟
type of family and Social skill (z=2.034, p < 0.05), mean score indicates that Nuclear
family of women Police got higher level (mean=35.1920) when compared to joint
family of women Police (mean=33.4800) with respect to Social skill.
H1: It is found that there is a significant difference between respondents‟ type of family
and various dimensions of Emotional Intelligence.
76
TABLE 4.5.6
ONE WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE AMONG THE RESPONDENTS’
EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION WITH REGARD TO VARIOUS
S. Statistical
Source Df SS MS X
No. Inference
Self awareness
G1=35.2867 F=2.606
P > 0.05
1. Between Groups 2 166.254 83.127 G2=36.2895
Not
Within Groups 197 6283.166 31.894 G3=32.6842 Significant
2. Managing
emotions
G1=35.2162 F=7.184
P < 0.01
Between Groups 2 584.847 292.423 G2=36.2159
Significant
Within Groups 197 8018.833 40.705 G3=31.5526
3. Motivating
oneself F=1.276
G1=36.1958 P > 0.05
Between Groups 2 58.139 29.070 G2=37.0263 Not
4. Empathy
G1=34.8881 F=3.714
Between Groups 2 312.628 156.314 G2=36.7895 P < 0.05
5. Social skill
G1=34.4895 F=1.034
P > 0.05
Between Groups 2 69.766 34.883 G2=35.4737
Not
G1= School level G2= Under Graduate G3= Post Graduate
77
H0: There is no significant variance among the respondents‟ Educational qualification
with regard to various dimensions of Emotional Intelligence.
Statistical tool: „ANOVA‟-test
Interpretation:
From the table 4.5.6 it is inferred that there is no significant variance among the
respondents‟ educational qualification with regard to Self awareness (F = 2.606,
P > 0.05), besides mean score indicates that under Graduates group (mean=36.2895),
had higher Self awareness when compared to other groups like School level and Post
Graduates. It is found that there is a significant variance among the respondents‟
educational qualification with regard to Managing emotions (F = 7.184, P < 0.01),
besides the mean score indicates that under Graduates group (mean=36.2159), had
higher Managing emotions when compared to other groups. It is understood that there
is no significant variance among the respondents‟ educational qualification with regard
to Motivating oneself (F = 1.276, P > 0.05), besides the mean score indicates that
Under Graduates group (mean=37.0263), had higher Motivating oneself when
compared to other groups. It is understood that there is a significant variance among the
respondents‟ educational qualification with regard to Empathy (F = 56.289, P < 0.001),
besides the mean score indicates that Under Graduates group (mean=36.7895), had
higher Empathy when compared to other groups. It is evident that there is no significant
variance among the respondents‟ educational qualification with regard to Social skill (F
= 1.034, P > 0.05), besides the mean score indicates that Under Graduates group
(mean=35.4737), had higher Social skill when compared to other groups.
H1: It was found that there is a significant variance among the respondents‟ educational
qualification with regard to various dimensions of Emotional Intelligence.
78
TABLE 4.5.7
DESIGNATION WITH REGARD TO VARIOUS DIMENSIONS OF
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
S. Statistical
Source Df SS MS X
No. Inference
1. Self awareness
G1=35.6833
Between Groups 7 1844.014 263.431 G2=36.0870
Within Groups 192 4605.406 23.986 G3=36.4643 F=10.982
P < 0.001
G4=20.0000
Significant
G5=35.6290
G6=36.2308
G7=24.8571
G8=40.0000
G1=34.0667
Between Groups 7 1390.415 198.631 G2=33.8261
Within Groups 192 4631.460 24.122 G3=35.6786 F=8.234
G4=21.7500 P < 0.001
G5=34.2903 Significant
G6=33.6154
G7=25.4286
G8=42.0000
G1=36.4167
Between Groups 7 1221.309 174.473 G2=37.0870
F=10.071
Within Groups 192 3326.111 17.323 G3=37.4286
P < 0.001
G4=24.2500
Significant
G5=36.3710
G6=37.6923
G7=27.8571
G8=41.0000
79
Continued……….
S. Statistical
Source Df SS MS X
No. Inference
4. Empathy
G1=35.3333
Between Groups 7 2508.294 358.328 G2=35.9130
Within Groups 192 6095.386 31.747 G3=36.8214 F=11.287
P < 0.001
G4=17.2500
Significant
G5=35.5323
G6=35.6154
G7=22.8571
G8=40.0000
5. Social skill
G1=34.6667
Between Groups 7 1636.845 233.835 G2=34.6522
Within Groups 192 5078.655 26.451 G3=36.3214 F=8.840
G4=21.5000 P < 0.001
G5=34.7581 Significant
G6=35.3077
G7=25.8571
G8=45.0000
G1= Constable (LandO) G2= Head Constable (LandO)

G3= Sub Inspector (LandO) G4= Inspector (LandO)
G5= Constable (Armed Reserve) G6= Head Constable (Armed Reserve)
G7= Sub Inspector (Armed Reserve) G8= Inspector (Armed Reserve)
H0: There is no significant variance among the respondents‟ designation with regard to
various dimensions of Emotional Intelligence.
80
Interpretation:
From the table 4.5.7 it is inferred that there is a highly significant variance
among the respondents‟ designation with regard to Self awareness (F = 10.982,
P < 0.001), besides mean score indicates that Inspector (Armed Reserve) group
(mean=40.0000), had higher Self awareness when compared to other groups like
Constable (LandO), Head Constable (LandO), Sub Inspector (LandO), Inspector
(LandO), Constable (Armed Reserve), Head Constable (Armed Reserve) and Sub
Inspector (Armed Reserve). It is known that there is a highly significant variance
among the respondents‟ designation with regard to Managing emotions (F = 8.234,
P < 0.001), besides the mean score indicates that Inspector (Armed Reserve) group
(mean=42.0000), had higher Managing emotions when compared to other groups.
Likewise there is a highly significant variance among the respondents‟ designation with
regard to Motivating oneself (F = 10.071, P < 0.001), besides the mean score indicates
that Inspector (Armed Reserve) group (mean=41.0000), had higher Motivating oneself
when compared to other groups. Similarly there is a highly significant variance among
the respondents‟ designation with regard to Empathy (F = 11.287, P < 0.001), besides
the mean score indicates that Inspector (Armed Reserve) group (mean=40.0000), had
higher Empathy when compared to other groups. Likewise, there is a highly significant
variance among the respondents‟ designation with regard to Social skill (F = 8.840,
P < 0.001), besides the mean score indicates that Inspector (Armed Reserve) group
(mean=45.0000), had higher Social skill when compared to other groups.
H1: It was found that there is a significant variance among the respondents‟ designation
81
TABLE 4.5.8
DOMICILE WITH REGARD TO VARIOUS DIMENSIONS OF EMOTIONAL
INTELLIGENCE
S. Statistical
Source Df SS MS X
No. Inference
1. Self awareness
G1=35.6486 F=5.402
G1=33.9054 F=3.652
G1=36.4054 F= 2.505
Between Groups 2 112.778 56.389 G2=36.7386 P > 0.05
Within Groups Not
197 4434.642 22.511 G3=34.7105
Significant
4. Empathy
G1=35.2162 F=7.184
5. Social skill
G1=34.5541 F=1.448
Within Groups Not
197 6618.225 33.595 G3=33.2105
Significant
G1= Rural, G2= Urban, G3= Semi-urban
82
H0: There is no significant variance among the respondents‟ domicile with regard to
various dimensions of Emotional Intelligence.
Interpretation:
From the table 4.5.8 it is understood that there is a significant variance among
the respondents‟ domicile with regard to Self awareness (F = 5.402, P < 0.001), besides
mean score indicates that Urban group (mean=36.0227), had higher Self awareness
when compared to other groups like Rural and Semi-urban. It is known that there is a
significant variance among the respondents‟ domicile with regard to Managing
emotions (F = 3.652, P < 0.05), besides the mean score indicates that Urban group
(mean=34.7159), had higher Managing emotions when compared to other groups. It is
found that there is no significant variance among the respondents‟ domicile with regard
to Motivating oneself (F = 2.505, P > 0.05), besides the mean score indicates that
Urban group (mean=36.7386), had higher Motivating oneself when compared to other
groups. It is evident that there is a significant variance among the respondents‟ domicile
with regard to Empathy (F = 7.184, P < 0.01), besides the mean score indicates that
Urban group (mean=36.2159), had higher Empathy when compared to other groups. It
is observed that there is no significant variance among the respondents‟ domicile with
regard to Social skill (F = 1.448, P > 0.05), besides the mean score indicates that Urban
group (mean=35.1250), had higher Social skill when compared to other groups.
H1: It was found that there is a significant variance among the respondents‟ domicile
83
TABLE 4.5.9
ASSOCIATION BETWEEN RESPONDENTS’ DAYS OF WORK IN A WEEK
AND VARIOUS DIMENSIONS OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE

Statistical
S.no Emotional Intelligence 6 days 7 days
Inference
(N:48) (N:152)
1. Self awareness
=1.249
df =1
Low level 23 59 p > 0.05
High level 25 93 Not Significant
2. Managing emotions =0.031

df =1
Low level 19 58 p > 0.05
3. Motivating oneself =0.791

df = 1
Low level 25 68 p > 0.05
4. Empathy =1.492
df =1
Low level 26 67 p > 0.05
5. Social skill
=0.758
df =1
Low level 23 62
p > 0.05
High level 25 90
Not Significant
84
H0: There is no significant association between the respondents‟ Days of work in a
week and various dimensions of emotional intelligence.
Statistical tool: „Chi-square‟-test
Interpretation:
The table 4.5.9 shows that there is no significant association between
respondents‟ Days of work in a week and Self awareness (=1.249, p > 0.05). There is
no significant association between respondents‟ Days of work in a week and Managing
emotions (=0.031, p > 0.05). Similarly, there is no significant association between
respondents‟ Days of work in a week and motivating oneself (=0.791, p > 0.05). In
addition, there is no significant association between respondents‟ Days of work in a
week and Empathy (=1.492, p > 0.05). Likewise, there is no significant association
between respondents‟ Days of work in a week and Social skill (=0.758, p > 0.05).
H1: It was found that there is no significant association between the respondents‟ Days
of work in a week and various dimensions of emotional intelligence.
Hence null hypothesis is accepted.
85
TABLE 4.5.10
ASSOCIATION BETWEEN RESPONDENTS’ HOURS OF WORK IN A DAY
AND VARIOUS DIMENSIONS OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE

Emotional 9 – 10 11 – 12 More than 12 Statistical
S.no
Intelligence hours hours hours Inference
(N:132) (N:28) (N:40)
1. Self awareness
=0.519
df =2
Low level 52 13 17 p > 0.05
High level 80 15 23 Not Significant
2. Managing =0.384
emotions df =2
p > 0.05
Low level 50 10 17 Not Significant
High level 82 18 23
3. Motivating oneself =0.657

df = 2
Low level 60 15 18 p > 0.05
4. Empathy =2.726
df =2
Low level 64 9 20 p > 0.05
5. Social skill
=0.655
df =2
Low level 57 10 18
p > 0.05
High level 75 18 22
Not Significant
86
H0: There is no significant association between the respondents‟ Hours of work in a day
and various dimensions of emotional intelligence.
Interpretation:
respondents‟ Hours of work in a day and Self awareness (=0.519, p > 0.05). There is
no significant association between respondents‟ Hours of work in a day and Managing
emotions (=0.384, p > 0.05). Similarly, there is no significant association between
respondents‟ Hours of work in a day and motivating oneself (=0.657, p > 0.05). In
addition, there is no significant association between respondents‟ Hours of work in a
day and Empathy (=2.726, p > 0.05). Likewise, there is no significant association
between respondents‟ Hours of work in a day and Social skill (=0.655, p > 0.05).
H1: It was found that there is no significant association between the respondents‟ Hours
of work in a day and various dimensions of emotional intelligence.
87
TABLE 4.5.11
ASSOCIATION BETWEEN RESPONDENTS’ TIME SPENT IN TRAVELLING
TO WORK PLACE AND VARIOUS DIMENSIONS OF EMOTIONAL
INTELLIGENCE
Time spent in travelling to work place
Emotional Less than Nearly More Statistical

S.no half an Nearly two than two
Intelligence Inference
hour one hour hours hours
(N:86) (N:38) (N:29) (N:47)
Self
1.
awareness =7.524
df =3
Low level 38 21 10 13 p > 0.05
High level 48 17 19 34 Not Significant
2. Managing
emotions =0.505
df =3
Low level 31 16 11 19 p > 0.05
3. Motivating
oneself =6.050
df = 3
Low level 46 20 11 16 p > 0.05
4. Empathy
=3.608
df =3
Low level 41 22 12 18
p > 0.05
High level 45 16 17 29
Not Significant
5. Social skill
=3.449
df =3
Low level 41 18 10 16
p > 0.05
Not Significant
88
H0: There is no significant association between respondents‟ Time spent in travelling to
work place and various dimensions of emotional intelligence.
Interpretation:
respondents‟ Time spent in travelling to work place and Self awareness (=7.524,
p > 0.05). There is no significant association between respondents‟ Time spent in
travelling to work place and Managing emotions (=0.505, p > 0.05). Similarly, there
is no significant association between respondents‟ Time spent in travelling to work
place and motivating oneself (=6.050, p > 0.05). In addition, there is no significant
association between respondents‟ Time spent in travelling to work place and Empathy
(=3.608, p > 0.05). Likewise, there is no significant association between respondents‟
Time spent in travelling to work place and Social skill (=3.449, p > 0.05).
H1: It was found that there is no significant association between the respondents‟ Time
spent in travelling to work place and various dimensions of emotional intelligence.
89
TABLE 4.5.12
ASSOCIATION BETWEEN RESPONDENTS’ MONTHLY INCOME AND
VARIOUS DIMENSIONS OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
Monthly income
Emotional Rs.20000 to Rs.30001 to Above Statistical
S.no
Intelligence Rs.30000 Rs.40000 Rs.40000 Inference
(N:80) (N:57) (N:63)
1. Self awareness
=0.130
df =2
Low level 34 23 25 p > 0.05
2. Managing
emotions =0.949
df =2
Low level 31 21 25 p > 0.05
3. Motivating
oneself =8.400
df = 2
Low level 28 34 31 p < 0.05
High level 52 23 32 Significant
4. Empathy
=0.236
df =2
Low level 36 28 29
p > 0.05
High level 44 29 34
Not Significant
5. Social skill
=2.302
df =2
Low level 31 29 25
p > 0.05
High level 49 28 38
Not Significant
90
H0: There is no significant association between respondents‟ Monthly income and
various dimensions of emotional intelligence.
Interpretation:
respondents‟ Monthly income and Self awareness (=0.130, p > 0.05). There is no
significant association between respondents‟ Monthly income and Managing emotions
(=0.949, p > 0.05). Similarly, there is a significant association between respondents‟
Monthly income and motivating oneself (=8.400, p < 0.05). In addition, there is no
significant association between respondents‟ Monthly income and Empathy (=0.236,
p > 0.05). It is known that there is no significant association between respondents‟
Monthly income and Social skill (=2.302, p > 0.05).
H1: It was found that there is a significant association between the respondents‟
Monthly income and various dimensions of emotional intelligence.
91
TABLE 4.5.13
ASSOCIATION BETWEEN RESPONDENTS’ EXPERIENCE AND VARIOUS

Experience
Emotional Below 10 10 to 15 16 to 20 Above 20 Statistical
S.no
Intelligence yrs yrs yrs yrs Inference
(N:36) (N:98) (N:26) (N:40)
1. Self awareness =4.493

df =3
Low level 12 41 15 14 p > 0.05
Not
High level 24 57 11 26 Significant
2. Managing =1.898
emotions df =3
p > 0.05
Low level 12 37 13 15 Not
3. Motivating =5.702
oneself df = 3
p > 0.05
4. Empathy =1.856
df =3
Low level 17 42 15 19 p > 0.05
High level 19 56 11 21 Not
Significant
5. Social skill
=8.309
Low level 17 32 15 21 df =3
High level 19 66 11 19 p < 0.05
Significant
92
H0: There is no significant association between the respondents‟ Experience and
various dimensions of emotional intelligence.
Interpretation:
respondents‟ Experience and Self awareness (=4.493, p > 0.05). There is no
significant association between respondents‟ Experience and Managing emotions
(=1.898, p > 0.05). Similarly, there is no significant association between respondents‟
Experience and motivating oneself (=5.702, p > 0.05). In addition, there is no
significant association between respondents‟ Experience and Empathy (=1.856, p >
0.05). It is found that there is a significant association between respondents‟ Experience
and Social skill (=8.309, p < 0.05).
Experience and various dimensions of emotional intelligence.
93
II. ORGANISATIONAL FACTORS
TABLE 4.6
TABLE SHOWING LOW AND HIGH LEVEL OF ORGANISATIONAL
FACTORS
No of Respondents
S.No Organisational factors Percentage
(n:200)
1. Work Recognition
Low level 72 36.0
High level 128 64.0
2. Superior support
Low level 96 48.0
High level 104 52.0
3. Organisation stress
Low level 97 48.5
High level 103 51.5
4. Job stress
Low level 99 49.5
High level 101 50.5
5. Group stress
Low level 86 43.0
High level 114 57.0
6. Individual stress
Low level 96 48.0
High level 104 52.0
7. Work place problems
Low level 65 32.5
High level 135 67.5
8. Job Satisfaction
Low level 90 45.0
High level 110 55.0
94
Interpretation:
It is found from the table 4.6 that majority (i.e.) 64.0 per cent of the respondents
obtained high level and 36.0 per cent of the respondents obtained low level with regard
to work recognition among women police personnel.
It is inferred that more than half (i.e.) 52.0 per cent of the respondents acquired
high level and 48.0 per cent of the respondents acquired low level with regard to
superior support among women police personnel.
It is revealed that more than half (i.e.) 51.5 per cent of the respondents obtained
Organisation stress among women police personnel.
It is evident that more than half (i.e.) 50.5 per cent of the respondents got high
level and 49.5 per cent of the respondents got low level with regard to job stress among
high level and 43.0 per cent of the respondents had low level with regard to Group
stress among women police personnel.
It is observed that more than half (i.e.) 52.0 per cent of the respondents
acquired high level and 48.0 per cent of the respondents acquired low level with regard
to individual stress among women police personnel.
It is evident that majority (i.e.) 67.5 per cent of the respondents had high level
and 32.5 per cent of the respondents had low level with regard to work place problems
It is understood that more than half (i.e.) 55.0 per cent of the respondents
obtained high level and 45.0 per cent of the respondents obtained low level with regard
to job satisfaction among women police personnel.
95
TABLE 4.6.1
RESPONDENTS’ AGE AND ORGANISATIONAL FACTORS IN VARIOUS
DIMENSIONS
S.No Organisational factors Correlation value Statistical Interface
P < 0.01
1. Age and Work Recognition 0.250**
Significant
P < 0.05
2. Age and Superior support (-)0.149*
Significant
P < 0.01
3. Age and Organisation stress (-)0.196**
Significant
P < 0.01
4. Age and Job stress 0.273**
Significant
P < 0.01
5. Age and Group stress 0.250**
Significant
P < 0.05
6. Age and Individual stress 0.166*
Significant
P < 0.01
7. Age and Work place problems 0.279**
Significant
P < 0.01
8. Age and Job Satisfaction 0.325**
Significant
H0: There is no significant correlation between respondents‟ age and Organisational

factors in various dimensions.
96
Interpretation:
dimensions of Organisational factors among women police personnel. There is a highly
significant correlation between respondents‟ Age and Work Recognition (r= 0.250**,
P < 0.01). It is known that there is a significant correlation between respondents‟ age
and Superior support (r= (-) 0.149*, P < 0.05). It is known that there is a highly
significant correlation between respondents‟ age and Organisation stress (r= (-) 0.196**,
P < 0.01). In addition, there is a highly significant correlation between respondents‟ age
and Job stress (r= 0.273**, P < 0.01). Likewise, there is a highly significant correlation
between respondents‟ age and Group stress (r= 0.250**, P < 0.01). There is a significant
correlation between respondents‟ age and Individual stress (r= 0.166*, P < 0.05).
Similarly, there is a highly significant correlation between respondents‟ age and Work
place problems (r= 0.279**, P < 0.01). There is a highly significant correlation between
respondents‟ age and Job Satisfaction (r= 0.325**, P < 0.01).
organisational factors in various dimensions.
97
TABLE 4.6.2

RESPONDENTS’ NUMBER OF FAMILY MEMBERS AND
ORGANISATIONAL FACTORS IN VARIOUS DIMENSIONS
S.No Organisational factors
value Interface
Number of family members and Work P < 0.01
1. 0.222**
Recognition Significant
Number of family members and Superior P < 0.01
2. (-)0.226**
support Significant
3. 0.335**
Organisation stress Significant
Number of family members and Job P < 0.05
4. 0.152*
stress Significant
Number of family members and Group P < 0.05
5. (-)0.160*
stress Significant
6. (-)0.255**
Individual stress Significant
Number of family members and Work P < 0.01
7. 0.263**
place problems Significant
Number of family members and Job P < 0.01
8. 0.196**
Satisfaction Significant

members and organisational factors in various dimensions.
98
Interpretation:
The table 4.6.2 shows Karl Pearson‟s correlation between the Number of family
members and various dimensions of organisational factors among women police
personnel. There is a highly significant correlation between respondents‟ Number of
family members and Work Recognition (r= 0.222**, P < 0.01). Likewise, there is a
highly significant correlation between respondents‟ Number of family members and
Superior support (r= (-) 0.226**, P < 0.01). It is known that there is a highly significant
correlation between respondents‟ Number of family members and organisation stress
(r= 0.335**, P < 0.01). It is found that there is a significant correlation between
respondents‟ Number of family members and Job stress (r= 0.152*, P < 0.05).
Likewise, there is a significant correlation between respondents‟ Number of family
members and Group stress (r= (-) 0.160*, P < 0.05). There is a highly significant
correlation between respondents‟ Number of family members and Individual stress
(r= (-) 0.255**, P < 0.01). Similarly, there is a highly significant correlation between
respondents‟ Number of family members and Work place problems (r= 0.263**,
P < 0.01). There is a highly significant correlation between respondents‟ Number of
family members and Job Satisfaction (r= 0.196**, P < 0.01).

family members and organisational factors in various dimensions.
99
TABLE 4.6.3
ORGANISATIONAL FACTORS
Work place problems

Organisation stress
Work Recognition
Superior support
Individual stress
Job Satisfaction
Group stress
Job stress
Work Recognition 1
Superior support .701** 1
Organisation stress .386** .485** 1
Job stress -.273** -.257** .275** 1
Group stress -.250** -.247** -.255** .392** 1
Individual stress -.166* -.149* -.231** .315** .395** 1
Work place problems -.279** -.263** -.211** .476** .739** .739** 1
Job Satisfaction -.325** -.271** -.196** .531** .943** .291** .291** 1
H0: There is no significant inter correlation matrix among various dimensions of

Organisational factors among women police personnel.
Interpretation:
various dimensions of organisational factors such as work recognition, superior
support, organisation stress, job stress, group stress, individual stress, work place
problems and job satisfaction at 0.01 level.
100
The table depicts that work recognition had influence on the other dimensions
such as superior support, organisation stress, job stress, group stress, individual stress,
work place problems and job satisfaction. It depicts that superior support had influence
on the other dimensions such as organisation stress, job stress, group stress, individual
stress, work place problems and job satisfaction. It also depicts that organisation stress
had influence on the other dimensions such as job stress, group stress, individual stress,
work place problems and job satisfaction. The job stress had influence on the other
dimensions such as group stress, individual stress, work place problems and job
satisfaction. The group stress had influence on the other dimensions such as individual
stress, work place problems and job satisfaction and the individual stress had influence
on the other dimensions such as work place problems and job satisfaction.
dimensions of organisational factors among women police personnel.
101
TABLE 4.6.4
DIMENSIONS OF ORGANISATIONAL FACTORS
Statistical
S.No Organisational factors X S.D S.E
Inference
1. Work Recognition z =3.660
Married (N:149) 15.5705 2.75155 .22542 df=198
p < 0.001
2. Superior support z =3.513
Married (N:149) 21.6980 5.37097 .44001 df=198
p < 0.01
Unmarried (N:51) 18.9020 3.15122 .44126
Significant
3. Organisation stress z =8.944
Married (N:149) 31.6980 14.15155 1.15934 df=198
p < 0.001
Unmarried (N:51) 52.0392 13.61611 1.90664
Significant
4. Job stress z =10.171
Married (N:149) 31.6040 16.71454 1.36931 df=198
p < 0.001
Unmarried (N:51) 55.6471 3.71388 .52005
Significant
5. Group stress z =7.980
Married (N:149) 26.0134 7.72762 .63307 df=198
p < 0.001
Unmarried (N:51) 17.0196 3.79205 .53099
Significant
6. Individual stress z =7.313
Married (N:149) 35.6443 15.56507 1.27514 df=198
p < 0.001
7. Work place problems z =6.018
Married (N:149) 21.1477 4.18068 .34249 df=198
p < 0.001
Unmarried (N:51) 24.8627 2.36660 .33139
Significant
8. Job Satisfaction z = 4.696
Married (N:149) 46.7584 19.20081 1.57299 df=198
p < 0.001
Unmarried (N:51) 59.6275 6.21598 .87041
Significant
102
dimensions of Organisational factors among women police personnel.
Interpretation:
From the table 4.6.4 it is evident that there is a highly significant difference
between respondents‟ marital status and Work Recognition (z=3.660, p < 0.001),
Standard deviation score indicates that married women Police possessed higher level
(Standard deviation=2.75155) when compared to unmarried women Police (Standard
deviation =2.27174) with respect to Work Recognition. Similarly, there is a significant
difference between respondents‟ marital status and Superior support (z=3.513,
p < 0.01), Standard deviation score indicates that married women Police possessed
higher level (Standard deviation =5.37097) when compared to unmarried women Police
(Standard deviation =3.15122) with respect to Superior support. Further, there is a
highly significant difference between respondents‟ marital status and Organisation
stress (z=8.944, p < 0.001), Standard deviation score indicates that married women
Police possessed higher level (Standard deviation =14.15155) when compared to
unmarried women Police (Standard deviation =13.61611) with respect to Organisation
stress. In addition, there is a highly significant difference between respondents‟ marital
status and Job stress (z=10.171, p < 0.001), Standard deviation score indicates that
married women Police possessed higher level (Standard deviation =16.71454) when
compared to unmarried women Police (Standard deviation =3.71388) with respect to
Job stress. Similarly, there is a highly significant difference between respondents‟
marital status and Group stress (z=7.980, p < 0.001), Standard deviation score indicates
that married women Police possessed higher level (Standard deviation =7.72762) when
compared to unmarried women Police (Standard deviation =3.79205) with respect to
Group stress. In addition, there is a highly significant difference between respondents‟
marital status and Individual stress (z=7.313, p < 0.001), Standard deviation score
indicates that married women Police possessed higher level (Standard deviation
=15.56507) when compared to unmarried women Police (Standard deviation =4.39411)
with respect to Individual stress. Likewise, there is a highly significant difference
103
between respondents‟ marital status and Work place problems (z=6.018, p < 0.001),
Standard deviation score indicates that married women Police possessed higher
level(Standard deviation =4.18068) when compared to unmarried women Police
(Standard deviation =2.36660) with respect to Work place problems. Simlarly, there is
a highly significant difference between respondents‟ marital status and Job Satisfaction
(z=4.696, p < 0.001), Standard deviation score indicates that married women Police
possessed higher level (Standard deviation =19.20081) when compared to unmarried
women Police (Standard deviation =6.21598) with respect to Job Satisfaction.
H1: It is found that there is a significant difference between respondents‟ marital status
and various dimensions of organisational factors among women police personnel.
104
TABLE 4.6.5
Statistical
S.No Organisational factors X S.D S.E
Inference
1. Work Recognition z =5.344

df=198
Joint (N:75) 17.2133 2.00198 .23117 p < 0.001
2. Superior support z =3.383
Joint (N:75) 19.4667 2.70801 .31269 df=198
p < 0.01
Nuclear (N:125) 21.8960 5.85004 .52324
Significant
3. Organisation stress z =13.173
df=198
Joint (N:75) 51.4667 12.91692 1.49152 p < 0.001
Nuclear (N:125) 28.1360 11.62890 1.04012 Significant
4. Job stress z =16.925
Joint (N:75) 55.4933 3.61817 .41779 df=198
p < 0.001
Nuclear (N:125) 27.0800 14.25267 1.27480
Significant
5. Group stress z =12.993
Joint (N:75) 16.7600 2.38713 .27564 df=198
p < 0.001
Nuclear (N:125) 27.8960 7.18177 .64236
Significant
6. Individual stress z =11.164
df=198
Joint (N:75) 52.0400 4.21208 .48637 p < 0.001
7. Work place problems z =8.207
Joint (N:75) 24.7733 2.39128 .27612 df=198
p < 0.001
Nuclear (N:125) 20.4880 4.12235 .36871
Significant
8. Job Satisfaction z =6.160
df=198
Joint (N:75) 59.2133 6.10780 .70527 p < 0.001
105
dimensions of organisational factors among women police personnel.
Interpretation:
between respondents‟ type of family and Work Recognition (z=5.344, p < 0.001), mean
score indicates that joint family women Police possessed higher level (mean =17.2133)
when compared to nuclear women Police (mean =15.2240) with respect to Work
Recognition. Similarly, there is a significant difference between respondents‟ type of
family and Superior support (z=3.383, p < 0.01), mean score indicates that nuclear
family women Police possessed higher level (mean =21.8960) when compared to joint
family women Police (mean =19.4667) with respect to Superior support. Further, there
is a highly significant difference between respondents‟ type of family and Organisation
stress (z=13.173, p < 0.001), mean score indicates that joint family women Police
possessed higher level (mean =51.4667) when compared to nuclear family women
Police (mean =28.1360) with respect to Organisation stress. In addition, there is a
highly significant difference between respondents‟ type of family and Job stress
(z=16.925, p < 0.001), mean score indicates that joint family women Police possessed
higher level (mean =55.4933) when compared to nuclear family women Police (mean
=27.0800) with respect to Job stress. Similarly, there is a highly significant difference
between respondents‟ type of family and Group stress (z=12.993, p < 0.001), mean
score indicates that nuclear family women Police possessed higher level (mean
=27.8960) when compared to joint family women Police (mean =16.7600) with respect
to Group stress. In addition, there is a highly significant difference between
respondents‟ type of family and Individual stress (z=11.164, p < 0.001), mean score
indicates that joint family women Police possessed higher level (mean =52.0400) when
compared to nuclear family women Police (mean =32.4080) with respect to Individual
stress. Likewise, there is a highly significant difference between respondents‟ type of
family and Work place problems (z=8.207, p < 0.001), mean score indicates that joint
family women Police possessed higher level (mean =24.7733) when compared to
106
nuclear family women Police (mean =20.4880) with respect to Work place problems.
Similarly, there is a highly significant difference between respondents‟ type of family
and Job Satisfaction (z=6.160, p < 0.001), mean score indicates that joint family
women Police possessed higher level (mean =59.2133) when compared to nuclear
family women Police (mean =44.5360) with respect to Job Satisfaction.
and various dimensions of organisational factors among women police personnel.
107
TABLE 4.6.6
Statistical
S. No. Source Df SS MS X
Inference
1. Work Recognition
F=47.394
G1=17.1399
P < 0.001
Between Groups 2 243.639 121.820 G2=15.4737
Significant
Within Groups 197 506.361 2.570 G3=13.7368
2. Superior support
F=18.949
G1=31.1259
P < 0.001
Between Groups 2 391.318 195.659 G2=28.2895
Significant
Within Groups 197 2034.182 10.326 G3=27.5789
F=21.079
G1=58.3357
P < 0.001
Between Groups 2 1303.118 651.559 G2=53.2105
Significant
Within Groups 197 6089.362 30.910 G3=51.7895
4. Job stress
F=12.977
G1=54.6364
P < 0.001
Between Groups 2 418.422 209.211 G2=54.6842
Significant
Within Groups 197 3175.933 16.121 G3=59.5789
5. Group stress
F=10.979
G1=31.1888
P < 0.001
Between Groups 2 202.809 101.404 G2=32.1579
Significant
Within Groups 197 1819.586 9.236 G3=34.5789
6. Individual stress F=1.865
G1=52.5664 P > 0.05
7. Work place
problems F=5.681
G1=24.2867 P < 0.05
Between Groups 2 57.821 28.910 G2=23.8684 Significant
Within Groups 197 1002.534 5.089 G3=25.9474
8. Job Satisfaction
F=16.696
G1=57.8322
P < 0.001
Between Groups 2 996.297 498.149 G2=60.3421
Significant
Within Groups 197 5877.683 29.836 G3=65.2105
G1= School level G2= Under Graduate G3= Post Graduate
108
with regard to various dimensions of Organisational factors among the women police
personnel.
Interpretation:
among the respondents‟ educational qualification with regard to Work Recognition (F =
47.394, P < 0.001), besides mean score indicates that School level group
(mean=17.1399), had higher Work Recognition when compared to other groups like
under Graduates and Post Graduates. It is found that there is a highly significant
variance among the respondents‟ educational qualification with regard to Superior
support (F = 18.949, P < 0.001), besides the mean score indicates that School level
group (mean=31.1259), had higher Superior support when compared to other groups. It
is understood that there is a highly significant variance among the respondents‟
educational qualification with regard to Organisation stress (F = 21.079, P < 0.001),
besides the mean score indicates that School level group (mean=58.3357), had higher
Organisation stress when compared to other groups. It is understood that there is a
highly significant variance among the respondents‟ educational qualification with
regard to Job stress (F = 12.977, P < 0.001), besides the mean score indicates that Post
Graduates group (mean=59.5789), had higher Job stress when compared to other
groups. It is evident that there is a highly significant variance among the respondents‟
educational qualification with regard to Group stress (F = 10.979, P < 0.001), besides
the mean score indicates that Post Graduates group (mean=34.5789), had higher Group
stress when compared to other groups. It is known that there is no significant variance
among the respondents‟ educational qualification with regard to Individual stress
(F = 1.865, P > 0.05), besides the mean score indicates that Post Graduates group
(mean=54.4211), had higher Individual stress when compared to other groups. It is
evident that there is a significant variance among the respondents‟ educational
qualification with regard to Work place problems (F = 5.681, P < 0.05), besides the
mean score indicates that Post Graduates group (mean=25.9474), had higher Work
109
place problems when compared to other groups. It is found that there is a highly
significant variance among the respondents‟ educational qualification with regard to
Job Satisfaction (F = 16.696, P < 0.001), besides the mean score indicates that Post
Graduates group (mean=25.9474), had higher Job Satisfaction when compared to other
groups.
qualification with regard to various dimensions of Organisational factors among the
110
TABLE 4.6.7

DESIGNATION WITH REGARD TO VARIOUS DIMENSIONS OF
S. Statistical
Source Df SS MS X
No. Inference
1. Work Recognition
G1=16.8833 F=21.506
G4=11.0000
G5=17.2258
G6=17.6923
G7=18.0000
G8=18.0001
2. Superior support
G1=29.6667 F=17.149
G4=25.0000
G5=31.8710
G6=33.6923
G7=34.0000
G8=34.0001
3. Organisation
stress
G1=59.1000 F=8.034
G4=48.0000
G5=56.8065
G6=59.5385
G7=60.1429
G8=58.6667
111
Continued……….
S. Statistical
Source Df SS MS X
No. Inference
4. Job stress
G1=56.0500 F=14.217
G4=61.0000
G5=54.8871
G6=50.0000
G7=51.4286
G8=49.0000
5. Group stress
G1=31.5333 F=5.903
G4=35.0000
G5=31.4839
G6=28.6154
G7=30.4286
G8=29.6667
G1=52.9667 F=3.923
G4=54.5000
G5=53.3710
G6=49.9231
G7=50.4286
G8=49.0000
112
Continued……….
S. Statistical
Source Df SS MS X
No. Inference
Work place
7.
problems
G1=24.7500 F=10.268
G4=27.0000
G5=24.7258
G6=22.4615
G7=22.1429
G8=21.6667
8. Job Satisfaction
G1=59.2000 F=9.359
G4=66.2500
G5=57.9194
G6=52.9231
G7=55.8571
G8=55.0000
G1= Constable(LandO); G2= Head Constable(LandO)

G3= Sub Inspector(LandO) G4= Inspector(LandO)
G5= Constable (Armed Reserve) G6= Head Constable (Armed Reserve )
G7= Sub Inspector (Armed Reserve) G8= Inspector (Armed Reserve )
H0: There is no significant variance among the respondents‟ Designation with regard to
various dimensions of Organisational factors among the women police personnel.
Interpretation:
among the respondents‟ designation with regard to Work Recognition (F = 21.506,
113
(mean=18.0001), had higher Work Recognition when compared to other groups like
Constable(LandO), Head Constable(LandO), Sub Inspector(LandO), Inspector(LandO),
Constable (Armed Reserve), Head Constable (Armed Reserve) and Sub Inspector
(Armed Reserve). It is found that there is a highly significant variance among the
respondents‟ designation with regard to Superior support (F = 17.149, P < 0.001),
besides the mean score indicates that Inspector (Armed Reserve) group
(mean=34.0001), had higher Superior support when compared to other groups. It is
understood that there is a highly significant variance among the respondents‟
designation with regard to Organisation stress (F = 8.034, P < 0.001), besides the mean
score indicates that Sub Inspector (Armed Reserve) group (mean=60.1429), had higher
Organisation stress when compared to other groups. It is found that there is a highly
significant variance among the respondents‟ designation with regard to Job stress
(F = 14.217, P < 0.001), besides the mean score indicates that Inspector (LandO) group
(mean=61.0000), had higher Job stress when compared to other groups. It is evident
that there is a highly significant variance among the respondents‟ designation with
regard to Group stress (F = 5.903, P < 0.001), besides the mean score indicates that
Inspector (LandO) group (mean=35.0000), had higher Group stress when compared to
other groups. It is known that there is a significant variance among the respondents‟
designation with regard to Individual stress (F = 3.923, P < 0.01), besides the mean
score indicates that Sub Inspector (LandO) group (mean=54.5714), had higher
Individual stress when compared to other groups. It is observed that there is a highly
significant variance among the respondents‟ designation with regard to Work place
problems (F = 10.268, P < 0.001), besides the mean score indicates that Inspector
(LandO) group (mean=27.0000), had higher Work place problems when compared to
other groups. It is found that there is a highly significant variance among the
respondents‟ designation with regard to Job Satisfaction (F = 9.359, P < 0.001), besides
the mean score indicates that Inspector (LandO) group (mean=66.2500), had higher Job
Satisfaction when compared to other groups.
with regard to various dimensions of Organisational factors among the women police
personnel.
114
TABLE 4.6.8
DOMICILE WITH REGARD TO VARIOUS DIMENSIONS OF
S. Statistical
Source Df SS MS X
No. Inference
1. Work Recognition
F=2.941
G1=16.7973
P > 0.05
Between Groups 2 21.744 10.872 G2=16.5227
Not Significant
Within Groups 197 728.256 3.697 G3=15.8684
2. Superior support
F=0.621
G1=30.2297
P > 0.05
Between Groups 2 15.192 7.596 G2=30.0341
Not Significant
Within Groups 197 2410.308 12.235 G3=30.7895
F= 9.271
G1=59.0270
P < 0.001
Between Groups 2 635.935 317.968 G2=55.1250
Significant
Within Groups 197 6756.545 34.297 G3=56.0263
4. Job stress
F=0.344
G1=55.2838
P > 0.05
Between Groups 2 12.520 6.260 G2=55.1932
Not Significant
Within Groups 197 3581.835 18.182 G3=54.6053
5. Group stress
F=0.270
G1=31.7162
P > 0.05
Between Groups 2 5.536 2.768 G2=31.5455
Not Significant
Within Groups 197 2016.859 10.238 G3=32.0000
F=2.380
G1=52.8243
P > 0.05
Between Groups 2 73.452 36.726 G2=53.2386
Not Significant
Within Groups 197 3039.968 15.431 G3=51.5789
7. Work place problems
F=2.796
G1=24.3243
P > 0.05
Between Groups 2 29.268 14.634 G2=24.7045
Not Significant
Within Groups 197 1031.087 5.234 G3=23.6579
8. Job Satisfaction
F=0.654
G1=59.0135
P > 0.05
Between Groups 2 45.367 22.683 G2=58.6136
Not Significant
Within Groups 197 6828.613 34.663 G3=59.9211
G1= Rural; G2= Urban; G3= Semi-urban
115
H0: There is no significant variance among the respondents‟ Domicile with regard to
Interpretation:
From the table 4.6.8 it is found that there is no significant variance among the
respondents‟ domicile with regard to Work Recognition (F = 2.941, P > 0.05), besides
mean score indicates that rural group (mean=16.7973), had higher Work Recognition when
compared to other groups like urban and semi-urban. It is found that there is no significant
variance among the respondents‟ domicile with regard to Superior support (F = 0.621,
P > 0.05), besides the mean score indicates that semi-urban group (mean=30.7895), had
higher Superior support when compared to other groups. It is understood that there is a
highly significant variance among the respondents‟ domicile with regard to Organisation
stress (F = 9.271, P < 0.001), besides the mean score indicates that rural group
(mean=59.0270), had higher Organisation stress when compared to other groups. It is
found that there is no significant variance among the respondents‟ domicile with regard to
Job stress (F = 0.344, P > 0.05), besides the mean score indicates that rural group
(mean=55.2838), had higher Job stress when compared to other groups. It is evident that
there is no significant variance among the respondents‟ domicile with regard to Group
stress (F = 0.270, P > 0.05), besides the mean score indicates that semi-urban group
(mean=32.0000), had higher Group stress when compared to other groups. It is known that
there is no significant variance among the respondents‟ domicile with regard to Individual
stress (F = 2.380, P > 0.05), besides the mean score indicates that urban group
(mean=53.2386), had higher Individual stress when compared to other groups. It is
observed that there is no significant variance among the respondents‟ domicile with regard
to Work place problems (F = 2.796, P > 0.05), besides the mean score indicates that urban
group (mean=24.7045), had higher Work place problems when compared to other groups.
It is found that there is no significant variance among the respondents‟ domicile with
regard to Job Satisfaction (F = 0.654, P > 0.05), besides the mean score indicates that semi-
urban group (mean=59.9211), had higher Job Satisfaction when compared to other groups.
H1: It was found that there is a significant variance among the respondents‟
domicile with regard to various dimensions of Organisational factors among the women
police personnel.
116
TABLE 4.6.9
AND VARIOUS DIMENSIONS OF ORGANISATIONAL FACTORS

S. Statistical
Organisational factors 6 days 7 days
No. Inference
(N:48) (N:152)
1. Work Recognition =0.062

df =1
p > 0.05
Low level 18 54
Not Significant
High level 30 98
2. Superior support =31.590
df =1
Low level 40 56 p < 0.001
High level 8 96 Significant
3. Organisation stress =4.956
df =1
Low level 30 67 p < 0.05
4. Job stress =13.854
df =1
Low level 35 64 p < 0.001
5. Group stress =2.126
df =1
Low level 25 61 p > 0.05
6. Individual stress =1.015
df =1
Low level 20 76 p > 0.05
7. Work place problems =0.045
df =1
Low level 15 50 p > 0.05
8. Job Satisfaction =9.786
df = 1
Low level 31 59 p < 0.05
117
week and various dimensions of Organisational factors among the women police
personnel.
Interpretation:
respondents‟ Days of work in a week and Work Recognition (=0.062, p > 0.05).
There is a highly significant association between respondents‟ Days of work in a week
and Superior support (=31.590, p < 0.001). Similarly, there is a significant
association between respondents‟ Days of work in a week and Organisation stress
(=4.956, p < 0.05). In addition, there is a highly significant association between
respondents‟ Days of work in a week and Job stress (=13.854, p < 0.001). It is known
that there is no significant association between respondents‟ Days of work in a week
and Group stress (=2.126, p > 0.05). It is observed that there is no significant
association between respondents‟ Days of work in a week and Individual stress
(=1.015, p > 0.05). It is obvious that there is no significant association between
respondents‟ Days of work in a week and Work place problems (=0.045, p > 0.05). It
is found that there is a significant association between respondents‟ Days of work in a
week and Job Satisfaction (=9.786, p < 0.05).
Days of work in a week and various dimensions of Organisational factors among the
118
TABLE 4.6.10
AND VARIOUS DIMENSIONS OF ORGANISATIONAL FACTORS

S.
Organisational factors 9 – 10 11 – 12 More than Statistical
No. hours hours 12 hours Inference
(N:132) (N:28) (N:40)
1. Work Recognition =34.017
df =2
Low level 65 7 - p < 0.001
df =2
Low level 89 7 - p < 0.001
3. Organisation stress =10.440
df = 2
Low level 74 12 11 p < 0.05
4. Job stress =4.814
df =2
Low level 60 13 26 p > 0.05
High level Not
72 15 14 Significant
df =2
Low level 56 6 24 p < 0.05
df =2
Low level 53 13 30 p < 0.01
7. Work place problems =40.686
df =2
Low level 23 16 26 p < 0.001
df =2
Low level 59 7 24 p < 0.05
119
and various dimensions of Organisational factors among the women police personnel.
Interpretation:
The table 4.6.10 inferred that there is a highly significant association between
respondents‟ Hours of work in a day and Work Recognition (=34.017, p < 0.001).
There is a highly significant association between respondents‟ Hours of work in a day
and Superior support (=62.811, p < 0.001). Similarly, there is a significant
association between respondents‟ Hours of work in a day and Organisation stress
(=10.440, p < 0.05). In addition, there is no significant association between
respondents‟ Hours of work in a day and Job stress (=4.814, p > 0.05). It is known
that there is a significant association between respondents‟ Hours of work in a day and
Group stress (=10.050, p < 0.05). It is observed that there is a significant association
between respondents‟ Hours of work in a day and Individual stress (=14.968,
p < 0.01). It is obvious that there is a highly significant association between
respondents‟ Hours of work in a day and Work place problems (=40.686, p < 0.001).
It is found that there is a significant association between respondents‟ Hours of work in
a day and Job Satisfaction (=8.167, p < 0.05).
H1: It was found that there is a significant association between the respondents‟ Hours
of work in a day and various dimensions of Organisational factors among the women
police personnel.
120
TABLE 4.6.11
ASSOCIATION BETWEEN RESPONDENTS’ TIME SPEND IN TRAVELLING
TO WORK PLACE AND VARIOUS DIMENSIONS OF ORGANISATIONAL
FACTORS
Time spend in travelling to work place

Less than Nearly Nearly More
S. Organisational Statistical
No. factors half an one two than two Inference
hour hour hours hours
(N:86) (N:38) (N:29) (N:47)
Work
1. =33.624
Recognition
df =3
p < 0.001
Low level 36 - 19 17
Significant
2. Superior =26.426
support df =3
p < 0.001
Low level 56 6 12 22 Significant
3. Organisation =23.690
stress df =3
p < 0.001
4. Job stress =21.722
df =3
Low level 34 31 10 24 p < 0.001
df =3
Low level 31 26 11 18 p < 0.05
df =3
Low level 42 20 8 26 p > 0.05
7. Work place
=20.641
problems
df =3
p < 0.001
Low level 27 15 - 23
Significant
df =3
Low level 31 28 9 22 p < 0.001
121
H0: There is no significant association between the respondents‟ Time spend in
travelling to work place and various dimensions of Organisational factors among the
Interpretation:
respondents‟ Time spend in travelling to work place and Work Recognition
(=33.624, p < 0.001). There is a highly significant association between respondents‟
Time spend in travelling to work place and Superior support (=26.426, p < 0.001).
Similarly, there is a highly significant association between respondents‟ Time spend in
travelling to work place and Organisation stress (=23.690, p < 0.001). In addition,
there is a highly significant association between respondents‟ Time spend in travelling
to work place and Job stress (=21.722, p < 0.001). It is known that there is a
significant association between respondents‟ Time spend in travelling to work place
and Group stress (=12.444, p < 0.05). It is observed that there is no significant
association between respondents‟ Time spend in travelling to work place and Individual
stress (=6.201, p > 0.05). It is obvious that there is a highly significant association
between respondents‟ Time spend in travelling to work place and Work place problems
(=20.641, p < 0.001). It is found that there is a highly significant association between
respondents‟ Time spend in travelling to work place and Job Satisfaction (=17.766, p
< 0.001).
H1: It was found that there is a significant association between the respondents‟ Time
spend in travelling to work place and various dimensions of Organisational factors
among the women police personnel.
122
TABLE 4.6.12

VARIOUS DIMENSIONS OF ORGANISATIONAL FACTORS
Monthly income
Organisational Rs.20000 to Rs.30001 to Above Statistical
S.no
factors Rs.30000 Rs.40000 Rs.40000 Inference
(N:80) (N:57) (N:63)
Work
1. =0.175
Recognition
df =2
p > 0.05
High level 52 37 39
df =2
Low level 40 27 29 p > 0.05
stress df =2
p > 0.05
High level 44 25 34
4. Job stress =0.354
df =2
Low level 38 30 31 p > 0.05
5. Group stress
=0.738
df =2
Low level 32 27 27
p > 0.05
High level 48 30 36
Not Significant

df =2
p > 0.05
High level 41 29 34
7. Work place =1.839
problems df =2
p > 0.05
High level 54 35 46
df =2
Low level 34 31 25 p > 0.05
123
H0: There is no significant association between the respondents‟ Monthly income and
Interpretation:
The table 4.6.12 inferred that there is no significant association between
respondents‟ Monthly income and Work Recognition (=0.175, p > 0.05). There is no
significant association between respondents‟ Monthly income and Superior support
(=0.235, p > 0.05). Similarly, there is no significant association between respondents‟
Monthly income and Organisation stress (=1.878, p > 0.05). In addition, there is no
significant association between respondents‟ Monthly income and Job stress (=0.354,
p > 0.05). It is known that there is no significant association between respondents‟
Monthly income and Group stress (=0.738, p > 0.05). It is observed that there is no
significant association between respondents‟ Monthly income and Individual stress
respondents‟ Monthly income and Work place problems (=1.839, p > 0.05). It is
found that there is no significant association between respondents‟ Monthly income and
Job Satisfaction (=2.951, p > 0.05).
H1: It was found that there is no significant association between the respondents‟
Monthly income and various dimensions of Organisational factors among the women
police personnel.
124
TABLE 4.6.13

Experience
Organisational Below 10 to 15 16 to 20 Above Statistical
S.no
factors 10 yrs yrs yrs 20 yrs Inference
(N:36) (N:98) (N:26) (N:40)
Work
1. =38.976
Recognition
df =3
p < 0.001
Low level 24 42 - 6 Significant
df =3
Low level 30 52 6 8 p < 0.001
stress df = 3
p > 0.05
Low level 22 45 12 18 Not Significant
4. Job stress =16.522
df =3
Low level 17 46 22 14 p < 0.01
df =3
Low level 11 35 22 18 p < 0.001
df =3
Low level 14 55 11 16 p > 0.05
7. Work place
=2.804
problems
df =3
p > 0.05
Low level 11 37 6 11
Not Significant
df =3
Low level 12 36 23 19 p < 0.001
125
Interpretation:
respondents‟ Experience and Work Recognition (=38.976, p < 0.001). There is a
highly significant association between respondents‟ Experience and Superior support
(=38.047, p < 0.001). There is no significant association between respondents‟
Experience and Organisation stress (=2.807, p > 0.05). In addition, there is a
significant association between respondents‟ Experience and Job stress (=16.522,
p < 0.01). It is known that there is a highly significant association between respondents‟
Experience and Group stress (=22.834, p < 0.001). It is observed that there is no
significant association between respondents‟ Experience and Individual stress
respondents‟ Experience and Work place problems (=2.804, p > 0.05). It is found that
there is a highly significant association between respondents‟ Experience and Job
Satisfaction (=24.629, p < 0.001).
Experience and various dimensions of Organisational factors among the women police
personnel.
126
III. SOCIETAL FACTORS
TABLE 4.7
TABLE SHOWING LOW AND HIGH LEVEL OF SOCIETAL FACTORS
No of Respondents
S.No Societal Factors Percentage
(n:200)
1. Life Balance
Low level 91 45.5
High level 109 54.5
2. Child Care Arrangements
Low level 97 48.5
High level 103 51.5
3. Spouse support
Low level 85 42.5
High level 115 57.5
4. Social Support
Low level 65 32.5
High level 135 67.5
5. Personal and family demands
Low level 97 48.5
High level 103 51.5
6. Family Conflict
Low level 94 47.0
High level 106 53.0
Interpretation:
It is inferred from the table 4.7 that more than half (i.e.) 54.5 per cent of the
respondents obtained high level and 45.5 per cent of the respondents obtained low level
with regard to Life balance among women police personnel.
It is understood that more than half (i.e.) 51.5 per cent of the respondents
to Child Care arrangements among women police personnel.
127
It is revealed that more than half (i.e.) 57.5 per cent of the respondents obtained
Spouse support among women police personnel.
It is evident that majority (i.e.) 67.5 per cent of the respondents got high level
and 32.5 per cent of the respondents got low level with regard to Social support among
It is known that more than half (i.e.) 51.5 per cent of the respondents had high
level and 48.5 per cent of the respondents had low level with regard to Personal and
family demands among women police personnel.
It is observed that more than half (i.e.) 53.0 per cent of the respondents
to Family conflict among women police personnel.
128
TABLE 4.7.1

RESPONDENTS’ AGE AND SOCIETAL FACTORS IN VARIOUS
DIMENSIONS
S.No Social factors
value Interface
P > 0.05
1. Age and Life Balance (-)0.067
Not Significant
P < 0.01
2. Age and Child Care Arrangements 0.236**
Significant
P < 0.01
3. Age and Spouse support 0.195**
Significant
P > 0.05
4. Age and Social Support (-)0.040
Not Significant
Age and Personal and family P < 0.01
5. 0.206**
demands Significant
P < 0.01
6. Age and Family Conflict 0.199**
Significant
H0: There is no significant correlation between respondents‟ age and various

dimensions of Social factors among the women police personnel.
Interpretation:
dimensions of Social factors among women police personnel. There is no significant
negatively correlation between respondents‟ Age and Life Balance (r= (-) 0.067,
P > 0.05). It is found that there is a highly significant correlation between respondents‟
age and Child Care Arrangements (r= 0.236**, P < 0.01). It is known that there is a
highly significant correlation between respondents‟ age and Spouse support (r= 0.195**,
P < 0.01). There is no significant negatively correlation between respondents‟ age and
129
Social Support (r= (-) 0.040, P > 0.05). There is a highly significant correlation
between respondents‟ age and Personal and family demands (r= 0.206**, P < 0.01).
Likewise, there is a highly significant correlation between respondents‟ age and Family
Conflict (r= 0.199**, P < 0.01).
various dimensions of Social factors among the women police personnel.
130
TABLE 4.7.2
RESPONDENTS’ NUMBER OF FAMILY MEMBERS AND SOCIETAL
FACTORS IN VARIOUS DIMENSIONS
S.No Social factors
value Interface
Number of family members and Life P < 0.01
1. 0.236**
Balance Significant
Number of family members and Child P < 0.05
2. 0.182*
Care Arrangements Significant
Number of family members and Spouse P < 0.01
3. 0.195**
support Significant
Number of family members and Social P > 0.05
4. (-)0.025
Support Not Significant
Number of family members and Personal P > 0.05
5. 0.235**
and family demands Not Significant
Number of family members and Family P < 0.01
6. 0.209**
Conflict Significant

members and various dimensions of Social factors among the women police personnel.
Interpretation:
The table 4.7.2 inferred that Karl Pearson‟s correlation between the Number of
family members and various dimensions of Social factors among women police
personnel. There is a highly significant correlation between respondents‟ Number of
family members and Life Balance (r= 0.236**, P < 0.01). It is found that there is a
significant correlation between respondents‟ Number of family members and Child
Care Arrangements (r= 0.182*, P < 0.05). It is known that there is a highly significant
correlation between respondents‟ Number of family members and Spouse support
131
(r= 0.195**, P < 0.01). There is no significant negatively correlation between
respondents‟ Number of family members and Social Support (r= (-) 0.025, P > 0.05).
There is a highly significant correlation between respondents‟ Number of family
members and Personal and family demands (r= 0.235**, P < 0.01). Likewise, there is a
highly significant correlation between respondents‟ Number of family members and
Family Conflict (r= 0.209**, P < 0.01).

family members and various dimensions of Social factors among the women police
personnel.
132
TABLE 4.7.3
SOCIETAL FACTORS
family demands
Family Conflict
Spouse support
Social Support
Arrangements
Personal and
Life Balance
Child Care
Life Balance 1
Child Care Arrangements .508** 1
Spouse support .810** .594** 1
Social Support .839** .428** .651** 1
Personal and family demands .824** .428** .819** .236** 1
Family Conflict .614** .661** .594** .195** .409** 1
H0: There is no significant inter correlation matrix among various dimensions of Social
factors among the women police personnel.
Interpretation:
various dimensions of Social factors such as Life Balance, Child Care Arrangements,
Spouse support, Social Support, Personal and family demands and Family Conflict at
0.01 level.
The table depicts that Life Balance had influence on the other dimensions such
as Child Care Arrangements, Spouse support, Social Support, Personal and family
demands and Family Conflict. The table depicts that Child Care Arrangements had
133
influence on the other dimensions such as Spouse support, Social Support, Personal and
family demands and Family Conflict. The table depicts that Spouse support had
influence on the other dimensions such as Social Support, Personal and family demands
and Family Conflict. The table depicts that Social Support had influence on the other
dimensions such as Personal and family demands and Family Conflict.
134
TABLE 4.7.4
DIMENSIONS OF SOCIETAL FACTORS
Statistical
S.No Social factors X S.D S.E
Inference
1. Life Balance z =5.743
Married (N:149) 25.0738 9.72187 .79645 df=198
p < 0.001
2. Child Care Arrangements z =4.959

Married (N:149) 23.0537 4.40176 .36061 df=198
p < 0.001
Unmarried (N:51) 26.3333 2.90975 .40745
Significant
3. Spouse support z =5.366
Married (N:149) 22.6913 6.37976 .52265 df=198
p < 0.001
Unmarried (N:51) 27.8235 4.14104 .57986
Significant
4. Social Support z =2.194
Married (N:149) 23.5503 5.26390 .43124 df=198
p < 0.05
Unmarried (N:51) 25.2941 3.60718 .50511
Significant
5. Personal and family demands z =2.296
Married (N:149) 27.0336 4.50138 .36877 df=198
p < 0.05
Unmarried (N:51) 28.6275 3.54379 .49623
Significant
6. Family Conflict z =3.358
Married (N:149) 30.4966 7.99123 .65467 df=198
p < 0.01
Interpretation:
From the table 4.7.4 it is found that there is a highly significant difference
between respondents‟ marital status and Life Balance (z=5.743, p < 0.001), Standard
135
Deviation score indicates that married women Police possessed higher level (Standard
Deviation =9.72187) when compared to unmarried women Police (Standard Deviation
=4.75527) with respect to Life Balance. Similarly, there is a highly significant
difference between respondents‟ marital status and Child Care Arrangements (z=4.959,
p < 0.001), Standard Deviation score indicates that married women Police possessed
higher level (Standard Deviation =4.40176) when compared to unmarried women
Police (Standard Deviation =2.90975) with respect to Child Care Arrangements.
Further, there is a highly significant difference between respondents‟ marital status and
Spouse support (z=5.366, p < 0.001), Standard Deviation score indicates that married
women Police possessed higher level (Standard Deviation =6.37976) when compared
to unmarried women Police (Standard Deviation =4.14104) with respect to Spouse
support. In addition, there is a significant difference between respondents‟ marital
status and Social Support (z=2.194, p < 0.05)), Standard Deviation score indicates that
married women Police possessed higher level (Standard Deviation =5.26390) when
compared to unmarried women Police (Standard Deviation =3.60718) with respect to
Social Support. Similarly, there is a significant difference between respondents‟ marital
status and Personal and family demands (z=2.296, p < 0.05), Standard Deviation score
indicates that married women Police possessed higher level (Standard Deviation
=4.50138) when compared to unmarried women Police (Standard Deviation =3.54379)
with respect to Personal and family demands. Likewise, , there is a significant
difference between respondents‟ marital status and Family Conflict (z=3.358, p < 0.01),
Standard Deviation score indicates that married women Police possessed higher level
(Standard Deviation =7.99123) when compared to unmarried women Police (Standard
Deviation =4.42409) with respect to Family Conflict.
and various dimensions of Social factors among the women police personnel. Hence
null hypothesis is rejected.
136
TABLE 4.7.5
Statistical
S.No Social factors X S.D S.E
Inference
1. Life Balance z =8.590
Joint (N:75) 33.4667 4.65668 .53771 df=198
p < 0.001
Nuclear (N:125) 23.3600 9.52281 .85175
Significant
2. Child Care Arrangements z =7.179
Joint (N:75) 26.4133 2.74646 .31713 df=198
p < 0.001
Nuclear (N:125) 22.3760 4.37858 .39163
Significant
3. Spouse support z =7.950
Joint (N:75) 27.9867 3.75785 .43392 df=198
p < 0.001
Nuclear (N:125) 21.6080 6.30527 .56396
Significant
4. Social Support z =3.926
Joint (N:75) 25.7067 3.67156 .42396 df=198
p < 0.001
Nuclear (N:125) 22.9680 5.32634 .47640
Significant
5. Personal and family demands z =3.104
Joint (N:75) 28.6400 3.67843 .42475 df=198
p < 0.05
Nuclear (N:125) 26.7200 4.53410 .40554
Significant
6. Family Conflict z =.870
Joint (N:75) 34.6400 4.65757 .53781 df=198
p < 0.001
Nuclear (N:125) 29.6240 8.15145 .72909
Significant
137
Interpretation:
between respondents‟ type of family and Life Balance (z=8.590, p < 0.001), mean score
indicates that joint family women Police possessed higher level (mean =33.4667) when
compared to nuclear family women Police (mean =23.3600) with respect to Life
Balance. Likewise, there is a highly significant difference between respondents‟ type of
family and Child Care Arrangements (z=7.179, p < 0.001), mean score indicates that
joint family women Police possessed higher level (mean =26.4133) when compared to
nuclear family women Police (mean =22.3760) with respect to Child Care
Arrangements. Further, there is a highly significant difference between respondents‟
type of family and Spouse support (z=7.950, p < 0.001), mean score indicates that joint
family women Police possessed higher level (mean =27.9867) when compared to
nuclear family women Police (mean =21.6080) with respect to Spouse support. In
addition, there is a highly significant difference between respondents‟ type of family
and Social Support (z=3.926, p < 0.001), mean score indicates that joint family women
Police possessed higher level (mean =25.7067) when compared to nuclear family
women Police (mean =22.9680) with respect to Social Support. Similarly, there is a
significant difference between respondents‟ type of family and Personal and family
demands (z=3.104, p < 0.05), mean score indicates that joint family women Police
possessed higher level (mean =28.6400) when compared to nuclear family women
Police (mean =26.7200) with respect to Personal and family demands. There is a highly
significant difference between respondents‟ type of family and Family Conflict
(z=4.870, p < 0.001), mean score indicates that joint family women Police possessed
higher level (mean =34.6400) when compared to nuclear family women Police (mean
=29.6240) with respect to Family Conflict.
and various dimensions of Social factors among the women police personnel.
138
TABLE 4.7.6

S.
Statistical
N Source Df SS MS X
Inference
O
1. Life Balance
F=4.456
G1=28.1399
P < 0.05
Between Groups 2 763.350 381.675 G2=26.2105
Significant
Within Groups 197 16874.150 85.656 G3=21.5789
2. Child Care
Arrangements F=1.081
G1=24.1049 P > 0.05
Not
Between Groups 2 40.153 20.077 G2=23.7368
Significant
Within Groups 197 3659.427 18.576 G3=22.5789
3. Spouse support
F=4.842
G1=24.7133
P < 0.05
Between Groups 2 369.282 184.641 G2=23.2105
Significant
Within Groups 197 7512.718 38.136 G3=20.2105
4. Social Support
F=14.518
G1=25.0140
P < 0.001
Between Groups 2 625.207 312.604 G2=22.3947
Significant
Within Groups 197 4241.788 21.532 G3=19.5263
5. Personal and
family demands F=0.648
G1=27.2238 P > 0.05
Not
Between Groups 2 24.336 12.168 G2=27.8947
Significant
Within Groups 197 3698.944 18.776 G3=28.1579
6. Family Conflict F=1.747
G1=31.4336 P > 0.05
G1= School level; G2= Under Graduate; G3= Post Graduate
139
with regard to various dimensions of Social factors among the women police personnel.
Interpretation:
From the table 4.7.6 it is inferred that there is a significant variance among the
respondents‟ educational qualification with regard to Life Balance (F = 4.456, P <
0.05), besides mean score indicates that School level group (mean=28.1399), had
higher Life Balance when compared to other groups like Under Graduates and Post
Graduates. It is found that there is no significant variance among the respondents‟
educational qualification with regard to Child Care Arrangements (F = 1.081, P > 0.05),
Child Care Arrangements when compared to other groups. It is understood that there is
a significant variance among the respondents‟ educational qualification with regard to
Spouse support (F = 4.842, P < 0.05), besides the mean score indicates that School
level group (mean=24.7133), had higher Spouse support when compared to other
groups. It is understood that there is a highly significant variance among the
respondents‟ educational qualification with regard to Social Support (F = 14.518,
P < 0.001), besides the mean score indicates that School level group (mean=25.0140),
had higher Social Support when compared to other groups. It is evident that there is no
Personal and family demands (F = 0.648, P > 0.05), besides the mean score indicates
that Post Graduates group (mean=28.1579), had higher Personal and family demands
when compared to other groups. It is found that there is no significant variance among
the respondents‟ educational qualification with regard to Family Conflict (F = 1.747,
P > 0.05), besides the mean score indicates that Post Graduates group (mean=34.2632),
had higher Family Conflict when compared to other groups.
H1: It was found that there is a significant variance among the respondents‟
educational qualification with regard to various dimensions of Social factors among the
140
TABLE 4.7.7

DESIGNATION WITH REGARD TO VARIOUS DIMENSIONS OF SOCIETAL
FACTORS
S. Statistical
Source Df SS MS X
No. Inference
G1=27.2333
1. Life Balance
G2=26.6522
G3=24.1429 F=6.055
G6=34.2308
G7=43.0000
G8=32.6667
2. Child Care G1=23.6167
Arrangements G2=23.1304
G3=23.8929
F=4.586
Between Groups 7 529.919 75.703 G4=19.5000
P < 0.001
Within Groups 192 3169.661 16.509 G5=23.2258
Significant
G6=26.9231
G7=29.7143
G8=28.0000
3. Spouse support G1=24.1500
G2=23.3043
Between Groups 7 1414.156 202.022 G3=21.5000
F=5.997
Within Groups 192 6467.844 33.687 G4=19.2500
P < 0.001
G5=23.1935
Significant
G6=29.4615
G7=34.0000
G8=25.6667
141
Continued……….
S.
Statistical
N Source Df SS MS X
Inference
O
G1=24.7000
4. Social Support
G2=22.4783
G3=20.7857
F=10.348
Between Groups 7 1333.230 190.461 G4=19.7500
P < 0.001
Within Groups 192 3533.765 18.405 G5=23.4194
Significant
G6=29.3077
G7=32.2857
G8=26.6667
5. Personal and family G1=27.7167
demands G2=27.5652
G3=28.8929
F=3.191
Between Groups 7 387.976 55.425 G4=28.7500
P < 0.05
Within Groups 192 3335.304 17.371 G5=25.5968
Significant
G6=29.8462
G7=29.2857
G8=29.0000
6. Family Conflict
G1=33.2167
G2=29.8696
Between Groups 7 1436.937 205.277 G3=33.4643
F=4.111
Within Groups 192 9587.058 49.933 G4=37.0000
P < 0.001
G5=28.0484
Significant
G6=34.9231
G7=34.1429
G8=34.6667
G1= Constable(LandO); G2= Head Constable(LandO)

G3= Sub Inspector(LandO); G4= Inspector(LandO)
G5= Constable (Armed Reserve); G6= Head Constable (Armed Reserve )
G7= Sub Inspector (Armed Reserve); G8= Inspector (Armed Reserve )
142
Interpretation:
among the respondents‟ designation with regard to Life Balance (F = 6.055, P < 0.001),
besides mean score indicates that Sub Inspector (Armed Reserve) group
(mean=43.0000), had higher Life Balance when compared to other groups like
Constable (LandO), Head Constable (LandO), Sub Inspector (LandO), Inspector
(LandO), Constable (Armed Reserve), Head Constable (Armed Reserve) and Inspector
(Armed Reserve). It is found that there is a highly significant variance among the
respondents‟ designation with regard to Child Care Arrangements (F = 4.586,
P < 0.001), besides the mean score indicates that Sub Inspector (Armed Reserve) group
(mean=29.7143), had higher Child Care Arrangements when compared to other groups.
It is understood that there is a highly significant variance among the respondents‟
designation with regard to Spouse support (F = 5.997, P < 0.001), besides the mean
score indicates that Sub Inspector (Armed Reserve) group (mean=34.0000), had higher
Spouse support when compared to other groups. It is understood that there is a highly
significant variance among the respondents‟ designation with regard to Social Support
(F = 10.348, P < 0.001), besides the mean score indicates that Sub Inspector (Armed
Reserve) group (mean=32.2857), had higher Social Support when compared to other
groups. It is evident that there is a significant variance among the respondents‟
designation with regard to Personal and family demands (F = 3.191, P < 0.05), besides
the mean score indicates that Head Constable (Armed Reserve) group (mean=29.8462),
had higher Personal and family demands when compared to other groups. It is found
that there is a highly significant variance among the respondents‟ designation with
regard to Family Conflict (F = 4.111, P < 0.001), besides the mean score indicates that
Inspector(LandO) group (mean=37.0000), had higher Family Conflict when compared
to other groups.
143
TABLE 4.7.8

DOMICILE WITH REGARD TO VARIOUS DIMENSIONS OF SOCIETAL
FACTORS
S.
Statistical
N Source Df SS MS X
Inference
O
1. Life Balance F=2.529

P > 0.05
G1=26.3108
Not
Within Groups 197 17196.065 87.290 G3=30.2105
2. Child Care
Arrangements F=5.424
G1=23.1081 P < 0.05
Within Groups 197 3506.506 17.800 G3=25.8421
3. Spouse support
F= 2.213
G1=23.5270 P > 0.05
4. Social Support
F=0.804
G1=24.1081 P > 0.05
5. Personal and family
demands F=3.591
G1=26.8649 P < 0.05
Within Groups 197 3592.310 18.235 G3=29.0789
6. Family Conflict
G1=31.1757 F=5.177
P < 0.05
Within Groups 197 10473.542 53.165 G3=34.8421
144
Interpretation:
respondents‟ domicile with regard to Life Balance (F = 2.529, P > 0.05), besides mean
score indicates that semi-urban group (mean=30.2105), had higher Life Balance when
compared to other groups like rural and urban. It is found that there is a significant
variance among the respondents‟ domicile with regard to Child Care Arrangements
(F = 5.424, P < 0.05), besides the mean score indicates that semi-urban group
(mean=25.8421), had higher Child Care Arrangements when compared to other groups.
It is understood that there is no significant variance among the respondents‟ domicile
with regard to Spouse support (F = 2.213, P > 0.05), besides the mean score indicates
that Sub semi-urban group (mean=25.9211), had higher Spouse support when
compared to other groups. It is understood that there is no significant variance among
the respondents‟ domicile with regard to Social Support (F = 0.804, P > 0.05), besides
the mean score indicates that semi-urban group (mean=24.7632), had higher Social
Support when compared to other groups. It is evident that there is a significant variance
among the respondents‟ domicile with regard to Personal and family demands
(F = 3.591, P < 0.05), besides the mean score indicates that semi-urban group
(mean=29.0789), had higher Personal and family demands when compared to other
groups. It is found that there is a significant variance among the respondents‟ domicile
with regard to Family Conflict (F = 5.177, P < 0.05), besides the mean score indicates
that semi-urban group (mean=34.8421), had higher Family Conflict when compared to
other groups.
145
TABLE 4.7.9
AND VARIOUS DIMENSIONS OF SOCIETAL FACTORS

Statistical
S.no Social factors 6 days 7 days
Inference
(N:48) (N:152)
1. Life Balance =0.516

df =1
p > 0.05
Low level 24 67
Not Significant
High level 24 85
2. Child Care Arrangements =1.181
df =1
Low level 20 77 p > 0.05
3. Spouse support =1.454

df = 1
Low level 24 61 p > 0.05
4. Social Support =2.419

df =1
Low level 20 45 p > 0.05
5. Personal and family demands =0.571

df =1
Low level 21 76 p > 0.05
6. Family Conflict =8.063
df =1
Low level 14 80 p < 0.05
146
week and various dimensions of Social factors among the women police personnel.
Interpretation:
respondents‟ Days of work in a week and Life Balance (=0.516, p > 0.05). There is
no significant association between respondents‟ Days of work in a week and Child Care
Arrangements (=1.181, p > 0.05). Similarly, there is no significant association
between respondents‟ Days of work in a week and Spouse support (=1.454,
p > 0.05). In addition, there is no significant association between respondents‟ Days of
work in a week and Social Support (=2.419, p > 0.05). Likewise, there is no
significant association between respondents‟ Days of work in a week and Personal and
family demands (=0.571, p > 0.05). Similarly, there is a significant association
between respondents‟ Days of work in a week and Family Conflict (=8.063,
p < 0.05).
H1: It was found that there is a significant association between the respondents‟ Days of
work in a week and various dimensions of Social factors among the women police
personnel.
147
TABLE 4.7.10

AND VARIOUS DIMENSIONS OF SOCIETAL FACTORS

9 – 10 11 – 12 More than Statistical
S.no Social factors
hours hours 12 hours Inference
(N:132) (N:28) (N:40)

df =2
p < 0.001
Low level 78 10 3
Significant
High level 54 18 37
2. Child Care =7.460
Arrangements df =2
p < 0.05
Low level 72 13 12 Significant
High level 60 15 28
df = 2
Low level 72 9 4 p < 0.001

df =2
Low level 54 7 4 p < 0.01
5. Personal and family =0.977

demands df =2
p > 0.05
Low level 62 16 19 Not
df =1
Low level 51 22 21 p < 0.001
148
and various dimensions of Social factors among the women police personnel.
Interpretation:
The table 4.7.10 shows that there is a highly significant association between
respondents‟ Hours of work in a day and Life Balance (=34.206, p < 0.001). There is
a significant association between respondents‟ Hours of work in a day and Child Care
Arrangements (=7.460, p < 0.05). Similarly, there is a highly significant association
between respondents‟ Hours of work in a day and Spouse support (=26.355,
p < 0.001). In addition, there is a significant association between respondents‟ Hours of
work in a day and Social Support (=14.204, p < 0.01). Likewise, there is no
significant association between respondents‟ Hours of work in a day and Personal and
family demands (=0.977, p > 0.05). Similarly, there is a highly significant association
between respondents‟ Hours of work in a day and Family Conflict (=15.396,
p < 0.001).
of work in a day and various dimensions of Social factors among the women police
personnel.
149
TABLE 4.7.11

TO WORK PLACE AND VARIOUS DIMENSIONS OF SOCIETAL FACTORS
S. Less than Nearly Nearly More Statistical

Social factors half an one two than two
No. Inference
(N:86) (N:38) (N:29) (N:47)

df =3
p < 0.05
Significant
Arrangements df =3
p > 0.05

df =3
Low level 38 8 16 23 p < 0.05

df =3
Low level 27 7 19 12 p < 0.001
High level Significant
59 31 10 35
5. Personal and
family demands =10.957
df =3
Low level p < 0.05
37 23 20 17
Significant
df =3
p > 0.05
Low level 39 19 18 18
Not
150
travelling to work place and various dimensions of Social factors among the women
police personnel.
Interpretation:
The table 4.7.11 shows that there is a significant association between
respondents‟ Time spend in travelling to work place and Life Balance (=9.916,
p < 0.05). There is no significant association between respondents‟ Time spend in
travelling to work place and Child Care Arrangements (=2.576, p > 0.05). Similarly,
there is a significant association between respondents‟ Time spend in travelling to work
place and Spouse support (=9.955, p < 0.05). In addition, there is a highly significant
association between respondents‟ Time spend in travelling to work place and Social
Support (=18.933, p < 0.001). Likewise, there is a significant association between
respondents‟ Time spend in travelling to work place and Personal and family demands
(=10.957, p < 0.05). There is no significant association between respondents‟ Time
spend in travelling to work place and Family Conflict (=4.304, p > 0.05).
spend in travelling to work place and various dimensions of Social factors among the
151
TABLE 4.7.12

VARIOUS DIMENSIONS OF SOCIETAL FACTORS
Monthly income
Rs.20000 to Rs.30001 to Above Statistical
S.no Social factors
Rs.30000 Rs.40000 Rs.40000 Inference
(N:80) (N:57) (N:63)

df =2
p > 0.05
Arrangements df =2
p > 0.05

df =2
Low level 33 23 29 p > 0.05
High level Not
df =2
Low level 22 18 25 p > 0.05
High level Not
5. Personal and =3.148
family demands df =2
p > 0.05
df =2
Low level 33 28 33 p > 0.05
High level Not
152
Interpretation:
respondents‟ Monthly income and Life Balance (=1.758, p > 0.05). There is no
significant association between respondents‟ Monthly income and Child Care
Arrangements (=1.203, p > 0.05). Similarly, there is no significant association
between respondents‟ Monthly income and Spouse support (=0.480, p > 0.05). In
addition, there is no significant association between respondents‟ Monthly income and
Social Support (=2.415, p > 0.05). Likewise, there is no significant association
between respondents‟ Monthly income and Personal and family demands (=3.148,
p > 0.05). Similarly, there is no significant association between respondents‟ Monthly
income and Family Conflict (=1.897, p > 0.05).
Monthly income and various dimensions of Social factors among the women police
personnel.
153
TABLE 4.7.13

Experience
Below 10 to 15 16 to 20 Above Statistical
Social factors
S.no 10 yrs yrs yrs 20 yrs Inference
(N:36) (N:98) (N:26) (N:40)

df =3
p < 0.001
Significant
Arrangements df =3
p > 0.05

df = 3
Low level 22 48 4 11 p < 0.001

df =3
Low level 23 34 3 5 p < 0.001
5. Personal and =6.986

family demands df =3
p > 0.05
df =3
Low level 12 53 15 14 p < 0.05
154
Interpretation:
The table 4.7.13 shows that there is a highly significant association between
respondents‟ Experience and Life Balance (=25.094, p < 0.001). There is no
significant association between respondents‟ Experience and Child Care Arrangements
(=1.149, p > 0.05). It is found that there is a highly significant association between
respondents‟ Experience and Spouse support (=18.292, p < 0.001). In addition, there
is a highly significant association between respondents‟ Experience and Social Support
(=28.884, p < 0.001). Likewise, there is no significant association between
respondents‟ Experience and Personal and family demands (=6.986, p > 0.05).
Similarly, there is a significant association between respondents‟ Experience and
Family Conflict (=8.178, p < 0.05).
Experience and various dimensions of Social factors among the women police
personnel.
155
IV. WORK-LIFE BALANCE
TABLE 4.8
TABLE SHOWING LOW AND HIGH LEVEL OF WORK-LIFE BALANCE

AMONG WOMEN POLICE PERSONNEL
No of Respondents
S.No Work-Life balance Percentage
(n:200)
1. Emotional Intelligence
Low level 87 43.5
High level 113 56.5
2. Organisational factors
Low level 95 47.5
High level 105 52.5
3. Societal Factors
Low level 97 48.5
High level 103 51.5
4. Overall Work-Life balance
Low level 98 49.0
High level 102 51.0
Interpretation:
It is observed from the table 4.8 that more than half (i.e.) 56.5 per cent of the
respondents acquired high level and 43.5 per cent of the respondents acquired low level
with regard to emotional intelligence among women police personnel.
It is found that more than half (i.e.) 52.5 per cent of the respondents got high
level and 47.5 per cent of the respondents had low level with regard to Organisational
factors among women police personnel.
156
It is evident that more than half (i.e.) 51.5 per cent of the respondents had high
level and 48.5 per cent of the respondents had low level with regard to societal factors
high level and 49.0 per cent of the respondents had low level with regard to Work-life
balance among women police personnel.
157
CHART 4.8
CHART SHOWING LOW AND HIGH LEVEL OF EMOTIONAL

INTELLIGENCE
Emotional Intelligence
43.5
56.5
Low level
High level
CHART 4.9
CHART SHOWING LOW AND HIGH LEVEL OF ORGANISATIONAL

FACTORS
Organizational factors
52.5 47.5
Low level
High level
158
CHART 4.10
CHART SHOWING LOW AND HIGH LEVEL OF SOCIETAL FACTORS
Societal Factors
51.5 48.5
Low level
High level
CHART 4.11
CHART SHOWING LOW AND HIGH LEVEL OF WORK-LIFE BALANCE
Work-Life balance
Low level High level
51% 49%
159
TABLE 4.8.1

RESPONDENTS’ AGE AND WORK-LIFE BALANCE IN VARIOUS
DIMENSIONS
S.No Work-Life Balance Correlation value Statistical Interface

P < 0.05
1. Age and Emotional Intelligence 0.142*
Significant
P < 0.01
2. Age and Organisational factors 0.351**
Significant
P < 0.05
3. Age and Societal Factors 0.160*
Significant
P < 0.05
4. Age and Work-Life Balance 0.152*
Significant

H0: There is no significant correlation between respondents‟ age and various

dimensions of work-life balance among the women police personnel.
Interpretation:
dimensions of work-life balance among the women police personnel. There is a
significant correlation between respondents‟ Age and Emotional Intelligence
(r= 0.142*, P < 0.05). It is found that there is a highly significant correlation between
respondents‟ age and Organisational factors (r= 0.351**, P < 0.01). It is known that
there is a significant correlation between respondents‟ age and Societal Factors
(r= 0.160*, P < 0.05). In addition, there is a significant correlation between
respondents‟ age and Work-Life Balance (r= 0.152*, P < 0.05).
various dimensions of work-life balance among the women police personnel.
160
TABLE 4.8.2
RESPONDENTS’ NUMBER OF FAMILY MEMBERS AND WORK-LIFE
BALANCE IN VARIOUS DIMENSIONS
S.No Work-Life Balance
value Interface
1. 0.164*
Emotional Intelligence Significant
2. 0.157*
Organisational factors Significant
Number of family members and Societal P < 0.05
3. 0.150*
Factors Significant
Number of family members and Work- P < 0.01
4. 0.195**
Life Balance Significant


members and various dimensions of work-life balance among the women police
personnel.
Interpretation:
The table 4.8.2 shows Karl Pearson‟s correlation between the Number of family
members and various dimensions of work-life balance among the women police
personnel. There is a significant correlation between respondents‟ Number of family
members and Emotional Intelligence (r= 0.164*, P < 0.05). It is found that there is a
significant correlation between respondents‟ Number of family members and
Organisational factors (r= 0.157*, P < 0.05). It is known that there is a significant
correlation between respondents‟ Number of family members and Societal Factors
(r= 0.150*, P < 0.05). In addition, there is a highly significant correlation between
respondents‟ Number of family members and Work-Life Balance (r= 0.195**,
P < 0.001).
family members and various dimensions of work-life balance among the women police
personnel.
161
TABLE 4.8.3
WORK-LIFE BALANCE
Emotional Organisational Societal Work-Life

Intelligence factors Factors Balance
Emotional
1
Intelligence
Organisational
.160* 1
factors
Societal Factors -.233** -.164* 1
Work-Life
.449** .438** .351** 1
Balance

H0: There is no significant inter correlation matrix among various dimensions of work-
life balance among the women police personnel.
Interpretation:
various dimensions of work-life balance such as Emotional Intelligence, Organisational
factors and Societal Factors at 0.01 level.
The table depicts that Emotional Intelligence had influence on the other
dimensions such as Organisational factors and Societal Factors. The above table depicts
that Organisational factors had influence on the other dimension such as Societal
Factors.
162
TABLE 4.8.4
DIMENSIONS OF WORK-LIFE BALANCE
Statistical
S.No Work-Life Balance X S.D S.E
Inference
1. Emotional Intelligence z =7.100

df=198
Married (N:149) 134.4564 22.50660 1.84381 p < 0.001
Unmarried (N:51) 162.8824 30.20109 4.22900 Significant
2. Organisational factors z =6.785
Married (N:149) 233.0805 97.23325 7.96566 df=198
p < 0.001
Unmarried (N:51) 326.0000 15.26172 2.13707
Significant
3. Societal Factors z =5.791
df=198
Married (N:149) 156.9195 24.52040 2.00879
p < 0.001
Overall Work-Life z =4.630
4.
Balance df=198
Married (N:149) 482.9664 266.37799 21.82254 p < 0.001
Interpretation:
between respondents‟ marital status and Emotional Intelligence (z=7.100, p < 0.001),
mean score indicates that unmarried women Police possessed higher level
(mean=162.8824) when compared to married women Police (mean=134.4564) with
respect to Emotional Intelligence. Similarly, there is a highly significant difference
between respondents‟ marital status and Organisational factors (z=6.785, p < 0.001),
mean score indicates that unmarried women Police possessed higher level
163
(mean=326.0000) when compared to married women Police (mean=233.0805) with
respect to Organisational factors. Further, there is a highly significant difference
between respondents‟ marital status and Societal Factors (z=5.791, p < 0.001), mean
score indicates that married women Police possessed higher level (mean=156.9195)
when compared to unmarried women Police (mean=134.2157) with respect to Societal
Factors. In addition, there is a highly significant difference between respondents‟
marital status and Work-Life Balance (z=4.630, p < 0.001), mean score indicates that
unmarried women Police possessed higher level (mean=658.6471) when compared to
married women Police (mean=482.9664) with respect to Work-Life Balance.
and various dimensions of work-life balance among the women police personnel.
164
TABLE 4.8.5

Statistical
S.No Work-Life Balance X S.D S.E
Inference
1. Emotional Intelligence z =10.242

df=198
Joint (N:75) 162.6000 33.00983 3.81165 p < 0.001
2. Organisational factors z =10.348
Joint (N:75) 328.0933 14.48034 1.67205 df=198
p < 0.001
Nuclear (N:125) 213.9840 94.74329 8.47410
Significant
3. Societal Factors z =7.759
df=198
Joint (N:75) 134.9200 19.19231 2.21614
p < 0.001
Overall Work-Life z =7.138
4.
Balance df=198
Joint (N:75) 670.8533 34.65689 4.00183 p < 0.001
Interpretation:
between respondents‟ type of family and Emotional Intelligence (z=10.242, p < 0.001),
mean score indicates that joint family women Police possessed higher level
(mean=162.6000) when compared to nuclear family women Police (mean=129.1680)
with respect to Emotional Intelligence. Similarly, there is a highly significant difference
between respondents‟ type of family and Organisational factors (z=10.348, p < 0.001),
165
mean score indicates that joint family women Police possessed higher level
(mean=328.0933) when compared to nuclear family women Police (mean=213.9840)
with respect to Organisational factors. Further, there is a highly significant difference
between respondents‟ type of family and Societal Factors (z=7.759, p < 0.001), mean
score indicates that nuclear family women Police possessed higher level
(mean=160.8560) when compared to joint family women Police (mean=134.9200) with
respect to Societal Factors. In addition, there is a highly significant difference between
respondents‟ type of family and Work-Life Balance (z=7.138, p < 0.001), mean score
indicates that joint family women Police possessed higher level (mean=670.8533) when
compared to nuclear family women Police (mean=441.9120) with respect to Work-Life
Balance.
166
TABLE 4.8.6

S.
Statistical
N Source Df SS MS X
Inference
O
Emotional
1.
Intelligence
G1=143.5524 F=1.128
Within Groups 149562.515 759.201 G3=137.2105 Not
197
Significant
2. Organisational
factors
G1=327.11 F=4.487
3. Societal Factors
G1=180.18 F=28.043
4. Overall Work-
Life Balance
G1=547.7902 F=4.063
G1= School level; G2= Under Graduate; G3= Post Graduate

with regard to various dimensions of work-life balance among the women police
personnel.
167
Interpretation:
respondents‟ educational qualification with regard to Emotional Intelligence
(F = 1.128, P > 0.05), besides mean score indicates that School level group
(mean=143.5524), had higher Emotional Intelligence when compared to other groups
like Under Graduates and Post Graduates. It is found that there is a significant variance
among the respondents‟ educational qualification with regard to Organisational factors
(F = 4.487, P < 0.05), besides the mean score indicates that Post Graduates group
(mean=332.84), had higher Organisational factors when compared to other groups. It is
understood that there is a highly significant variance among the respondents‟
educational qualification with regard to Societal Factors (F = 28.043, P < 0.001),
Societal Factors when compared to other groups. It is understood that there is a
Work-Life Balance (F = 4.063, P < 0.05), besides the mean score indicates that School
level group (mean=547.7902), had higher Work-Life Balance when compared to other
groups.
qualification with regard to various dimensions of work-life balance among the women
police personnel.
168
TABLE 4.8.7

DESIGNATION WITH REGARD TO VARIOUS DIMENSIONS OF WORK-
LIFE BALANCE
S. Statistical
Source Df SS MS X
No. Inference
Emotional G1=147.6000
1. G2=134.5652
Intelligence
G3=141.7857
F=4.155
G4=124.2500
Between Groups 7 19902.086 2843.155 P < 0.001
G5=137.4516
Within Groups 131373.509 684.237 G6=143.9231
192 G7=129.4286 Significant
G8=208.0000
2. Organisational G1=292.0000
factors G2=266.6087
G3=223.3214
F=7.462
Between Groups 7 371917.821 53131.117 G4=318.5000
P < 0.001
G5=206.8065
Within Groups 1367015.054 7119.870 Significant
G6=310.3846
192 G7=333.5714
G8=328.0000
3. Societal Factors G1=176.22
G2=167.70
G3=158.93
Between Groups 7 20847.378 2978.197 F=18.680
G4=168.50
Within Groups P < 0.001
G5=180.21
Significant
192 30611.642 159.436 G6=195.38
G7=202.43
G8=176.67
Overall Work- G1=569.5500
4.
Life Balance G2=423.9565
G3=517.5357
F=3.422
Between Groups 7 1331351.081 190193.012 G4=248.7500
P < 0.05
G5=584.0645
Within Groups 192 10672590.874 55586.411 Significant
G6=376.5385
G7=419.5714
G8=699.6667
G1= Constable (LandO); G2= Head Constable (LandO)
G3= Sub Inspector (LandO); G4= Inspector (LandO)
G5= Constable (Armed Reserve); G6= Head Constable (Armed Reserve)
G7= Sub Inspector (Armed Reserve); G8= Inspector (Armed Reserve)
169
Interpretation:
among the respondents‟ designation with regard to Emotional Intelligence (F = 4.155,
(mean=208.0000), had higher Emotional Intelligence when compared to other groups
like Constable (LandO), Head Constable (LandO), Sub Inspector (LandO), Inspector
(LandO), Constable (Armed Reserve), Head Constable (Armed Reserve) and Sub
Inspector (Armed Reserve). It is found that there is a highly significant variance among
the respondents‟ designation with regard to Organisational factors (F = 7.462,
P < 0.001), besides the mean score indicates that Sub Inspector (Armed Reserve) group
(mean=333.5714), had higher Organisational factors when compared to other groups.
Likewise, there is a highly significant variance among the respondents‟ designation
with regard to Societal Factors (F = 18.680, P < 0.001), besides the mean score
indicates that Sub Inspector (Armed Reserve) group (mean=202.43), had higher
Societal Factors when compared to other groups. It is understood that there is a
significant variance among the respondents‟ designation with regard to Work-Life
Balance (F = 3.422, P < 0.05), besides the mean score indicates that Inspector (Armed
Reserve) group (mean=699.6667), had higher Work-Life Balance when compared to
other groups.
personnel.
170
TABLE 4.8.8
DOMICILE WITH REGARD TO VARIOUS DIMENSIONS OF WORK-LIFE
BALANCE
S.
Statistical
N Source Df SS MS X
Inference
O
Emotional
1.
Intelligence F=1.203
G1=145.3649 P > 0.05
Between 1826.006 913.003 G2=138.6250 Not
2
Groups Significant
Within Groups 197 149449.589 758.627 G3=141.7105
2. Organisational
factors
F=11.698
G1=278.5000
P < 0.001
Between 184591.052 92295.526 G2=222.9773
2 Significant
Groups
Within Groups 197 1554341.823 7890.060 G3=292.7368
3. Societal
Factors
F= 7.512
G1=152.3514
P < 0.01
Between 9583.114 4791.557 G2=156.0909
2 Significant
Groups
Within Groups 197 125651.506 637.825 G3=137.2632
4. Overall Work-
Life Balance
F=5.824
G1=552.3108
P < 0.05
Between 670109.582 335054.791 G2=558.6705
2 Significant
Groups
Within Groups 197 11333832.373 57532.144 G3=408.3947
171
Interpretation:
respondents‟ domicile with regard to Emotional Intelligence (F = 1.203, P > 0.05),
besides mean score indicates that rural group (mean=145.3649), had higher Emotional
Intelligence when compared to other groups like urban and semi-urban. It is found that
there is a highly significant variance among the respondents‟ domicile with regard to
Organisational factors (F = 11.698, P < 0.001), besides the mean score indicates that
Sub semi-urban group (mean=292.7368), had higher Organisational factors when
compared to other groups. Likewise, there is a significant variance among the
respondents‟ domicile with regard to Societal Factors (F = 7.512, P < 0.001), besides
the mean score indicates that urban group (mean=156.0909), had higher Societal
Factors when compared to other groups. It is understood that there is a significant
variance among the respondents‟ domicile with regard to Work-Life Balance
(F = 5.824, P < 0.05), besides the mean score indicates that urban group
(mean=558.6705), had higher Work-Life Balance when compared to other groups.
personnel.
172
TABLE 4.8.9

AND VARIOUS DIMENSION OF WORK-LIFE BALANCE

Statistical
S.no Work-Life Balance 6 days 7 days
Inference
(N:48) (N:152)
1. Emotional Intelligence =1.893

df =1
p > 0.05
Low level 25 62
Not Significant
High level 23 90
2. Organisational factors =19.153
df =1
Low level 36 59 p < 0.001
3. Societal Factors =2.445

df =1
Low level 28 69 p > 0.05
4. Work-Life Balance =12.048

df =1
Low level 34 64 p < 0.01

week and various dimensions of work-life balance among the women police personnel.
Interpretation:
respondents‟ Days of work in a week and Emotional Intelligence (=1.893, p > 0.05).
There is a highly significant association between respondents‟ Days of work in a week
and Organisational factors (=19.153, p < 0.001). It is found that there is no
173
significant association between respondents‟ Days of work in a week and Societal
Factors (=2.445, p > 0.05). It is evident that there is a significant association between
respondents‟ Days of work in a week and Work-Life Balance (=12.048, p < 0.01).
H1: It was found that there is a significant association between the respondents‟ Days of
work in a week and various dimensions of work-life balance among the women police
personnel.
174
TABLE 4.8.10

AND VARIOUS DIMENSION OF WORK-LIFE BALANCE

9 – 10 11 – 12 More than 12 Statistical
S.no Work-Life Balance
hours hours hours Inference
(N:132) (N:28) (N:40)
1.
Emotional =1.881
Intelligence df =2
p > 0.05
2. Organisational =4.755
factors df =2
p > 0.05

df = 2
Low level 78 14 5 p < 0.001
4. Work-Life Balance =7.951

df =2
Low level 73 13 12 p < 0.05
Interpretation:
respondents‟ Hours of work in a day and Emotional Intelligence (=1.881, p > 0.05).
There is no significant association between respondents‟ Hours of work in a day and
175
Organisational factors (=4.755, p > 0.05). It is found that there is a highly significant
association between respondents‟ Hours of work in a day and Societal Factors
(=26.708, p < 0.001). It is evident that there is a significant association between
respondents‟ Hours of work in a day and Work-Life Balance (=7.951, p < 0.05).
of work in a day and various dimensions of work-life balance among the women police
personnel.
176
TABLE 4.8.11

TO WORK PLACE AND VARIOUS DIMENSION OF WORK-LIFE BALANCE
Work-Life Less than Nearly Nearly More Statistical

S.no half an one two than two
Balance Inference
(N:86) (N:38) (N:29) (N:47)
1.
Intelligence df =3
p > 0.05
factors df =3
p > 0.05

df = 3
Low level 46 11 21 19 p < 0.05
4. Work-Life =6.463
Balance df =3
p > 0.05

travelling to work place and various dimensions of work-life balance among the women
police personnel.
177
Interpretation:
respondents‟ Time spend in travelling to work place and Emotional Intelligence
(=4.760, p > 0.05). There is no significant association between respondents‟ Time
spend in travelling to work place and Organisational factors (=3.369, p > 0.05). It is
found that there is a significant association between respondents‟ Time spend in
travelling to work place and Societal Factors (=14.540, p < 0.05). It is evident that
there is no significant association between respondents‟ Time spend in travelling to
work place and Work-Life Balance (=6.463, p > 0.05).
spend in travelling to work place and various dimensions of work-life balance among
the women police personnel.
178
TABLE 4.8.12
VARIOUS DIMENSION OF WORK-LIFE BALANCE
Monthly income
Work-Life Rs.20000 to Rs.30001 to Above Statistical
S.no
Balance Rs.30000 Rs.40000 Rs.40000 Inference
(N:80) (N:57) (N:63)
1.
Intelligence df =2
p > 0.05
factors df =2
p > 0.05

df = 2
Low level 34 27 36 p > 0.05
High level 46 30 27 Not
Significant
4. Work-Life =5.610
Balance df =2
p > 0.05
179
Interpretation:
respondents‟ Monthly income and Emotional Intelligence (=2.706, p > 0.05). There
is no significant association between respondents‟ Monthly income and Organisational
factors (=0.888, p > 0.05). It is found that there is no significant association between
respondents‟ Monthly income and Societal Factors (=3.066, p > 0.05). It is evident
that there is no significant association between respondents‟ Monthly income and
Work-Life Balance (=5.610, p > 0.05).
Monthly income and various dimensions of work-life balance among the women police
personnel.
180
TABLE 4.8.13

DIMENSION OF WORK-LIFE BALANCE
Experience
Work-Life Below 10 to 15 16 to 20 Above Statistical
S.no
Balance 10 yrs yrs yrs 20 yrs Inference
(N:36) (N:98) (N:26) (N:40)
Emotional
1.
Intelligence =3.330
df =3
p > 0.05
Low level 15 38 15 19
Not
Significant
factors df =3
p < 0.05
df = 3
Low level 26 49 9 13 p < 0.05
4. Work-Life =12.077
Balance df =3
p < 0.05

181
Interpretation:
respondents‟ Experience and Emotional Intelligence (=3.330, p > 0.05). There is a
significant association between respondents‟ Experience and Organisational factors
(=13.952, p < 0.05). It is found that there is a significant association between
respondents‟ Experience and Societal Factors (=14.306, p < 0.05). It is evident that
there is a significant association between respondents‟ Experience and Work-Life
Balance (=12.077, p < 0.05).
Experience and various dimensions of work-life balance among the women police
personnel.
182
TABLE 4.8.14
MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR WORK-LIFE BALANCE AND

VARIOUS DIMENSIONS OF ORGANISATIONAL FACTORS
S. Variable B Beta t Sig.

no
1. Work Recognition 16.224 0.180 3.776 .000
2. Superior support 19.378 0.398 6.858 .000
3. Organisation stress 0.133 0.009 0.107 .915
4. Job stress (-)0.057 (-)0.004 (-)0.041 .967
5. Group stress 16.060 0.521 8.429 .000
6. Individual stress (-)1.497 (-)0.093 (-)0.906 .366
7. Work place problems (-)10.488 (-)0.176 (-)2.016 .045
8. Job Satisfaction 4.096 0.296 4.934 .000
R=0.799 R2=0.638 Adjusted R=0.623
F=42.143 P< 0.001
H0: There is no significant relationship between Work-life balance among women

police personnel and various dimensions of Organisational factors.
Statistical tool: „Multiple Regressions‟ -test
Interpretation
The table 4.8.14 exhibited that correlation of the independent variables against
the dependent variable R is 0.799 with R square 0.638. The F statistic is 42.143 and
significant at the 0.000 level. Thus, Organisational factors is significantly explained
and influenced by the independent variables such as Work Recognition, Superior
support, Organisation stress, Job stress, Group stress, Individual stress, Work place
problems and Job satisfaction. Beta value is used to identify which of the eight
independents variable is more important in explaining the variance in Organisational
factors. As suggested in the above table, Group stress scores higher value 8.429, which
is significant at 0.000 level when compared to other independent variables such as
183
Work Recognition, Superior support, Organisation stress, Job stress, Individual stress,
Work place problems and Job satisfaction.
H1: It was found that there is a significant relationship between Work-life balance
among women police personnel and various dimensions of Organisational factors.
184
TABLE 4.8.15
MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR WORK-LIFE BALANCE AND

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE, ORGANISATIONAL FACTORS and
SOCIETAL FACTORS
S. Variable B Beta t Sig.

no
1. Emotional Intelligence 3.980 0.447 6.897 0.000
2. Organisational factors 1.728 0.658 8.424 0.000
3. Societal Factors 0.987 0.105 1.416 0.158
R=0.577 R2=0.333 Adjusted R=0.323
F=32.678 P< 0.001
H0: There is no significant relationship between Work-life balance among women

police personnel and Emotional Intelligence, Organisational Factors and Societal
Factors.
Statistical tool: „Multiple Regressions‟ -test
Interpretation
The table 4.8.15 exhibited that correlation of the independent variables against
the dependent variable R is 0.577 with R square 0.333. The F statistic is 32.678 and
significant at 0.000 level. The independent variables was Emotional Intelligence,
Organisational Factors and Societal Factors. As shown in the above table,
Organisational factors score higher value 8.424, which is significant at 0.000 level
when compared to other independent variables such as Emotional Intelligence and
Societal Factors.
H1: It was found that there is a significant relationship between Work-life balance
among women police personnel and various dimensions of Emotional Intelligence,
Organisational Factors and Societal Factors.
185
TABLE 4.9
STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODEL ON WORK-LIFE BALANCE AMONG

WOMEN POLICE PERSONNEL
Figure: 4.1
Interpretation
Structural equation modeling (SEM) is a statistical modeling technique that
combines factor analysis and multivariate multiple regressions. Structural equation
provides estimation of multiple and interrelated dependence relationship and the
capacity to stand for unobserved concepts in these association and explanation for
measurement error in the estimation process. The primary aim of SEM is to explain the
model of a sequence of inter-related dependence associations simultaneously among a
set of dormant (unobserved) constructs, each measured by one or more manifest
(observed) variables. SEM is a multivariate technique which combines confirmatory
factor analysis modeling from psychometric theory and structural equations modeling.
The three predictors are allowed to covary; predictors‟ covariances are shown in
the diagram. The covariance between Organisational factors and societal factors
indicator is 0.61. The covariance between Emotional intelligence and Organisation
factors indicator is 0.43. The covariance between Emotional intelligence and Societal
factors indicator is (-) 0.31. The covariance Work life balance indicator is 0.33. The
unstandardized regression of the Organisational factors is (-) 0.66. Since the
186
unstandardized regression coefficient represents the amount of change in the dependent
variable per single unit change in the predictor variable, this result suggests that for
every single unit of increase in Organisational factors level, work-life balance is
reduced by (-)0.66. The unstandardized regression of the Societal factors is (-) 0.10.
Since the unstandardized regression coefficient represents the amount of change in the
dependent variable per single unit change in the predictor variable, this result suggests
that for every single unit of increase in Societal factors level, work-life balance is
reduced by (-)0.10.
The variables used in the structural equation model are,
i) Observed, endogenous variable

1. Overall work-life balance among women police personnel
ii) Observed, exogenous variables

1. Emotional Intelligence.
2. Organisational factors
3. Societal factors
iii) Unobserved, exogenous variable

1. e1: Error term for work-life balance among women police personnel
187
TABLE 4.9.1: VARIABLES IN THE STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODEL
ANALYSIS
p-
Estimate S.E. C.R.
value
Work Life Emotional
 3.980 0.573 6.949 0.000**
Balance Intelligence
Work Life Organisation
 1.728 0.204 8.489 0.000**
Balance Factors
Emotional
 Societal factors 219.216 53.024 4.134 0.000**
Intelligence
Organisation
 Societal factors 1487.510 201.649 7.377 0.000**
Factors
Emotional Organisation
 1107.898 198.029 5.595 0.000**
Intelligence Factors
It is inferred from the table 4.9.1 that estimate of 3.980 represents partial effect
of Emotional Intelligence towards Work Life Balance. The estimated positive sign
implies that such effect is positive that Work Life Balance problem would increase by
3.980 for every factors increase problem in Emotional Intelligence and this coefficient
value is significant at p < 0.001 level.
It is inferred that estimate of 1.728 represents partial effect of Organisation

Factors towards Work Life Balance. The estimated positive sign implies that such
effect is positive that Work Life Balance problem would increase by 1.728 for every
factors increase problem in Organisation Factors and this coefficient value is significant
at p < 0.001 level.
It is inferred that estimate of 219.216 represents partial effect of societal factors

towards Emotional Intelligence. The estimated positive sign implies that such effect is
positive that Emotional Intelligence problem would increase by 219.216 for every
factors increase problem in Societal factors and this coefficient value is significant at p
< 0.001 level.
188
It is inferred that estimate of 1487.510 represents partial effect of Societal
factors towards Organisation factors. The estimated positive sign implies that such
effect is positive that Organisation factors problem would increase by 1487.510 for
every factors increase problem in Societal factors and this coefficient value is
significant at p < 0.001 level.
It is inferred that estimate of 1107.898 represents partial effect of Organisation

factors towards Emotional Intelligence. The estimated positive sign implies that such
effect is positive that Emotional Intelligence problem would increase by 1107.898 for
every factors increase problem in Organisation factors and this coefficient value is
significant at p < 0.001 level.
TABLE 4.9.2: FIT INDICES OF THE STRUCTURAL MODEL
Variable Value
Normed Fit Index (NFI) 1.0
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 1.0
Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) 1.0
Root mean Square Error of Approximation 0.04
( RMSEA)
It is inferred from the table 4.9.2 that Normed Fit Index (NFI) of one indicates
perfect fit. Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is one, which is good fit. Incremental Fit Index
(IFI) obtained is 1.0, indicates perfect model fit. Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) obtained is
1.0 which indicates perfect model fit. Root mean Square Error of Approximation
(RMSEA) obtained .04, which is indicative of good fit.
189
Findings, Suggestions and
Conclusion

9 ch4

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

9 ch4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter-4

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Source: Primary Data

CHART SHOWING AGE

Days of work in a week

Hours of work in a day

S.No Designation No of Respondents Percentage

Source: Primary Data

CHART SHOWING DESIGNATION

Source: Primary Data

S. No Personality Mean Rank Rank

1. Longing for excitement 8.86 4

2. Need to understand friends 8.86 4

3. Normally carefree 9.76 1

4. Find it very hard to tell 'no' for an answer 8.52 5

5. Stop and think things over before doing anything 7.10 10

6. Mood often go up and down 8.00 8

7. Generally do anything quickly without stopping to think 9.50 2

8. Feel just miserable for no good reason 8.37 6

9. Doing almost anything for a dare 7.02 11

10. Suddenly feel shy when to talk to an attractive stranger 8.14 7

11. Once in a while lose temper and get angry 9.08 3

12. Often troubled about feelings of guilty 7.77 9

13. Habits good and desirable ones 6.72 13

14. Tense or highly strong 5.41 14

15. Sometimes gossip 6.91 12

TABLE SHOWING LOW AND HIGH LEVEL OF EMOTIONAL

KARL PEARSON’S CO-EFFICIENT OF CORRELATION BETWEEN

S.No Emotional Intelligence Correlation value Statistical Interface

1. Age and Self awareness 0.182** P < 0.01

2. Age and Managing emotions 0.089 P > 0.05

3. Age and Motivating oneself 0.149* P < 0.05

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level

H0: There is no significant correlation between respondents‟ age and Emotional

Statistical tool: „Correlation‟-test

Hence null hypothesis is rejected.

KARL PEARSON’S CO-EFFICIENT OF CORRELATION BETWEEN

Number of family members and Self

Number of family members and

Number of family members and

Number of family members and P < 0.01

Number of family members and Social P > 0.05

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level

H0: There is no significant correlation between respondents‟ Number of family

Statistical tool: „Correlation‟-test

H1: It is found that there is a significant correlation between respondents‟ Number of

Hence null hypothesis is rejected.

INTER CORRELATION MATRIX AMONG VARIOUS DIMENSIONS OF

Self Managing Motivating Empathy Social

Social skill .718** .894** .880** .790** 1

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level

H0: There is no significant inter correlation matrix among various dimensions of

Statistical tool: „Inter Correlation Matrix‟-test

Hence null hypothesis is rejected.

Statistical tool: „z‟-test

H1: It is found that there is a significant difference between respondents‟ marital

Hence null hypothesis is rejected.

1. Self awareness z =2.962

Statistical tool: „z‟-test

Hence null hypothesis is rejected.

G1= School level G2= Under Graduate G3= Post Graduate

Statistical tool: „ANOVA‟-test

Hence null hypothesis is rejected.

Social skill .718 .894 .880 .790 1

Organisation stress .386 .485 1

Job stress -.273 -.257 .275** 1

Group stress -.250 -.247 -.255 .392 1

Individual stress -.166* -.149* -.231 .315 .395** 1

Work place problems -.279 -.263 -.211 .476 .739 .739 1

Job Satisfaction -.325 -.271 -.196 .531 .943 .291 .291** 1