Chapter 5

Results and Discussions

Introduction

This chapter presents the data analysis conducted for this study. It gives a brief description about
the analysis to be conducted and will also present the numeric tables generated using SPSS
version 22.0 and their corresponding interpretation. The final section discusses all the hypotheses
statements and their subsequent results. It includes demographics analysis, Reliability test,
Correlation analysis, descriptive analysis, hypothesis testing (regression analysis).

Descriptive Analysis
The demographic profile of respondents have been described through descriptive statistics as
mean, median, mode, variance and standard deviation. These give an idea about the nature and
type of respondents.

The Table below shows the descriptive statistics generated for this research study. Primarily,
frequencies related to the demographics of the respondents have been presented in the table
below. A total of 165 responses were collected. As indicated, the majority of respondents
belonged to code 01 i.e. male. Similarly, for age the mean value is 1.56 which shows that
respondent age group existed between 15-25 and 25-35 years. For education, the mean value is
1.9 which indicates that majority of respondents were having qualifications equivalent to
Intermediate or Graduation. Similarly the mean value of Experience is 2.2 which means that the
experience level of respondents lie between 1-5 years and 5-10 years.

Age Gender Education Experience

N Valid 165 165 165 165
Missing 0 0 0 0
Mean 1.5697 1.2485 1.9091 2.2727
Median 1.0000 1.0000 2.0000 2.0000
Mode 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Std. Deviation .81319 .43345 .92274 1.40714
Variance .661 .188 .851 1.980
Minimum 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Maximum 4.00 2.00 4.00 5.00

Demographic Analysis of Respondents

The following section presents a detailed analysis of the demographic profile of the respondents
of this study. The factors which have been used here are Gender, Age, Education and
Experience.

Age

The table shows the age group of respondents. Majority of the respondents 96 in number, 58.2%
were between the age group of 15-25.

Age
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 15-25 96 58.2 58.2 58.2
25-35 53 32.1 32.1 90.3
35-40 7 4.2 4.2 94.5
Above
9 5.5 5.5 100.0
40
Total 165 100.0 100.0

Gender

The table below shows that male respondents made up 75.2% of the total respondents. The
percentage of female respondents is comparatively lower than the male respondents, which is
24.8%. The particular reason for this is that majority of the employees working in Hotels and
Restaurants are male.
Gender
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Male 124 75.2 75.2 75.2
Female 41 24.8 24.8 100.0
Total 165 100.0 100.0
Education

According to table below, majority of the workers were intermediate 40%. 36.4% of respondents
were graduates, only 16.4% employees had done Post-graduation.
Education
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Intermediate 66 40.0 40.0 40.0
Graduation 60 36.4 36.4 76.4
Post-
27 16.4 16.4 92.7
graduation
M.Phil 12 7.3 7.3 100.0
Total 165 100.0 100.0

Experience

The following table presents the total professional experience of the respondents. It shows that
most of the respondents had a total professional experience of less than 1-5 years.

Experience
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 1-5 years 75 45.5 45.5 45.5
5-10 years 27 16.4 16.4 61.8
10-20 years 20 12.1 12.1 73.9
More than 20
29 17.6 17.6 91.5
years
5.00 14 8.5 8.5 100.0
Total 165 100.0 100.0

Reliability Test
To measure the reliability of responses collected from sample, Cronbach’s Alpha is used, it is
essential to analyze the reliability of all the items. It is generally recommended that the value of
alpha should be closer to 01; however some researchers have stated that a value of 0.7 or above
is also acceptable. SPSS version 22 has been used to determine the value of Cronbach alpha for
each of the item-categories of the questionnaire. This test is used for measuring the internal
consistency of the questionnaire. The table below highlights the reliability statistics for the entire
questionnaire:

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.925 6

The value of alpha in the above table is 0.925, which is above the minimum acceptable limit
suggested by various researchers i.e. 0.71. Therefore, it can be inferred that the survey
questionnaire is highly reliable.

Correlation Analysis
The correlation analysis is one of the most widely used and accepted statistical test. It is a
measure which determines the interrelationship between variable and quantifies the strength
between them. The numeric value of Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) is used to determine the
strength of relationship between two variables. The range of value for r is +1 to -1. If the value of
the coefficient (r) is less than 0, then the results show a negative relationship between the
variables, however, if the value is greater than 0, then this indicates a positive linear relationship.
If the coefficient is equal to 0, then the results indicate no relationship between the variables. The
following table presents the correlation analysis for the current study. Pearson’s correlation
coefficient (r) has been measured for all constructs used in the study.

Variables EC SL PDM PSS IWB IO

EC 1
SL 0.810 1
PDM 0.755 0.748 1
PSS 0.698 0.743 0.737 1
IWB 0.740 0.712 0.723 0.683 1
IO 0.720 0.706 0.713 0.671 0.829 1

From the table we can see that all variables have positive results which means that all variables
are co-related with each other as the P-value of all variables is less than 0.05.

Normality Test
The normality test is basically a pre-requisite for running a regression analysis. This means that
in order to run regression analysis, it is necessary to first check if the data is normal or not.
Kurtosis and Skewness are two tests used for normality. Kal Pearson introduced the concept of
kurtosis as a measure which determines if the data is heavily tailed or lightly tailed relative to a
normal distribution. According to several researchers a value of +3 and -3 is acceptable range for
skewness and kurtosis. The following table shows the results of normality test on the present
study:

Descriptive Statistics
N Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error
EC 165 -.208 .189 -1.276 .376
SL 165 -.064 .189 -1.053 .376
PDM 165 -.192 .189 -.874 .376
PSS 165 -.135 .189 -.933 .376
IWB 165 -.015 .189 -.781 .376
IO 165 -.083 .189 -1.070 .376
Valid N
165
(listwise)

The values shown in the table are between +3 and -3 and are in an acceptable range. So this
shows the normality of data.

Regression Analysis
In Statistics, Regression Analysis is one of the most widely used techniques in quantitative
research. It is a method which determines the strength of a relationship between a dependent
variable and a series of other independent variables. In hypothesis testing we used the simple
linear regression. Simple linear regression is statistical methods which apply a formula to predict
the value of the variable, which show the effect of the relationship between two variables.

Hypothesis 1: Employee Creativity is positively related to Innovative Work Behavior.

Hypothesis Tested R Model

R Square Significance
 1 Employee Creativity → Innovative Work
.740a .548 .000b
Behavior

So, it is analyzed from the table that the R2 value of Hypothesis 1 is 0.548 i.e. 5.48% of the
variance in data is being explained by the predictor. The value shown in the last column shows
the model significance which is also known as whether the model is fit i.e. this value should
generally be lower and not greater than 0.05 as we can see in the table the values of all the tested
hypothesis are less than 0.05 thus it explains that the model is fit.

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Hypothesis Tested B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
Employee Creativity →
Innovative Work Behavior
.915 .065 .740 14.051 .000

The above table shows that for this hypothesis, the Beta value is positive; for the hypothesis to be
accepted the beta value must be positive and the significance value must not be lower and not
greater than 0.05. Here the significance value is 0.000 and is in the acceptable limit. Thus, the
hypothesis is accepted

Hypothesis 2: Self-leadership is positively related to Innovative Work Behavior.

Hypothesis Tested R Model

R Square Significance
2 Self-leadership → Innovative Work Behavior .712a .507 .000b

So, it is analyzed from the table that the R2 value of Hypothesis 2 is 0.507 i.e. 5.07% of the
variance in data is being explained by the predictor. The value shown in the last column shows
the model significance which is also known as whether the model is fit i.e. this value should
 generally be lower and not greater than 0.05 as we can see in the table the value of model
significance is 0.000 which is less than 0.05 thus it explains that the model is fit.

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Hypothesis Tested B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
Self-leadership → Innovative
Work Behavior
.460 .035 .712 12.959 .000

The above table shows that for this hypothesis, the Beta value is positive; for the hypothesis to be
accepted the beta value must be positive and the significance value must not be lower and not
greater than 0.05. Here the significance value is 0.000 and is in the acceptable limit. Thus, the
hypothesis is accepted.

H3: Participative Decision Making is positively related to Innovative Work Behavior

Hypothesis Tested R Model

R Square Significance
3 Participative Decision Making→ Innovative
.723a .522 .000b
Work Behavior

So, it is analyzed from the table that the R2 value of Hypothesis 3 is 0.522 i.e. 5.22% of the
variance in data is being explained by the predictor. The value shown in the last column shows
the model significance which is also known as whether the model is fit i.e. this value should
generally be lower and not greater than 0.05 as we can see in the table the value of model
significance is 0.000 which is less than 0.05 thus it explains that the model is fit.
 Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Hypothesis Tested B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
Participative Decision
Making → Innovative
Work Behavior
.925 .069 .723 13.343 .000

The above table shows that for this hypothesis, the Beta value is positive; for the hypothesis to be
accepted the beta value must be positive and the significance value must not be lower and not
greater than 0.05. Here the significance value is 0.000 and is in the acceptable limit. Thus, the
hypothesis is accepted.

H4: Perceived supervisor support will moderate the relationship between employee
creativity and innovative work behavior in such a way that the relationship will be positive
when PSS is high, and negative when PSS is low.

Hypothesis Tested R Model

R Square Significance
4 Perceived Supervisor Support
↓
.773a .597 .000b
Employee Creativity → Innovative Work
Behavior

It is analyzed from the table that the R2 value of Hypothesis 4 is 0.597 i.e. 5.97% of the variance
in data is being explained by the predictor. The value shown in the last column shows the model
significance which is also known as whether the model is fit i.e. this value should generally be
lower and not greater than 0.05 as we can see in the table the value of model significance is
0.000 which is less than 0.05 thus it explains that the model is fit.

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Hypothesis Tested B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
 Perceived Supervisor
Support
↓ .028 .006 .543 4.455 .000
Employee Creativity →
Innovative Work Behavior

The above table shows that for this hypothesis, the Beta value is positive; for the hypothesis to be
accepted the beta value must be positive and the significance value must not be lower and not
greater than 0.05. Here the significance value is 0.000 and is in the acceptable limit. Thus, the
hypothesis is accepted.

H5: Perceived supervisor support will moderate the relationship between self-leadership
and innovative work behavior in such a way that the relationship will be positive when PSS
is high, and negative when PSS is low.

Hypothesis Tested R Model

R Square Significance
5 Perceived Supervisor Support
↓ .736a .542 .000b
Self-leadership → Innovative Work Behavior

It is analyzed from the table that the R2 value of Hypothesis 5 is 0.542 i.e. 5.42% of the variance
in data is being explained by the predictor. The value shown in the last column shows the model
significance which is also known as whether the model is fit i.e. this value should generally be
lower and not greater than 0.05 as we can see in the table the value of model significance is
0.000 which is less than 0.05 thus it explains that the model is fit.

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Hypothesis Tested B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
 Perceived Supervisor Support
↓
.011 .003 .472 3.474 .001
Self-leadership → Innovative
Work Behavior

The above table shows that for this hypothesis, the Beta value is positive; for the hypothesis to be
accepted the beta value must be positive and the significance value must not be lower and not
greater than 0.05. Here the significance value is 0.001 and is in the acceptable limit. Thus, the
hypothesis is accepted.

H6: Perceived supervisor support will moderate the relationship between participative
decision making and innovative work behavior in such a way that the relationship will be
positive when PSS is high, and negative when PSS is low.

Hypothesis Tested R Model

R Square Significance
6 Perceived Supervisor Support
↓
.756a .572 .000b
Participative Decision Making → Innovative
Work Behavior

It is analyzed from the table that the R2 value of Hypothesis 4 is 0.572 i.e. 5.72% of the variance
in data is being explained by the predictor. The value shown in the last column shows the model
significance which is also known as whether the model is fit i.e. this value should generally be
lower and not greater than 0.05 as we can see in the table the value of model significance is
0.000 which is less than 0.05 thus it explains that the model is fit.

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Hypothesis Tested B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
 Perceived Supervisor
Support
↓ .030 .007 .595 4.359 .000
Participative Decision Making →
Innovative Work Behavior

The above table shows that for this hypothesis, the Beta value is positive; for the hypothesis to be
accepted the beta value must be positive and the significance value must not be lower and not
greater than 0.05. Here the significance value is 0.000 and is in the acceptable limit. Thus, the
hypothesis is accepted.

H7: Innovative work behavior is positively related to innovative output.

Hypothesis Tested R Model

R Square Significance
7 Innovative Work Behavior → Innovative
.829a .687 .000b
Output

So, it is analyzed from the table that the R2 value of Hypothesis 4 is 0.687 i.e. 6.87% of the
variance in data is being explained by the predictor. The value shown in the last column shows
the model significance which is also known as whether the model is fit i.e. this value should
generally be lower and not greater than 0.05 as we can see in the table the value of model
significance is 0.000 which is less than 0.05 thus it explains that the model is fit.

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Hypothesis Tested B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
Innovative Work Behavior →
Innovative Output
.885 .047 .829 18.909 .000

The above table shows that for this hypothesis, the Beta value is positive; for the hypothesis to be
accepted the beta value must be positive and the significance value must not be lower and not
 greater than 0.05. Here the significance value is 0.000 and is in the acceptable limit. Thus, the
hypothesis is accepted.

H no. Hypothesis Statement

1 Employee creativity is positively related to innovative work behavior. Accepted
2 Self-leadership is positively related to innovative work behavior. Accepted
3 Participative decision making is positively related to innovative work behavior. Accepted
4 Perceived supervisor support will moderate the relationship between employee creativity Accepted
and innovative work behavior in such a way that the relationship will be positive when
PSS is high, and negative when PSS is low.
5 Perceived supervisor support will moderate the relationship between self-leadership and Accepted
innovative work behavior in such a way that the relationship will be positive when PSS is
high, and negative when PSS is low.
6 Perceived supervisor support will moderate the relationship between participative decision Accepted
making and innovative work behavior in such a way that the relationship will be positive
when PSS is high, and negative when PSS is low.
7 Innovative work behavior is positively related to innovative output. Accepted

Conclusion

This chapter included the brief descriptions of the tests performed on the data collected for the
study, the results of the tests, interpretations of the results and lastly a table which shows which
hypothesis were accepted and which were rejected.