11 Chapter4

Chapter-4
CHAPTER-4
RESULTS & FINDINGS
This chapter details out the results and findings of the present study. The sections starts by
elaborating the descriptive representation of the sample, which is followed by reporting of results
of each hypothesis.
Descriptive representation of the Respondents
Table. 4.1 showing Descriptive representation of the Respondents (N=500)

Variable Designation Frequency Percentage
Gender Male 334 67%
Female 166 33%
Manager 230 46%
Designation Executives 270 54%
Post Graduate 158 32%
Qualification Graduate 342 68%
20-26yrs 97 20%
Age 27-35yrs 240 48%
36-45yrs 141 28%
45-58yrs 22 4%
1-5yrs 160 32%
Work Experience 6-10yrs 130 26%
11-20yrs 180 36%
Above 20 yrs 30 6%
Hospitality 250 50%
Industry IT 250 50%
Among the participants, 334 (67 percent) were Males and 166 (33 percent), Females. There
were 230 (46 percent) Managers and 270 (54 percent) Executives. In terms of Qualification,
there were 158 (32percent) Post Graduates and 342 (68 percent) Graduates. After collecting the
data, the demographics were analyzed for Age. The sample was divided into four brackets of age,
20-26 yrs, 97 (20 percent) respondents; 27-35 yrs (48 percent) respondents ; 36-45yrs, 141 (28
percent) respondents and 45-58yrs, 22 (four percent respondents). In the Work Experience
Ph.D. Thesis 109
Chapter-4
category, the brackets were from 1-5 yrs, 160 (32 percent) respondents; 6-10 yrs, 130 (26
percent) respondents 11-20 yrs, 180 (36 percent) respondents and above 20 yrs, 30 (6 percent)
respondents.
4.1 Levels of Emotional Intelligence, Organizational Stress and Employee Commitment
The results of the analysis are elaborated by explaining each hypothesis:
4.1.1 Emotional Intelligence in the Hospitality Industry
Table 4.2 Means, SD and percentage of Emotional Intelligence in Hospitality industry.

Variable No. of Score N Cronbach Mean Stnd.dev Mean Score
Items Range Alpha as %
Self_esteem 6 6-30 250 .830 2.98 0.91 49
Threshold_emo_arousal 2 2-10 250 .726 3.04 1.07 51
Self Awareness : Total Mean:6.02 Mean as % : 50%

Flexibility_adaptability 4 4-20 250 .819 2.78 0.88 44
Handling_egoism 3 3-15 250 .662 3.08 1.08 52
Self Management Total Mean: 5.86 Mean as %:48%
Empathy 3 3-15 250 .813 2.95 0.99 49
Social Awareness Total Mean: 2.95 Mean as % :49%
Building_bonds 5 5-25 250 .884 2.87 0.95 47
Communication 2 2-10 250 .635 2.90 0.97 47
Developing_others 2 2-10 250 .578 3.16 0.9 54
Relationship Management Total : 8.93 Mean as % :49%
The above table 4.2 shows Means, SD and percentage of Emotional Intelligence amongst the
employees of the Hospitality industry all the parameters of Emotional Intelligence. For the
Hospitality industry; for Self Awareness the parameters are Self Esteem (M=2.98, SD=0.91) and
Ph.D. Thesis 110

Chapter-4
Threshold of Emotional Arousal (M=3.04, SD=1.07). For Self Management the parameters are
Adaptability & Flexibility are (M=2.78, SD=0.88) and for Handling Egoism (M=3.08,
SD=1.08).For Social Awareness the parameters is Empathy (M=2.95,SD=.99) and for
Relationship Management, the parameters of are Building Bonds (M=2.87, SD=.95),
Communication (M=2.90, SD=.97) and Developing Others (M=3.16, SD=.98). The highest
percentage mean scores are seen for Self Awareness (50%), which includes Self Esteem and
Threshold of Emotional Arousal and the lowest percentage mean scores are seen for Self
Management (48%), which includes Flexibility & Adaptability and Handling Egoism.
4.1.2 Emotional Intelligence in the IT Industry
Table 4.3 Showing Means, SD and percentage of Emotional Intelligence in IT industry.

No. of Score Range N Cronbach Mean Stnd.dev Mean
Items Alpha Score
as %
Self_esteem 6 6-30 250 .843 3.32 0.86 58
Threshold_emo_arousal 2 2-10 250 .720 3.32 0.96 58
Self Awareness : Total Mean:6.64 Mean as % : 58%

Flexibility_adaptability 4 4-20 250 .711 3.11 0.84 53
Handling_egoism 3 3-15 250 .679 3.35 0.99 59
Self Management Total Mean: 6.46 Mean as %: 55%
Empathy 3 3-15 250 .979 3.39 0.83 60
Social Awareness Total Mean: 3.39 Mean as % :60%
Building_bonds 5 5-25 250 .805 3.20 0.84 55
Communication 2 2-10 250 .711 3.25 0.91 56
Developing_others 2 2-10 250 .705 3.52 0.83 63
Relationship Management Total : 9.97 Mean as % :58%
The above table 4.3 shows that for the IT industry; for Self Awareness the parameters are Self
Esteem (M=3.32, SD=0.86) and Threshold Of Emotional Arousal (M=3.32, SD=0.96). For Self
Management the parameters are Adaptability & Flexibility are (M=3.11,SD=0.84) and for
Handling Egoism (M=3.35,SD=0.99) .For Social Awareness the parameters is Empathy
Ph.D. Thesis 111

Chapter-4
(M=3.39,SD=0.83) and for Relationship Management, the parameters are Building Bonds
(M=3.20,SD=0.84), Communication (M=3.25,SD=.91) and Developing Others
(M=3.52,SD=0.83). Overall, the employees of the IT industry have the highest mean scores for
Social Awareness (60%); which includes Empathy. It is seen that the employees have the
minimum scores for Self Management (55%), which includes Flexibility & Adaptability and
Handling Egoism.
* Each score range was converted into percent score by the formula:
Mean Score - Lowest Point Of Score Range
Highest Score- Lowest Point Of Score Range
Ph.D. Thesis 112

Chapter-4
4.1.3 Organizational Stress in the Hospitality Industry

Table 4.4 Means, SD and Percentage of Organizational Stress in the Hospitality Industry.
No. of Score N Cronbach Mean Stnd.dev Mean
Items Range Alpha score as
%
5 5-25 250 .818 63.4
Inter Role Distance (IRD 3.17 0.94
5 5-25 250 .839 63.2
Role Stagnation (RS) 3.16 0.90
Role Expectation Conflict 5 5-25 250 .802 62.0
3.10 0.89
(REC)
5 5-25 250 .802 62.6
Role Erosion (RE) 3.13 0.85
5 5-25 250 .819 64
Role Overload (RO) 3.20 0.90
5 5-25 250 .837 60.6
Role Isolation (RI) 3.03 0.92
5 5-25 250 .836 63.4
Personal Inadequacy (PI) 3.17 0.92
5 5-25 250 .820 64.4
Self Role Distance (SRD) 3.22 0.90
5 5-25 250 .889 59.2
Role Ambiguity (RA) 2.96 1.01
5 5-25 250 .884 60.8
Resource Inadequacy (RIN) 3.04 0.98
The above table 4.4 shows that for the hospitality industry, the mean scores for Inter Role
Distance (IRD) are (M=3.17, SD=0.94) ,Role Stagnation (RS) (M=3.16,SD=0.90) , Role
Expectation Conflict (REC) (M=3.10,SD=0.89), Role Erosion (RE) (M=3.13,SD=0.85), Role
Overload (RO) (M=3.20, SD=0.90), Role Isolation (RI)(M=3.03,SD=0.92), Personal
Inadequacy (PI) (M=3.17,SD=0.92) , Self Role Distance (SRD)(M=3.22,SD=0.90), Role
Ambiguity (RA)(M=2.96,SD=1.01) and Resource Inadequacy (RIN) (M=3.04,SD=0.98)
4.1.4 Organizational Stress in the IT Industry

Table 4.5 Means, SD and Percentage of Organizational Stress in the IT Industry.
No. of Score N Cronbach Mean Stnd.dev Mean
Items Range Alpha score as
%
5 5-25 250 .789 54
Inter Role Distance (IRD 2.70 0.84
5 5-25 250 .743 56.4
Role Stagnation (RS) 2.82 0.85
Role Expectation Conflict 5 5-25 250 .786 52.4
2.62 0.89
(REC)
5 5-25 250 .716 59.6
Role Erosion (RE) 2.98 0.77
Role Overload (RO) 5 5-25 250 .805 2.69 0.92 53.8
Ph.D. Thesis 113

Chapter-4
5 5-25 250 .821 54.6

Role Isolation (RI) 2.73 0.88
5 5-25 250 .788 55.6
Personal Inadequacy (PI) 2.78 0.87
5 5-25 250 .756 55.4
Self Role Distance (SRD) 2.77 0.84
5 5-25 250 .889 49.6
Role Ambiguity (RA) 2.48 0.94
Resource Inadequacy 5 5-25 250 .884 54.6
2.73 0.88
(RIN)
The above table 4.5 shows that for the IT industry, the mean scores are Inter Role Distance
(IRD)(M=2.70,SD=0.84), Role Stagnation (RS)(M=2.82,SD=0.85) , Role Expectation Conflict
(REC)(M=2.62,SD=0.89), Role Erosion (RE) (M=2.98,SD=0.77), Role Overload
(RO)(M=2.69,SD=0.92), Role Isolation (RI)(M=2.73,SD=0.88), Personal Inadequacy (PI)
(M=2.78,SD=0.87), Self Role Distance (SRD)(M=2.77,SD=0.84), Role Ambiguity
(RA)(M=2.48,SD=0.93) and Resource Inadequacy (RIN)(M=2.72,SD=0.88)
Table 4.6 A comparative of the Top 5 Role Stressors in the Hospitality and IT industry
Hospitality Industry IT Industry
Variables Ranking Variables Ranking
Self Role Distance (SRD) 1 Role Erosion (RE) 1
Role Overload (RO) 2 Role Stagnation (RS) 2

Personal Inadequacy (PI) 3 Personal Inadequacy (PI) 3
Role Stagnation (RS) 4 Self Role Distance (SRD) 4

Inter Role Distance (IRD) 5 Role Isolation (RI) 5
The above table 4.6 shows the top five stressors in descending order in the Hospitality industry
are Self Role Distance (SRD), Role Overload (RO), Personal Inadequacy (PI), Personal
Inadequacy (PI), Role Stagnation (RS) and Inter Role Distance (IRD).In the IT industry the top 5
stressors are Role Erosion (RE), Role Stagnation (RS), Personal Inadequacy (PI), Self Role
Distance (SRD) and Role Isolation (RI).
Ph.D. Thesis 114

Chapter-4
4.1.5 Employee Commitment in the Hospitality Industry
Table 4.7 Means, SD and Percentage of Employee Commitment in the Hospitality Industry
No. Score N Cronbach Mean Stnd.dev
of Range Alpha Mean
Items score as
%
Affective commitment 6 6-30 250 .730 58.6
2.93 0.72
Continuance commitment 6 6-30 250 .814 53.2
2.66 0.75
Normative commitment 6 6-30 250 .820 54.2
2.71 0.83
The above table 4.7 shows the levels of Employee Commitment for the employees of the
Hospitality Industry for affective commitment are (M=2.93, SD=0.72), Continuance
commitment (M=2.66, SD=0.75) and Normative commitment (M=2.71, SD=0.83).
4.1.6 Employee Commitment in the IT Industry
Table 4.8 Means, SD and Percentage of Employee Commitment in the IT Industry

No. Score N Cronbach Mean Stnd.dev Mean
of Range Alpha score as
Items %
Affective commitment 6 6-30 250 .747 3.14 0.72 62.8

Continuance commitment 6 6-30 250 .788 2.77 0.61 55.4
Normative commitment 6 6-30 250 .789 2.97 0.69 59.4
The above table 4.8 shows that for the employees of the IT Industry, means for Affective
Commitment are (M=3.14, SD=0.72), Continuance commitment (M=2.77, SD=0.61) and
Normative commitment (M=2.97, SD=0.69).
Ph.D. Thesis 115

Chapter-4
4.2 Difference in levels of Emotional Intelligence, Organizational Stress and Employee

Commitment among the employees of both industries.
H01: There is no significant difference in the levels of Emotional Intelligence Organizational

Stress and Employee Commitment among the employees of IT & Hospitality industry.
The Null Hypothesis is rejected
Table 4.9 t-value and significant differences in Emotional intelligence in both industries
Industry N Mean t-value df Sig. (2tailed)
Self_esteem Hospitality 250 2.98 4.235 498 .000**

IT 250 3.32
Threshold_emo_arousal Hospitality 250 3.04 3.095 498 .002**
IT 250 3.32
Flexibility_adaptability Hospitality 250 2.78 4.116 498 .000**
IT 250 3.11
Handling_egoism Hospitality 250 3.08 4.362 498 .000**
IT 250 3.35
Empathy Hospitality 250 2.95 2.955 498 .003**
IT 250 3.39
Building_bonds Hospitality 250 2.87 5.428 498 .000**
IT 250 3.20
Communication Hospitality 250 2.90 4.179 498 .000**
IT 250 3.25
Developing_others Hospitality 250 3.16 4.406 498 .000**

IT 250 3.52
**Significant at 0.01 level, *Significant level 0.05 level
Table 4.9 shows significant differences p<0.01; among the employees of the hospitality and IT
sector on all the parameters of Emotional Intelligence.
The overall result shows that the employees of the IT industry have higher levels of Emotional
Intelligence than the employees of the Hospitality Industry, as indicated by the mean scores.
Ph.D. Thesis 116

Chapter-4
Table 4.10 t-value and significant differences in Organizational Stress in both industries
Hospitality 250 3.17 5.938 498

Inter Role Distance (IRD .000**
IT 250 2.70 5.938
Hospitality 250 3.16 4.379 498
Role Stagnation (RS) .000**
IT 250 2.82 4.379
Role Expectation Conflict Hospitality 250 3.10 5.956 498
.000**
(REC) IT 250 2.62 5.956
Hospitality 250 3.13 2.041 498
Role Erosion (RE) .042*
IT 250 2.98 2.041
Hospitality 250 3.20 6.281 498
Role Overload (RO) .000**
IT 250 2.69 6.281
Hospitality 250 3.03 3.747 498
Role Isolation (RI) .000**
IT 250 2.73 3.747
Hospitality 250 3.17 4.757 498
Personal Inadequacy (PI) .000**
IT 250 2.78 4.757
Hospitality 250 3.22 5.827 498
Self Role Distance (SRD) .000**
IT 250 2.77 5.827
Role Ambiguity (RA) Hospitality 250 2.96 5.427 498 .000**
IT 250 2.48 5.427
Hospitality 250 3.04 3.733 498
Resource Inadequacy (RIN) .000**
IT 250 2.73 3.733
Table 4.10 shows the mean differences on the parameters of Organizational Stress between the
employees of the hospitality and IT sector. The scores show significant differences P<0.01 on
all the parameters of Role Stress. For the parameter of Role Erosion (RE), there is significant
difference p<0.05.
The overall results indicate that the employees of the IT industry have lower levels of
Organizational Stress than the employees of the hospitality industry.
Ph.D. Thesis 117

Chapter-4
Table 4.11 t-value and significant differences in Employee Commitment in both industries
Mean
score as
%
Affective commitment Hospitality 250 2.93 3.232 498 48 .000**
IT 250 3.14 53
Continuance Hospitality 250 2.66 1.827 498 41 .002**
commitment IT 250 2.77 44
Normative commitment Hospitality 250 2.71 3.723 498 42 .000**
IT 250 2.97 49
The above table 4.11 shows the mean differences among the employees of the hospitality and IT
sector on the parameters of Employee Commitment. The scores show significant differences
p<0.01 between the two groups, for Affective, Continuance and Normative commitment.
The overall results show that the employees of the IT industry have higher levels of Employee
Commitment than employees of hospitality industry, as indicated by the mean scores.
4.2 Relationship between Emotional Intelligence, Organizational Stress and Employee

Commitment
H02: Emotional Intelligence has no significant relationship with Organizational Stress and
Employee Commitment among the employees of IT & Hospitality industry.
The Null Hypothesis is rejected
4.2.1 Relationship of Emotional Intelligence with Organizational Stress and Employee

Commitment among the employees of the Hospitality Industry.
A Pearson product moment correlation coefficient r was computed to relationship

between Emotional Intelligence, Organizational Stress and Employee Commitment in both
industries.
Ph.D. Thesis 118

Chapter-4
Table 4.12 Correlation of Emotional Intelligence, Organizational Stress and Employee

Commitment in Hospitality Industry
IRD RS REC RE RO RI PI SRD RA RIN AC CC NC
Self_Esteem - - - - - - - - -
-.554** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
.377** .066 .323**
.572 .618 .509 .599 .575 .562 .566 .632 .623
Threshold_Emo_Arousal - - - - - - - - -
-.569** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
.315** .043 .239**
.536 .591 .471 .567 .573 .505 .500 .608 .595
Flexibility_Adaptability - - - - - - - - -
-.533** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
.369** .018 .322**
.562 .587 .509 .559 .540 .545 .523 .635 .603
Handling_Egoism - - - - - - - - -
-.373** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
.326** .121 .267**
.401 .380 .266 .326 .356 .319 .302 .425 .371
Empathy - - - - - - - - -
-.446** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
.403** .087 .312**
.486 .513 .459 .520 .491 .472 .447 .586 .546
Building_Bonds - - - - - - - - -
-.438** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
.328** .113 .279**
.472 .555 .494 .558 .518 .533 .500 .574 .559
Communication - - - - - - - - -
-.417** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
.238** .114 .196**
.438 .555 .486 .527 .443 .492 .538 .473 .501
Developing_Others - - - - - - - - -
-.451** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
.387** .199** .399**
.476 .549 .553 .563 .533 .547 .513 .591 .518
Table 4.12 shows the result of a Pearson Product Moment Correlation coefficient r, that was
computed to assess the relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Organizational Stress in
the Hospitality. There is seen to be a significant p<0.01 & negative correlation between all the
factors of Emotional Intelligence and Organizational Stress. The nature of the relationship
indicates that higher levels of Emotional Intelligence would lead to lower levels of
Organizational Stress and vice versa. In the Hospitality industry, is significant relationship
p<0.01 between Emotional Intelligence and Affective and Normative Commitment; however,
there is no significant relation between factors of Emotional Intelligence and Continuance
Commitment.
Ph.D. Thesis 119

Chapter-4
4.2.2 Relationship of Emotional Intelligence with Organizational Stress and Employee

Commitment among the employees of the IT Industry.
Table 4.13 Correlations of Emotional Intelligence, Organizational Stress and Employee
Commitment in IT Industry
IRD RS REC RE RO RI PI SRD RA RIN AC CC NC
** * **
Self_Esteem - - - .- - - - - - - .400 .140 .582
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
.702 .619 .669 402 .636 .632 .544 .622 .684 .650
Threshold_Emo_Arousal - - - - - - - - - - .340** .147* .421**

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
.676 .549 .618 .330 .570 .623 .536 .566 .579 .626
Flexibility_Adaptability - - - - - - - - - - .362** .266** .503**

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
.599 .563 .573 .434 .526 .518 .485 .548 .575 .562
Handling_Egoism - - - - - - - - - - .326** .272** .585**

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
.550 .509 .466 .343 .467 .417 .372 .520 .487 .502
Empathy - - - - - - - - - - .441** .190** .592**

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
.720 .692 .687 .445 .670 .663 .564 .674 .721 .675
Building_Bonds .- - - - - - - - - - .405** .271** .610**

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
674 .609 .653 .482 .656 .678 .596 .636 .664 .652
Communication - - - - - - - - - - .401** .184** .500**

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
.608 .493 .647 .281 .536 .539 .522 .638 .591 .584
Developing_Others - - - - - - - - - - .269** .230** .487**

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
.536 .510 .574 .380 .532 .504 .477 .551 .504 .479
-
Table 4.1
Table 4.13 shows the result of a Pearson Product Moment Correlation coefficient r, that was
computed to assess the relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Organizational Stress in
the IT industry. There is seen to be a significant p<0.01 & negative correlation between all the
factors of Emotional Intelligence and Organizational Stress. The nature of the relationship
indicates that higher levels of Emotional Intelligence would lead to lower levels of
Organizational Stress and vice versa. It is seen that in the IT industry, there is significant
relationship p<0.01 between all factors of Emotional Intelligence and Employee Commitment.
The nature of the relationship implies that that higher Emotional Intelligence would lead to
higher levels of Employee Commitment.
Ph.D. Thesis 120

Chapter-4
4.2.3 Relationship between Organizational Stress and Employee Commitment
A Pearson product moment correlation coefficient r was computed to relationship

between Organizational Stress and Employee Commitment in both industries.
4.14 Correlation between Organizational Stress and Employee Commitment among the
employees of the Hospitality & IT sector
Affective Commitment Continuance Commitment Normative
Commitment
** **
Inter Role Distance (IRD) -.374 -.017 -.435
** **
Role Stagnation (RS) -.464 -.131 -.449
** **
Role expectation Conflict (REC) -.488 -.117 -.455
** **
Role Erosion (RE) -.208 -.261 -.208
** **
Role Overload (RO) -.402 -.035 -.439
** **
Role Isolation (RI) -.403 -.100 -.339
** **
Personal Inadequacy (PI) -.354 -.045 -.282
** **
Role Ambiguity(RA) -.416 -.070 -.428
** **
Resource Inadequacy (RIN) -.444 -.024 -.470
** **
Inter Role Distance (IRD) -.454 -.028 -.420
Table 4.14 show the result of a Pearson product moment correlation coefficient r was computed
to assess the relationship between Organizational Stress and Employee Commitment. There was
seen to be a significant and negative correlation p<0.01 between all the variables of
Organizational Stress and Affective Commitment as well as Organizational Stress and Normative
Commitment. There exists no significant relationship of Organizational Stress and Continuance
Commitment.
4.3 Emotional Intelligence as a predictor of Organizational Stress
H03 Emotional Intelligence has no significant role on Organizational Stress and Employee
Commitment among the employees of IT & Hospitality industry.
The Null Hypothesis is Rejected
Ph.D. Thesis 121

Chapter-4
This section explores the role of Emotional Intelligence as a predictor of Organizational Stress,
in the Hospitality & IT sector. Step wise linear Regression has been used to analyse the impact
of Emotional Intelligence on Organizational Stress.
4.3.1 Role of Emotional Intelligence on Organizational Stress in both industries
Table4. 15 Predictors of Organizational Stress in the Hospitality Industry

Predictors β Standardiz t- Sig Zero-order Individual Dimension of
ed β value Correlations contribution Organizational
Stress
Threshold_emo_arousal -0.881 -0.402 -4.3 0 -0.569 22.90%
Self_esteem -0.257 -0.298 -2.72 0.007 -0.554 16.50% Inter Role

Empathy 0.461 0.317 3.007 0.003 -0.446 -14.10% Distance (IRD)
Flexibility_Adaptability -0.291 -0.234 -2.26 0.025 -0.533 12.50%
**F = 79.3 R=.614 R square=.378 Variance
df = (4,245) Adjusted R square: .367 Explained=37.8
Self_esteem -0.28 -0.339 -3.6 0 -0.572 19.40% Role

Flexibility_Adaptability -0.331 -0.278 -2.9 0.004 -0.562 15.60% Stagnation(RS)
**F= 66.34 R=.591 R Square=.349 Variance
df=(2,247) Adjusted R square: .344 Explained=34.9%
Self_esteem -0.146 -0.18 -1.75 0.002 -0.618 11.10%
Communication Role Expectation
-0.441 -0.193 -2.83 0.005 -0.555 10.70%
Conflict (REC)
Threshold_emo_arousal -0.453 -0.22 -2.67 0.008 -0.591 13.00%
Developing_others -0.371 -0.165 -2.21 0.028 -0.549 9.10%
Developing_others -0.829 -0.383 -4.9 0 -0.553 21.20%
Communication -0.472 -0.216 -3.4 0.001 -0.486 10.50% Role Erosion(RE)
Handling_egoism 0.404 0.251 3.52 0.001 -0.266 6.70%
Fl xibilit _βA aptabilit -0.302 -0.269 -3 0.003 -0.509 13.70%
Self_esteem -0.309 -0.377 -3.5 0.001 -0.599 22.60%
Developing_others -0.659 -0.289 -3.8 0 -0.563 Role
16.30%
Overload(RO)
Handling_egoism 0.44 0.259 3.71 0 -0.326 -8.40%
Threshold_emo_arousal -0.489 -0.235 -2.9 0.004 -0.567 13.30%
**F =47.55 R=.661 R Square=.437 Variance
Self_esteem -0.133 -0.157 -1.53 0.000 -0.575 9.00%

Threshold_emo_arousal -0.667 -0.31 -3.69 0.000 -0.573 17.80% Role Isolation(RI)
Ph.D. Thesis 122

Chapter-4

Self_esteem -0.305 -0.361 -3.6 0 -0.562 20.3%
Developing_others Personal
-0.641 -0.272 -3.4 0.001 -0.547 14.9% Inadequacy (PI)
Handling_egoism 0.425 0.242 3.31 0.001 -0.319 -7.70%
Building_bonds -0.2 -0.215 -2.6 0.009 -0.533 11.5%
Self_esteem -0.329 -0.401 -3.88 0 -0.566 22.70%
Communication -0.538 -0.233 -3.3 0.001 -0.538 Self Role Distance
12.50% (SRD)
Handling_egoism 0.365 0.215 2.915 0.004 -0.302 -6.50%

Threshold_emo_arousal -3.3 -0.542 Role Ambiguity
-0.624 -0.266 0.001 16.20% (RA)
Developing_others -0.605 -0.236 2.915 0.009 -0.533 13.90%
Self_esteem -0.357 -3.79 0 -0.623 24.70%
Threshold_emo_arousal Role
-0.429 -0.188 -2.23 0.027 -0.595 11.20% Inadequacy(RIN)
Handling_egoism 0.405 0.218 3.055 0.003 -0.371 -8.10%
**F =49.15 R=.667 R Square=.44.5 Variance
Table 4.16 Predictors of Organizational Stress in the IT Industry
Standardized t- Zero-order Individual Dimension of Role

Predictors β β value Sig Correlations contribution Stress
Empathy -0.51 -0.36 -5.24 0.000 -0.72 25.92%
Threshold_emo_arousl
Inter Role
-0.547 -0.25 -3.93 0.000 -0.676 16.90%
Distance (IRD)
Communication -0.391 -0.17 -3.02 0.003 -0.608 10.33%
Handling egoism -0.187 -0.113 -2.09 0.038 -0.55 6.20%
**F= 89.48 R=.770 R square=.594 Variance
df=(4,245) Adjusted R square:.587 Explained=59.4%
Empathy -0.881 -0.615 -10.5 0 -0.692 42.60% Role
Handling_egoism -0.207 -0.123 -2.11 0.036 -0.509 6.30% Stagnation(RS)
Empathy 27.0% Role Expectation
-.590 -.393 -6.19 .000 -.687
Communication 21.9% Conflict (REC)
-.825 -.338 -6.20 .000 -.647
Ph.D. Thesis 123

Chapter-4
Developing_ Others 7.3%

-.340 -.127 -2.15 .032 -.574
Building_bonds -0.448 -0.482 -8.65 0 -0.482 23.20% Role Erosion(RE)
Empathy -0.564 -0.363 -4.38 0 -0.67 24.30%
Role
Building_bonds -0.291 -0.262 -3.08 0.002 -0.656 17.20%
Overload(RO)
Communication -0.368 -0.146 -2.43 0.016 -0.536 7.80%
**F =79.97 R=.703 R square=.494 Variance
Building_bonds -0.479 -0.453 -5.29 0.000 -0.678 30.70%
Threshold_emo_arousl -0.584 -0.256 -3.91 0.000 -0.623 15.90%
Role Isolation(RI)
Empathy -0.393 -0.266 -2.87 0.004 -0.663 17.60%
Flexibility_adaptability 0.276 0.211 2.72 0.007 -0.518 -10.90%
**F 70.12 R=.731 R square=.534 Variance
Building_bonds -0.376 -0.358 -5 0.000 -0.596 21.30%
Personal
Inadequacy (PI)
Communication -0.425 -0.178 -2.63 0.009 -0.522 9.30%
Empathy -0.643 -0.453 -8.23 0.000 -0.674 30.50% Self Role Distance
Communication -0.831 -0.36 -6.55 0.000 -0.638 23.00% (SRD)
Empathy -0.911 -0.574 -10.7 0.000 -0.721 41.40%
Role Ambiguity
Communication -0.613 -0.238 -4.41 0.000 -0.591 14.10%
Empathy -0.397 -0.267 -3.05 0.003 -0.675 18.00%
Role Inadequacy
Communication -0.44 -0.182 -3 0.003 -0.584 10.60%
(RIN)
Building_bonds -0.199 -0.187 -2.27 0.024 -0.652 12.20%
The table 4.15 & 4.16 explain the significant role of Emotional Intelligence on Organizational
Stress in both the industries. For each factor of organizational stress, the predictors of emotional
Ph.D. Thesis 124

Chapter-4
intelligence have been listed. The Total R Square values explain the percentage of variance that
is caused in every dependent variable, by the independent variables. The individual contribution
of each factor has also been shown in terms of percentages. Each factor has been explained with
its predictor:
4.3.1.1 EI as a predictor of Inter Role Distance (IRD) in the Hospitality Industry &IT
Industry
Dependent Variable: Inter Role Distance (IRD)

Independent Variable: Emotional Intelligence
The predictors that evolved are Threshold of Emotional Arousal (Beta = -.881, p < .001),
followed by Self Esteem (Beta =-.257, p < 0.01) , Adaptability & Flexibility (Beta =,-291,
p<0.01) and Empathy (Beta= .461, p<0.01). The R2 value = .614, which explained that 61.4
percent of the variance in the dependent variable is explained by four dependent variables .The
overall ANOVA table is found to be significant. All the t- values of the four predictors are found
to be significant. The individual contributions show that Threshold of Emotional Arousal
contributes the highest to IRD 22.9% followed by Self Esteem 16.5%, Empathy is 14.1% and
Flexibility & Adaptability 12.5%
In the IT industry, predictors that have evolved are Empathy (Beta= -.510, p<0.01), Threshold of
Emotional Arousal (Beta = -.547,p<0.01),Communication (Beta= -.391,p<0.01), and Handling
Egoism(Beta = -.187,p<0.05). The R2 value = .594, which explained that 59.4 percent of the
variance in the dependent variable is explained by four dependent variables .The overall
ANOVA table is found to be significant. All the t- values of the predictors are found to be
significant p<0.01. The individual contributions show of Empathy is 25.9%, Threshold Of
Emotional Arousal 16.9%, Communication 10.3% and Handling Egoism 6.2%.
4.3.1.2 EI as a predictor of Role Stagnation (RS) in the Hospitality Industry &IT Industry
Ph.D. Thesis 125

Chapter-4
Dependent Variable: Role Stagnation (RS)

The predictors that have evolved are Self Esteem (Beta =-.280, p<0.01 and Flexibility &
Adaptability (Beta =-.331, p<0.01). The R2 value = .349, which explained that 34.9 percent of
the variance in the dependent variable is explained by four dependent variables .The overall
ANOVA table is found to be significant. All the t- values of both predictors are found to be
significant p<0.01. The individual contributions show of Self Esteem is 19.4.%, and Flexibility &
Adaptability is 15.6%.
In the IT industry, the predictors that have evolved are Empathy (Beta=-.881, p<0.01) &
Handling Egoism (Beta=-.207, p<0.05. The R2 value = .489, which explained that 48.9 percent
of the variance in the dependent variable is explained by four dependent variables .The overall
significant p<0.01. The individual contributions show of Empathy is 42.6%, and Handling
Egoism is 6.3%
4.3.1.3 EI as a predictor of Role Expectation Conflict (REC) in the Hospitality Industry &
IT Industry
Dependent Variable: Role Expectation Conflict (REC)

The predictors that have evolved are, Self Esteem (Beta =-.146, p<0.01), Communication (Beta
= -.441, p<0.01), Threshold of Emotional Arousal (Beta =-.453, p<0.01) and Developing Others
(Beta =-.371, p<0.05). The R2 value = .439, which explained that 43.9 percent of the variance in
the dependent variable is explained by four dependent variables. The overall ANOVA table is
found to be significant. All the t- values of both predictors are found to be significant p<0.01.
The individual contributions show of Self Esteem is 11.1%, Communication 10.7%, Threshold of
Emotional Arousal 13% And Developing Others9.1%.
Ph.D. Thesis 126

Chapter-4
In the IT industry, the predictors that have evolved are Empathy, Communication, and
Developing Others. The R2 value = .561, which explained that 56.1 percent of the variance in the
dependent variable is explained by three dependent variables .The overall ANOVA table is found
to be significant. All the t- values of both predictors are found to be significant p<0.01. The
individual contributions of Empathy are 27.0%, Communication 21.9%, and Developing Others
7.3%.
4.3.1.4 EI as a predictor of Role Erosion (RE) in the Hospitality Industry & IT Industry
Dependent Variable: Role Erosion (RE)

In the Hospitality industry, the predictors that have evolved are, Developing Others (Beta =-
.829, p<0.01), Communication (Beta =-.472, p<0.01), Handling Egoism (Beta =-.404, p<0.01)
and Flexibility & Adaptability (Beta =-.302, p<0.01). The R2 value = .387, which explained that
38.7 percent of the variance in the dependent variable is explained by four independent variables.
The overall ANOVA table is found to be significant. All the t- values of the predictors are found
to be significant p<0.01. The individual contributions show of Developing Others Is 21.2%,
Communication 10.5%, Handling Egoism 6.7%And Flexibility & Adaptability 13%.
In the IT industry the predictor that has evolved is Building Bonds (Beta= -.448, p<0.01). The
R2 value = .232, which explained that 23.2 percent of the variance in the dependent variable is
explained the dependent variables .The overall ANOVA table is found to be significant. All the
t- values of both predictors are found to be significant p<0.01. The individual contributions of
Building Bonds 23.2%
4.3.1.5 EI as a predictor of Role Overload (RO) in the Hospitality Industry & IT Industry
Dependent Variable: Role Overload (RO)

Ph.D. Thesis 127

Chapter-4
In the Hospitality industry the predictors that have evolved are Self Esteem (Beta =309, p<0.01),
Developing Others (Beta= -.659, p<0.01), Handling Egoism (Beta =-.440, p<0.01) and
Threshold of Emotional Arousal (Beta =-.489), p<0.01. The R2 value = .437, which explained
that 43.7 percent of the variance in the dependent variable is explained by four independent
variables .The overall ANOVA table is found to be significant. All the t- values of both
predictors are found to be significant p<0.01. The individual contributions of Self Esteem are
22.6%, developing others 16.3%, handling egoism -8.4% and Threshold of Emotional Arousal is
13.3%.
In the IT industry, the predictors that have evolved are Empathy (Beta =-.564, p<0.01), Building
Bonds (Beta=-.291, p<0.05) and Communication (Beta =-.368, p<0.01). The R2 value = .494,
which explained that 49.4 percent of the variance in the dependent variable is explained by three
independent variables. The overall ANOVA table is found to be significant. All the t- values of
both predictors are found to be significant p<0.01. The individual contributions show of
Empathy 24.3%, Building Bonds 17.2% and Communication 7.8%.
4.3.1.6 EI as a predictor of Role Isolation (RI) in the Hospitality Industry & IT Industry
Dependent Variable: Role Isolation (RI)

In the Hospitality industry the predictors that have evolved are Threshold of Emotional Arousal
(Beta =-.667, p<0.01), Developing others (Beta =-.519, p<0.05) . The R2 value = .386, which
explained that 38.6 percent of the variance in the dependent variable is explained by four
independent variables .The overall ANOVA table is found to be significant. All the t- values of
the predictors are found to be significant p<0.01.The individual contribution of Self Esteem is
9.0%, Threshold of Emotional Arousal is 17.8% and Developing others is 11.7%.
Ph.D. Thesis 128

Chapter-4
In the IT industry, the predictors that have evolved are Building Bonds (Beta =-.479, p<0.01),
Threshold of Emotional Arousal (Beta =-.584, p<0.01), Empathy (Beta =-.393, p<0.01) and
Flexibility & Adaptability (Beta =-.276, p<0.01). The R2 value = .534, which explained that 53.4
percent of the variance in the dependent variable is explained by four independent variables .The
overall ANOVA table is found to be significant. All the t- values of both predictors are found to
be significant p<0.01 & p<0.01. The individual contributions of Building Bonds are 30.7%,
Threshold of Emotional Arousal 15.9%, Empathy17.6% and Flexibility & Adaptability -10.9%.
4.3.1.7 EI as a predictor of Personal Inadequacy (PI) in the Hospitality Industry & IT

Industry
Dependent Variable: Personal Inadequacy

In the Hospitality industry the predictors that have evolved are, Self Esteem (Beta =-.305,
p<0.01), Developing others (Beta =-.641, p<0.01), Handling Egoism (Beta=.425,p<0.01) and
Building Bonds (Beta=-.200,p<0.01) . The R2 value = .389, which explained that 38.9 percent
of the variance in the dependent variable is explained by four independent variables .The overall
ANOVA table is found to be significant. All the t- values of the predictors are found to be
significant p<0.01 &p<0.01 .The individual contribution of Self Esteem is 20.3 %, Developing
others 14.9%, Handling Egoism -7.7% and Building Bonds 11.4%
In the IT industry the predictors that have evolved are Building Bonds, Threshold of Emotional
Arousal and Communication. The R2 value = .406, which explained that 40.6 percent of the
variance in the dependent variable is explained by three independent variables .The overall
significant p<0.01. The individual contributions of Building Bonds is 21.3%, Threshold of
Emotional Arousal 9.9% and Communication 9.3%
Ph.D. Thesis 129

Chapter-4
4.3.1.8 EI as a predictor of Self Role Distance (SRD) in the Hospitality Industry & IT
Industry
Dependent Variable: Self Role Distance

In the Hospitality industry the predictors that have evolved are, Self Esteem (Beta=-.329
p<0.00), Communication (Beta=,-.538, p<0.01), Handling Egoism (Beta=-.365, p<0.01) and
Developing Others (Beta=-.468 p<0.01). The R2 value = .393, which explained that 39.3 percent
of the variance in the dependent variable is explained by four independent variables .The overall
significant p<0.01 & p<0.01.The individual contribution of the predictors is ; Self Esteem
22.7%, Communication 12.5%, Handling Egoism -6.5% and developing others 10.5%
In the IT industry the predictors that have evolved are Empathy and Communication. The R2
value = .535, which explained that .535 percent of the variance in the dependent variable is
explained by two independent variables. The overall ANOVA table is found to be significant. All
the t- values of both predictors are found to be significant p<0.01.The individual contribution of
the predictors are; Empathy is 30.5% and Communication is 23%
4.3.1.9 EI as a predictor of Role Ambiguity (RA) in the Hospitality Industry & IT Industry
Dependent Variable: Role Ambiguity

In the Hospitality industry the predictors that have evolved are Flexibility & Adaptability (Beta
=,-.338 p<0.01), Threshold of emotional arousal (Beta =-.624, p<0.01) and Developing Others
(Beta = -.605, p<0.01). The R2 value = .462, which explained that 46.2 percent of the variance in
Ph.D. Thesis 130

Chapter-4
the dependent variable is explained by four independent variables .The overall ANOVA table is
found to be significant. All the t- values of both predictors are found to be significant p<0.01.The
individual contribution of the predictors is; Flexibility & Adaptability 16.1%, Threshold of
emotional arousal 16.2% and developing others 13.9%.
value = .554, which explained that 55.4 percent of the variance in the dependent variable is
explained by two independent variables .The overall ANOVA table is found to be significant. All
the t- values of both predictors are found to be significant p<0.01.The individual contribution of
the predictors is; Empathy 41.4% and Communication 14.1%.
4.3.1.10 EI as a predictor of Role Inadequacy (RIN) in the Hospitality Industry & IT

Industry
Dependent Variable: Role Inadequacy

In the Hospitality industry the predictors that have evolved are Self Esteem, Threshold of
emotional arousal, Handling Egoism and Flexibility & Adaptability. The R2 value = .445, which
explained that 44.5 percent of the variance in the dependent variable is explained by four
independent variables .The overall ANOVA table is found to be significant. All the t- values of
both predictors are found to be significant p<0.01 & p<0.01.The individual contribution of the
predictors is; Self Esteem 24.7% , Threshold of emotional arousal 11.2%,Handling Egoism -
8.1% and Flexibility & Adaptability 16.6%.
Tin the IT industry; the predictors that have evolved are Empathy, Communication, and
Threshold of emotional arousal and Building Bonds. The R2 value = .528, which explained that
52.8 percent of the variance in the dependent variable is explained by four independent variables
Ph.D. Thesis 131

Chapter-4
.The overall ANOVA table is found to be significant. All the t- values of both predictors are
found to be significant p<0.01.The individual contribution of the predictors is; Empathy 18% ,
Communication 10.6%, Threshold of emotional arousal 11.9% and Building Bonds12.2%
4.4 Emotional Intelligence as a predictor of Employee Commitment

Table showing Predictors of Employee Commitment in the Hospitality Industry
Predictors Β Standa t-value Sig Zero- Individual Dimension of
rdized order contributio Employee
β Correlatio n Commitment
ns
Empathy 10.4%
.343 .258 2.973 .003 .403 Affective
Developing_others 6.5% Commitment
.428 .195 2.247 .026 .387
Developing Others
.899 .394 4.306 .000 .199 7.8%
Threshold_emo_arousl
-.650 -.312 -3.041 .003 -.043 1.3% Continuance
Building_bonds Commitment
.324 .361 3.104 .002 .113 4.1%
Flexibility_adaptability
-.393 -.333 -2.690 .008 .018 0.6%
Developing Others Normative
1.01 .399 .399 0.000 .399 15.9% Commitment
Table showing Predictors of Employee Commitment in the Hospitality Industry
Predictors Β Standa t-value Sig Zero- Individual Dimension of

rdized order contributio Employee
β Correlatio n Commitment
ns
Empathy 13.8%
.459 .313 4.399 .000 .441 Affective
Communication 68.4% Commitment
.498 .209 2.936 .004 .401
df=(2,247) Adjusted R square:.216 Explained=22.2 %
Handling_egoism Continuance
.402 .278 3.258 .001 .272 7.6%
Ph.D. Thesis 132

Chapter-4
Building_bonds Commitment
.293 .331 2.872 .004 .271 9.0%
Self_esteem
-.498 -.700 -5.199 .000 .140 -9.8%
Developing Others
.471 .213 2.451 .015 .230 4.9%
Flexibility_adaptability
.277 .254 2.343 .020 .266 6.8%
Building_bonds Normative
.247 .247 2.741 .007 .610 15.1% Commitment
Handling_egoism
.479 .294 4.541 .000 .585 17.2%
Empathy
.282 .202 2.334 .020 .592 12.0%
df=(1,248) Explained=44.3%
Adjusted R square:.436
4.4.1 Emotional Intelligence as a predictor of Affective Commitment in the Hospitality

Industry & IT Industry
Dependent Variable: Affective Commitment

In the Hospitality industry the predictors that have evolved are Empathy (Beta=.343, p<0.01)
and Developing Others (Beta=.482, p<0.05).The R2 value = .179, which explained that .179
percent of the variance in the dependent variable is explained by four independent variables .The
overall ANOVA table is found to be significant p<0.01. All the t- values of both predictors are
found to be significant p<0.01.The individual contribution of the predictors is; Empathy 10.4%
and Developing Others 6.5%.
value = .222, which explained that 22.7 percent of the variance in the dependent variable is
explained by four independent variables .The overall ANOVA table is found to be significant.
All the t- values of both predictors are found to be significant p<0.01.The individual contribution
of the predictors is; Empathy 13.8% & Communication 8.4%.
Ph.D. Thesis 133

Chapter-4
4.4.2 Emotional Intelligence predicting Continuance Commitment in the Hospitality & IT

Industry
Dependent Variable: Continuance Commitment

In the Hospitality industry the predictors that have evolved are Developing Others (Beta=
.889,p<0.01), Threshold of emotional arousal (Beta = -.650,p<0.01) Building
Bonds(Beta=.324,p<0.01) and Flexibility& Adaptability(Beta=-.393,p<0.05). The R2 value =
.127 which explained that 12.7 percent of the variance in the dependent variable is explained by
four independent variables .The overall ANOVA table is found to be significant. All the t-
values of both predictors are found to be significant p<0.01.The individual contribution of the
predictors is; Developing Others 7.8%, Threshold of emotional arousal 1.3%, Building bonds
4.1% and Flexibility& Adaptability0.6%.
In the IT industry the predictors that have evolved are Handling egoism, Building bonds, Self
esteem, Developing others, Flexibility & adaptability. The R2 value = .183, which explained that
18.3 percent of the variance in the dependent variable is explained by four independent variables
.The overall ANOVA table is found to be significant.
All the t- values of both predictors are found to be significant p<0.01.The individual
contributions are , Handling egoism 7.6%, Building bonds 9.0%, Self esteem -9.8%, Developing
others 4.9%, Flexibility & adaptability 6.8%.
4.4.3 Emotional Intelligence as a predictor of Normative Commitment in the Hospitality

Industry
Dependent Variable: Normative Commitment

Ph.D. Thesis 134

Chapter-4
In the Hospitality industry the predictor that has evolved is Developing Others. The R2 value =
.159, which explained that 15.9 percent of the variance in the dependent variable is explained
independent variables .The overall ANOVA table is found to be significant.
In the IT industry the predictors that have evolved are Handling egoism, Building bonds, and
Empathy. The R2 value = .443, which explained that 44.3 percent of the variance in the
dependent variable is explained by three independent variables .The overall ANOVA table is
found to be significant. All the t- values of both predictors are found to be significant p<0.01
,p<0.05.The individual contributions are, Handling egoism 15.1%, Building bonds 17.2% , and
Empathy 12.0%.
4.5 Demographic Influence on Emotional Intelligence, Organizational Stress & Employee

Commitment
The section below explains the influence of each demographic factor on Emotional Intelligence,
Organizational Stress and Employee Commitment in the Hospitality and IT industry. The
analysis is done, keeping in mind the following demographic factors, in each industry:
1. Designation: Manager and Executive

2. Gender: Male and female
3. Educational Levels: Graduation and Post Graduation
4. Age Group
5. No of years of Work Experience
H04 : There is no significant influence of demographic factors on Emotional Intelligence,

Organizational Stress and Employee Commitment in the Hospitality and IT industry.
The Null Hypothesis is Rejected
Ph.D. Thesis 135

Chapter-4
Hospitality Industry
4.5.1 Examining the Influence of Designation on Emotional Intelligence, Organizational

Stress and Employee Commitment, amongst the employees of the Hospitality Industry.
The section explains the influence of Designation (Managerial or Executive Roles); on

Emotional Intelligence, Organizational Stress and Employee Commitment on among the
employees of both industries. t- tests have been applied to see the significant difference p<0.01
& p<0.05 in the factors due to demographics factors. We start with examination of these three
factors on the employees of the hospitality industry.
Table 4.17 Means, t-values and significant differences in Designation in Hospitality

industry for Emotional Intelligence
Std.
Designation N Mean Deviation t-value df Sig
Self_esteem Manager 110 2.81 0.86 2.830 248 .005**
Executive 140 3.13 0.92
Threshold_emo_arousal Manager 110 2.83 1.01 2.812 248 .005**
Executive 140 3.21 1.10
Flexibility_Adaptability Manager 110 2.71 0.91 2.397 248 .017*
Executive 140 2.99 0.95
Handling_egoism Manager 110 2.70 0.87 1.262 248 .208
Executive 140 2.84 0.88 (NS)
Empathy Manager 110 2.90 1.07 2.302 248 .022*
Executive 140 3.22 1.07
Building_bonds Manager 110 2.71 0.88 3.419 248 .001**
Executive 140 3.13 1.04
Communication Manager 110 2.63 0.88 3.983 248 .000**
Executive 140 3.11 0.99
Developing_others Manager 110 3.03 0.97 1.878 248 .062
Executive 140 3.26 0.98 (NS)
Ph.D. Thesis 136

Chapter-4
Table 4.17 shows show a significant difference p<0.01 in the levels of Emotional Intelligence
between the Managers and Executives of hospitality industry for the parameters of Self Esteem,
Threshold of Emotional Arousal, Building Bonds and Communication. In case of Empathy and
Adaptability & Flexibility there is significant difference p<0.05, between Managers and
Executives. However, there is no significant difference in the parameters of Handling Egoism
and Developing Others. The results indicate that the Executives have higher levels of Emotional
Intelligence than Managers as indicated by higher mean scores.
Table 4. 18 Means, t-values and significant differences in Designation in Hospitality

industry for Organizational Stress
Std.
Designation N Mean Deviation t-value df Sig. (2tailed)
Inter Role Distance (IRD) Manager 110 3.25 0.86 1.125 248 .262
Executive 140 3.11 1.00 (NS)
Role Stagnation (RS) Manager 110 3.19 0.85 .463 248 .644
Executive 140 3.14 0.94 (NS)
Role Expectation Conflict Manager 110 3.21 0.75 1.752 248 .081
(REC) Executive 140 3.01 0.97 (NS)
Role Erosion (RE) Manager 110 3.20 0.85 1.170 248 .243
Executive 140 3.08 0.84 (NS)
Role Overload (RO) Manager 110 3.27 0.82 1.155 248 .249
Executive 140 3.14 0.95 (NS)
Role Isolation (RI) Manager 110 3.11 0.84 1.287 248 .199
Executive 140 2.96 0.98 (NS)
Personal Inadequacy (PI) Manager 110 3.23 0.87 1.034 248 .302
Executive 140 3.11 0.96 (NS)
Self Role Distance (SRD) Manager 110 3.31 0.86 1.420 248 .157
Executive 140 3.15 0.92 (NS)
Role Ambiguity (RA) Manager 110 3.05 0.96 1.296 248 .196
Executive 140 2.88 1.04 (NS)
Ph.D. Thesis 137

Chapter-4
Resource Inadequacy Manager 110 3.12 0.93 1.170 248 .243

(RIN) Executive 140 2.98 1.02 . (NS)
Table 4.19 shows that there exists no significant difference between the Managers and
Executives of the hospitality industry, in terms of Organizational Stress. The results indicate that
both managers and executives similar levels of Organizational Stress and there is no significant
impact of Designation on Organizational Stress, in the hospitality industry.
Table 4.19 Means, t-values and significant differences in Designation in Hospitality

industry for Employee Commitment
Std.
Affective commitment Manager 110 2.80 0.63 2.524 248 .012*
Executive 140 3.03 0.77 .
Continuance Commitment Manager 110 2.55 0.75 1.931 248 .055
Executive 140 2.74 0.73 (NS)
Normative Commitment Manager 110 2.62 0.78 1.666 248 .097
Executive 140 2.79 0.86 (NS)

Table 4.19 shows that there is no significant difference between the Managers and Executives in
terms of Normative Commitment and Continuance Commitment in the hospitality industry. Yet,
there is seen to be a significant difference p<0.05, is seen in terms of Affective Commitment. The
result shows that the Executives of the hospitality industry have more Affective Commitment, as
compared to the Managers; as indicated by the mean scores.
Ph.D. Thesis 138

Chapter-4
IT Industry:
4.5.2 Examining the Influence of Designation on Emotional Intelligence, Organizational

Stress and Employee Commitment, amongst the employees of the IT Industry.
Table. 4.20 Means, t-values and significant differences in Designation in IT industry for
Emotional Intelligence
Std.
Self_esteem Manager 120 3.25 0.90 1.335 248 .183
Executive 130 3.39 0.82
Threshold_emo_arousal Manager 120 3.20 1.03 1.942 248 .050*
Executive 130 3.43 0.88
Flexibility_adaptability Manager 120 3.13 0.98 1.136 248 .257
Executive 130 3.25 0.68
Handling_egoism Manager 120 2.96 0.84 2.857 248 .005**
Executive 130 3.26 0.82
Empathy Manager 120 3.16 1.11 2.983 248 .003**
Executive 130 3.53 0.83
Building_bonds Manager 120 3.29 0.91 1.881 248 .061
Executive 130 3.49 0.74
Communication Manager 120 3.15 0.97 1.778 248 .077
Executive 130 3.35 0.84
Developing_others Manager 120 3.42 0.82 1.827 248 .069
Executive 130 3.61 0.83

Table 4.20 shows that there is exists significant difference p<0.05 in the levels of Emotional
Intelligence between the managers and Executives of the IT industry, for the parameters of
Threshold of Emotional Arousal, Handling Egoism and Empathy , with the Executives showing
higher levels of Handling Egoism and Empathy than the Managers; as indicated by the mean
scores.
Ph.D. Thesis 139

Chapter-4
For the parameter of Threshold of Emotional Arousal; there exists significant difference, p<0.05;
with Executives showing higher levels of awareness of Threshold of Emotional Arousal than
Managers; as indicated by the mean scores.
Table 4.21 Means, t-values and significant differences in Designation in IT industry for
Organizational Stress
Std.
Inter Role Distance Manager 120 2.83 0.86 2.437 248 .016*
(IRD) Executive 130 2.58 0.80
Role Stagnation (RS) Manager 120 2.86 0.91 .817 248 .415
Executive 130 2.77 0.79
Role Expectation Manager 120 2.72 0.98 1.731 248 .085

Conflict (REC) Executive 130 2.53 0.79
Role Erosion (RE) Manager 120 3.07 0.80 1.620 248 .107
Executive 130 2.91 0.74
Role Overload (RO) Manager 120 2.82 0.98 2.117 248 .035*
Executive 130 2.57 0.85
Role Isolation (RI) Manager 120 2.84 0.93 2.013 248 .045
Executive 130 2.62 0.81
Personal Inadequacy (PI) Manager 120 2.92 0.94 2.385 248 .018*
Executive 130 2.66 0.78
Self Role Distance (SRD) Manager 120 2.90 0.95 2.347 248 .020*
Executive 130 2.65 0.71
Role Ambiguity (RA) Manager 120 2.57 1.04 1.407 248 .161
Executive 130 2.40 .83
Resource Inadequacy Manager 120 2.82 .95 1.637 248 .103

(RIN) Executive 130 2.64 .79

Table 4.21 shows that there exists significant difference p<0.05, among the Managers and
Executives of the IT industry in the parameter of Inter Role Distance (IRD), Role Overload
Ph.D. Thesis 140

Chapter-4
(RO), Personal Inadequacy (PI) and Self Role Distance (SRD). The results show that on these
parameters; the Managers show higher levels of Role Stress than the Executives of the IT
Industry, as indicated by the mean scores.
Table 4.22 Means, t-values and significant differences in Designation in IT industry for
Employee Commitment
Std.
Affective_commitment Manager 120 3.25 0.78 2.388 248 .018*
Executive 130 3.04 0.65
Continuance_commitment Manager 120 2.74 0.65 .757 248 .450
Executive 130 2.80 0.57
Normative_commitment Manager 120 2.92 0.72 .980 248 .328
Executive 130 3.01 0.66

Table 4.22 shows that there exists no significant difference In terms of the commitment levels
between the Managers and Executives respondents of IT Industry except for Affective
Commitment, where there is significant difference p<0.05 between the Managers and Executives
. The overall commitment level result shows that the Managers have higher scores on Affective
commitment than the Executives.
4.5.3 Examining the Influence of Gender on Emotional Intelligence, Organizational Stress

and Employee Commitment, amongst the employees of the Hospitality Industry.
The section explains the influence of Intelligence, Organizational Stress and Employee
Commitment on Gender (Male & Female); among the employees of both industries. t- tests have
been applied to see the significant difference p<0.01 & p<0.05 between the demographic
factors. We start with examination of these three factors on the employees of the hospitality
industry.
Ph.D. Thesis 141

Chapter-4
Table 4. 23 Means, t-values and significant differences in Gender in Hospitality industry

for Emotional Intelligence Emotional Intelligence
Std.
Gender N Mean Deviation t-value df Sig. (2tailed)
Self_esteem Male 171 2.93 0.91 1.523 248 .129
Female 79 3.12 0.90 (NS)
Threshold_emo_arousal Male 171 2.98 1.02 1.311 248 .191
Female 79 3.17 1.19 (NS)
Flexibility_Adaptability Male 171 2.79 0.91 1.845 248 .066
Female 79 3.03 1.00 (NS)
Handling_egoism Male 171 2.73 0.90 1.193 248 .234
Female 79 2.87 0.83 (NS)
Empathy Male 171 3.02 1.04 1.278 248 .203
Female 79 3.21 1.16 (NS)
Building bonds Male 171 2.85 0.96 2.168 248 .031*
Female 79 3.15 1.06
Communication Male 171 2.83 0.96 1.672 248 .096
Female 79 3.05 0.99 (NS)
Developing_others Male 171 3.13 0.97 .557 248 .578
Female 79 3.21 1.01 (NS)

Table 4.23 shows that there exists no significant difference in the levels of Emotional
Intelligence between the Male and Female respondents of the hospitality industry, except for the
Building Bonds, p<0.05. Female respondents have higher a higher score on the parameter of
Building Bonds ,than male respondents; as indicated by the mean scores.
Ph.D. Thesis 142

Chapter-4
Table 4. 24 Means, t-values and significant differences in Designation in Hospitality

industry for Organizational Stress
Std.
Gender N Mean Deviation t-value Df Sig. (2tailed)
Inter Role Distance (IRD) Male 171 3.24 0.93 1.582 248 .115
Female 79 3.04 0.96 (NS)
Role Stagnation (RS) Male 171 3.26 0.87 2.711 248 .007**
Female 79 2.93 0.94
Role Expectation Conflict Male 171 3.15 0.88 1.404 248 .162
(REC) Female 79 2.98 0.88 (NS)
Role Erosion (RE) Male 171 3.20 0.82 1.981 248 .049
Female 79 2.98 0.89 (NS)
Role Overload (RO) Male 171 3.30 0.88 2.529 248 .012*
Female 79 2.99 0.89
Role Isolation (RI) Male 171 3.09 0.92 1.537 248 .126
Female 79 2.90 0.92 (NS)
Personal Inadequacy (PI) Male 171 3.23 0.90 1.618 248 .107
Female 79 3.03 0.96 (NS)
SelfRole Distance (SRD) Male 171 3.31 0.86 2.376 248 .018*
Female 79 3.03 0.94
Role Ambiguity (RA) Male 171 3.06 0.99 2.416 248 .016*
Female 79 2.73 1.01
Resource Inadequacy Male 171 3.15 0.97 2.748 248 .006**

(RIN) Female 79 2.79 0.96

Table 4.24 shows that there exists significant difference p<0.01 in parameters of Organizational
Stress between the Male and Female respondents of the hospitality sector in the parameters of
Role Stagnation (RS) and Role Inadequacy (RIN) and p<0.05 for Role Overload (RO), Self Role
Distance (SRD) and Role Ambiguity (RA). It is seen that the Male respondents experience have
Ph.D. Thesis 143

Chapter-4
higher levels of Organizational Stress than the Female respondents as indicated by mean scores.
However, there is no significant difference for the two groups on the parameter of Personal
Inadequacy (PI) and Role Isolation (RI), Role Erosion (RE) and Role Expectation Conflict
(REC).
Table 4.25
Std.
Affective Commitment Male 171 2.93 0.74 .034 248 .973
Female 79 2.93 0.68 (NS)
Continuance Commitment Male 171 2.64 0.77 .600 248 .549
Female 79 2.70 0.69 (NS)
Normative Commitment Male 171 2.65 0.83 1.713 248 .088
Female 79 2.85 0.81 (NS)

Table 4.25 shows that there is no significant difference in the levels of Affective commitment,
Continuance or Normative Commitment among the Male and Female respondents of the
hospitality sector.
4.5.4 Examining the Influence of Gender on Emotional Intelligence, Organizational Stress

and Employee Commitment, amongst the employees of the Hospitality Industry.
IT Industry
Table 4. 26 Means, t-values and significant differences in Designation in IT industry for

Emotional Intelligence
Std.
Ph.D. Thesis 144

Chapter-4
Self_esteem Male 163 3.40 0.84 2.084 248 .038*
Female 87 3.17 0.88
Threshold_emo_arousal Male 163 3.40 0.94 1.809 248 .072
Female 87 3.17 0.99
Flexibility_adaptability Male 163 3.28 0.76 2.202 248 .029*
Female 87 3.04 0.95
Handling_egoism Male 163 3.23 0.81 2.996 248 .003**
Female 87 2.90 0.88
Empathy Male 163 3.43 0.95 1.795 248 .074
Female 87 3.20 1.04
Building_bonds Male 163 3.47 0.83 1.985 248 .048*
Female 87 3.25 0.81
Communication Male 163 3.31 0.88 1.450 248 .148
Female 87 3.14 0.96
Developing_others Male 163 3.56 0.87 1.103 248 .271
Female 87 3.44 0.75

Table 4.26 shows that there exists significant difference p<0.05 in the levels of Emotional
Intelligence between the Male and Female respondents of the IT industry in the parameter of Self
Esteem, Flexibility & Adaptability, and Building Bonds. There is significant difference p<0.01
for the parameter of Handling Egoism. There exists no significant difference in the mean scores
of the remaining parameters. The overall result shows that the Males have higher levels of
Emotional Intelligence than the Female employees, as indicated by higher mean scores.

Organizational Stress
Std.
Gender N Mean Deviation t Df Sig. (2tailed)
Inter Role Distance (IRD Male 163 2.62 0.81 2.043 248 .041*
Female 87 2.85 0.88
Role Stagnation (RS) Male 163 2.76 0.81 1.999 248 .141
Ph.D. Thesis 145

Chapter-4
Female 87 2.92 0.90
Role Expectation Male 163 2.54 0.87 1.429 248 .055

Conflict (REC) Female 87 2.77 0.90
Role Erosion (RE) Male 163 2.95 0.80 1.909 248 .360
Female 87 3.05 0.71
Role Overload (RO) Male 163 2.64 0.89 .950 248 .256
Female 87 2.78 0.97
Role Isolation (RI) Male 163 2.69 0.84 1.106 248 .380
Female 87 2.79 0.93
Personal Inadequacy (PI) Male 163 2.75 0.83 .853 248 .367
Female 87 2.85 0.94
SelfRole Distance (SRD) Male 163 2.74 0.85 .871 248 .369
Female 87 2.84 0.83
Role Ambiguity (RA) Male 163 2.40 0.90 .907 248 .067
Female 87 2.63 1.00
Resource Inadequacy Male 163 2.63 0.87 1.785 248 .018*

(RIN) Female 87 2.91 0.87

Table 4.27 shows that there is no significant difference between the Male and Female
respondents of the IT sector in terms of Organizational Stress, except for significant difference ,
p<0.05; the parameter , Inter Role Distance (IRD), and Resource Inadequacy (RIN). Female
employees experience higher levels of Role Stress than the Male employees.

Employee Commitment
Std.
Affective_commitment Male 163 3.12 0.75 .586 248 .558
Female 87 3.18 0.68
Continuance_commitment Male 163 2.75 0.61 .510 248 .611
Ph.D. Thesis 146

Chapter-4
Female 87 2.80 0.62
Normative_commitment Male 163 3.05 0.66 2.546 248 .012*
Female 87 2.82 0.71

Table 4.28 shows that there exists significant difference, p<0.05, in the levels of Normative
Commitment, among the Male & Female employees of the IT industry. The female respondents
have higher levels of Normative Commitment, than the male respondents; as indicated by the
mean scores. There is no difference in terms of Affective and Continuance Commitment.
4.5.5 Examining the Influence of Qualification Levels on Emotional Intelligence,

Organizational Stress and Employee Commitment in both industries
The section explains the influence of Qualification Levels (Graduation& Post Graduation) on
Emotional Intelligence, Organizational Stress and Employee Commitment on; among the
employees of both industries. t- tests have been applied to see the significant difference p<0.01
& p<0.05 between the demographic factors.
In the Hospitality industry, results show that there exists no significant difference in the levels Of
Emotional Intelligence and Organizational Stress based on qualification levels of the employees
of the Hospitality Industry. Result shows that exists significant difference p<0.05 among the
Post Graduate and Graduate respondents in terms of Affective Commitment. It is seen that the
Graduates show higher levels of Affective Commitment than the post graduates. In the IT
industry, results show that there exists no significant difference in the levels of Emotional
Intelligence, Organizational Stress and Employee Commitment based on Qualification levels of
the employees of the IT Industry.
4.5.6 Examining the Influence of Age on Organizational Stress and Employee

Commitment, amongst the employees of the Hospitality Industry.
Ph.D. Thesis 147

Chapter-4
Commitment on Age; among the employees of both industries. t- tests have been applied to see
the significant difference p<0.01 & p<0.05 between the demographic factors. We start with
examination of these three factors on the employees of the hospitality industry.
Table 4.29 Statistical significance of between group differences (ANOVA) in Emotional

Intelligence, by Age in the hospitality industry
ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Self_esteem Between Groups 10.748 3 3.583 4.506 .004**
Within Groups 195.573 246 .795
Total 206.321 249
Threshold_emo_arousal Between Groups 19.961 3 6.654 6.116 .000**
Within Groups 267.639 246 1.088
Total 287.600 249
Flexibility_Adaptability Between Groups 19.278 3 6.426 7.778 .000**
Total 222.515 249
Handling_egoism Between Groups 17.725 3 5.908 8.334 .000**
Total 192.123 249
Empathy Between Groups 27.837 3 9.279 8.718 .000**
Within Groups 261.838 246 1.064
Total 289.675 249
Building_bonds Between Groups 20.673 3 6.891 7.477 .000**
Total 247.383 249
Communication Between Groups 10.391 3 3.464 3.793 .011*
Ph.D. Thesis 148

Chapter-4
Total 235.000 249
Developing_others Between Groups 31.060 3 10.353 12.219 .000**
Total 239.509 249

Table 4.29 shows the statistical significance of between group differences (ANOVA) in terms of
Emotional Intelligence, based on the Age of the respondents in hospitality industry.
4.30 Post hoc comparisons using Duncan Analysis

Age 20-26 yrs 27-35yrs 36-45yrs 45-58yrs (Sig-Value)
Groups
N 35 118 85 12
Self Esteem 3.04a 3.03a 2.78a 3.75b [F(3,246)=4.50,P=0.004]
Threshold Of 3.04a 3.20a 2.65 a 3.08b [F(3,246)=6.11,P=0.00]
Emotional
Arousal Means
Flexibility & 2.98a 2.95a 2.55a 3.72b [F(3,246)=7.77,P=0.000]
Adaptability
Handling Egoism 2.69a 2.86a 2.54a 3.54b [F(3,246)=8.33 ,P=0.000]
Empathy 3.17a 3.17a 2.73a 4.25b [F(3,246)=8.71 ,P=0.000]
Building Bonds 3.09a 3.10a 2.57a 3.60b [F(3,246)=7.47 ,P=0.000]
Communication 3.17a,b 2.91a,b 2.68a 3.45b [F(3,246)=3.79 ,P=0.01]
Developing 3.04a 3.04a 2.82a 4.41b [F(3,246)=12.21 ,P=0.000]
Others
Note: Means with similar subscripts do not differ significantly and means with different subscript
differ significantly.
Table 4.30 represents F value, significant levels and an interpretation of means through sub
sc ipt ‘a’ an ‘b’ with th h lp of post hoc ncan anal sis
As noted above, there is significant difference p<0.01 for all the parameters of Emotional
Intelligence. The results indicate that for the parameters, Self Esteem, Threshold of Emotional
Arousal, Flexibility & Adaptability, Handling Egoism, Empathy, Building Bonds and Developing
Others there is significant difference p<0.01, brought about by the age groups (45 to 58 yrs).This
Ph.D. Thesis 149
Chapter-4
group also shows highest mean scores in terms of Emotional Intelligence, where as the lowest
scores are seen in the age group (36-45yrs).
Table 4.31 Statistical significance of between group differences (ANOVA) in

Organizational Stress by Age in the hospitality industry
Between Groups 12.564 3 104.697 4.952 .002**

Inter Role Distance (IRD) Within Groups 208.022 246 21.140
Total 220.586 249
Role Stagnation (RS) Between Groups 18.022 3 150.183 7.983 .000**
Within Groups 185.122 246 18.813
Total 203.144 249
Role Expectation Conflict Between Groups 12.996 3 108.304 5.846 .001**

(REC) Within Groups 182.298 246 18.526
Total 195.294 249
Role Erosion (RE) Between Groups 19.685 3 164.039 10.099 .000**
Within Groups 159.826 246 16.243
Total 179.511 249
Role Overload (RO) Between Groups 16.598 3 138.320 7.439 .000**
Within Groups 182.961 246 18.594
Total 199.560 249
Role Isolation (RI) Between Groups 17.260 3 143.831 7.244 .000**
Within Groups 195.384 246 19.856
Total 212.644 249
Personal Inadequacy (PI) Between Groups 20.857 3 173.805 8.931 .000**
Within Groups 191.501 246 19.462
Total 212.358 249
Self Role Distance (SRD) Between Groups 17.984 3 149.869 8.116 .000**
Within Groups 181.712 246 18.467
Total 199.696 249
Ph.D. Thesis 150

Chapter-4
Role Ambiguity (RA) Between Groups 29.104 3 242.535 10.663 .000**
Within Groups 223.812 246 22.745
Total 252.916 249
Resource Inadequacy Between Groups 25.350 3 211.250 9.702 .000**

(RIN) Within Groups 214.250 246 21.773
Total 239.600 249

Organizational Stress, based on the Age of the respondents in hospitality industry.
Table 4.32 Post hoc comparisons using Duncan Analysis

Age 20- 27- 36- 45- Sig-Value
Groups 26 yrs 35yrs 45yrs 58yrs
N 35 118 85 12
Inter Role Distance 3.02a 3.13a 3.39a 2.38b [F(3,246)=4.95,P=0.002]
(IRD)
Role Stagnation (RS) 3.13a 3.14a 3.35a 2.05b [F(3,246)=5.84,P=0.001]
Role expectation 2.88a 3.12a 3.26a 2.23b [F(3,246)=5.84,P=0.001]
Conflict (REC)
Role Erosion (RE) 3.04a 3.14a 3.32a 1.96b [F(3,246)=10.09 ,P=0.000]
Role Overload (RO) 3.05a 3.18a 3.40a 2.21b [F(3,246)=7.43 ,P=0.000]
Role Isolation (RI) 2.92a 3.03a 3.21a 1.95b [F(3,246)=7.24 ,P=0.000]
Personal Inadequacy 2.96a 3.21a 3.34a 2.10b [F(3,246)=8.93 ,P=0.00]
(PI)
Self Role Distance 3.20a 3.22a 3.39a 2.08b [F(3,246)=8.116 ,P=0.000]
(SRD)
Role Ambiguity(RA) Means 2.77a 2.96a 3.20a 1.58b [F(3,246)=10.66 ,P=0.000]
Resource Inadequacy 2.81a 3.05a 3.27a 1.76b [F(3,246)=9.702 ,P=0.000]
(RIN)
Ph.D. Thesis 151

Chapter-4
Table 4.32 represents F value, significance levels and an interpretation of means through sub
sc ipt ‘a’ an ‘b’ with th h lp of post hoc ncan anal sis
As noted above, there is significant difference p<0.01 for all the parameters of Organizational
Stress brought about by the Age Group (45-58 years).The overall results indicate that this age
group experiences the least levels of Organizational Stress among the other age groups of
employees. As indicated by the transcripts, the other employees in the age groups (20-26 yrs)
(27-35 yrs) and (36-45) have similar levels of stress within which , the age group (36-45 yrs)
shows highest levels of role stress , followed by the age group (27-35 yrs) and (20-26 yrs) ; as
indicated by the mean scores.
Table 4. 33 Statistical significance of between group differences (ANOVA) in Employee

Commitment, by Age in the Hospitality industry
Affective_commitment Between Groups 9.934 3 3.311 6.857 .000**
Total 128.728 249
Continuance_commitment Between Groups 8.042 3 2.681 5.066 .002**
Total 138.225 249
Normative_commitment Between Groups 19.148 3 6.383 10.383 .000**
Total 170.368 249

Employee Commitment, based on the Age of the respondents in hospitality industry.

Age 20-26 yrs 27-35yrs 36-45yrs 45-58yrs Sig-Value
Groups
N 35 118 85 12
Affective 2.78a 3.13b 2.71a 2.87a [F(3,246)=,6.85 P=0.000 ]
Ph.D. Thesis 152

Chapter-4
Commitment Means
Continuance 2.44a 2.88b 2.48a 2.65a [F(3,246)= 5.06 ,P=0.00]
commitment
Normative 2.36a 3.00b 2.47a 2.61a [F(3,246)=10.38,P=0.00]
commitment
Table 4.27 represents the F value, significant levels and an interpretation of means through sub
sc ipt ‘a’ an ‘b’ with th h lp of post hoc ncan anal sis As not abov th is significant
difference p<0.01 for all the parameters of Employee Commitment.
Post hoc comparisons using Duncan Analysis indicated that there is significant difference
p<0.01 in terms of Affective Commitment ,with the age group (27-35 yrs), having the highest
means and the group (36-45 yrs), having the least means. For Continuance, There exists
significant difference p<0.01, with the Highest mean scores for the group (27-35yrs) and the
least for the age group (36-45 yrs).In terms of Normative Commitment significant difference is
brought about by the age group , (27-35 yrs) as it shows highest mean scores and the least for
the age group (36-45yrs)
4.5.6 Examining the Influence of Age on Organizational Stress and Employee

Commitment, amongst the employees of the IT Industry.
IT Industry
4. 35 Statistical significance of between group differences (ANOVA) in Emotional

Intelligence for by Age in of IT industry
Within Groups 165.2897 246 0.671909
Total 184.0271 249
Ph.D. Thesis 153

Chapter-4
Threshold_emo_arousal Between Groups 9.669979 3 3.223326 3.610 .014*
Within Groups 219.659 246 0.892923
Total 229.329 249
Flexibility_adaptability Between Groups 10.10184 3 3.36728 5.019 .002**
Within Groups 165.0442 246 0.670911
Total 175.146 249
Handling_egoism Between Groups 11.37455 3 3.791516 5.621 .001**
Within Groups 165.9339 246 0.674528
Total 177.3084 249
Within Groups 228.2974 246 0.928038
Total 242.8018 249
Within Groups 153.2964 246 0.623156
Total 170.704 249
Communication Between Groups 9.806853 3 3.268951 4.086 .007**
Within Groups 196.8171 246 0.80007
Total 206.624 249
Within Groups 160.8355 246 0.653803
Total 171.436 249
Emotional Intelligence, based on the Age of the respondents in IT industry.

Age 20-26 yrs 27-35yrs 36-45yrs 45-58yrs Sig-Value
Groups
N 99 59 78 14
Self Esteem 3.54a 3.09a 3.40a 4.36b [F(3,246)=9.29,P=0.00]
Threshold Of 3.44a 3.17a 3.36a 4.10b [F(3,246)=3.61,P=0.14]
Ph.D. Thesis 154

Chapter-4
Emotional Arousal
Flexibility & Means 3.31a 3.04a 3.26a 3.97b [F(3,246)=5.01,P=0.002]
Adaptability
Handling Egoism 3.27b 2.89a,b 3.31a 3.53b [F(3,246)=5.62 ,P=0.001]
Empathy 3.55a 3.14a 3.44a 4.13b [F(3,246)=5.21 ,P=0.002]
Building Bonds 3.59a 3.17a 3.47a 4.32b [F(3,246)=9.31 ,P=0.000]
Communication 3.50a,b 3.06a 3.29a 3.65b [F(3,246)=4.08 ,P=0.007]
Developing Others 3.61a 3.33a 3.65a 4.25b [F(3,246)=5.49 ,P=0.001]
Note: Means with similar subscripts do not differ significantly and means with different subscript differ
significantly.
Table 4.36 represents the F value, significant levels and an interpretation of means through sub
sc ipt ‘a’ an ‘b’ with th h lp of post hoc ncan anal sis. As noted, there exists significant
differences p<0.01 & p<0.05 in the mean scores of the all the age groups .For the parameter, Self
Esteem and Threshold Of Emotional Arousal, Flexibility & Adaptability, Empathy, Building
Bonds, Communication and Developing others, the difference in the mean score was brought
about by higher means for the age group (45 to 58 years) and least for the age group (27-
35yrs).For the parameter of Handling Egoism, there is significant difference in the mean scores
as seen for the all the groups, with a difference in the mean score for the group (36-45yrs). The
results indicate highest mean score for the group (45-58) years, and least for (27-35yrs).
Table 4.37 Statistical significance of between group differences (ANOVA) in

Organizational Stress, by Age of employees of IT industry
Between Groups 11.98 3.00 3.99 6.012 .001**

Inter Role Distance (IRD) Within Groups 163.40 246.00 0.66
Total 175.38 249.00
Role Stagnation (RS) Between Groups 14.75 3.00 4.92 7.352 .000**
Within Groups 164.54 246.00 0.67
Total 179.30 249.00
Role Expectation Conflict Between Groups 12.13 3.00 4.04 5.381 .001**
Ph.D. Thesis 155

Chapter-4
(REC) Within Groups 184.79 246.00 0.75
Total 196.91 249.00
Role Erosion (RE) Between Groups 11.62 3.00 3.87 6.997 .000**
Within Groups 136.13 246.00 0.55
Total 147.74 249.00
Role Overload (RO) Between Groups 4.21 3.00 1.40 1.678 .172
Within Groups 205.95 246.00 0.84
Total 210.16 249.00
Role Isolation (RI) Between Groups 4.29 3.00 1.43 1.888 .132
Within Groups 186.43 246.00 0.76
Total 190.73 249.00
Personal Inadequacy (PI) Between Groups 1.76 3.00 0.59 .774 .510
Within Groups 186.38 246.00 0.76
Total 188.14 249.00
SelfRole Distance (SRD) Between Groups 5.84 3.00 1.95 2.809 .040*
Within Groups 170.36 246.00 0.69
Total 176.19 249.00
Role Ambiguity (RA) Between Groups 14.87 3.00 4.96 5.954 .001**
Within Groups 204.76 246.00 0.83
Total 219.63 249.00
Resource Inadequacy Between Groups 11.98 3.00 3.99 3.841 .010*

(RIN) Within Groups 163.40 246.00 0.66
Total 175.38 249.00
Organizational Stress, based on the Age of the respondents in IT industry.
Table 4. 38 Post hoc comparisons using Duncan Analysis

Age 20-26 27- 36- 45- Sig-Value
Groups yrs 35yrs 45yrs 58yrs
N 99 59 78 14
Inter Role Distance (IRD) 2.48a 2.85a 2.74a 1.92b [F(3,246)=6.01,P=0.001]
Ph.D. Thesis 156

Chapter-4
Role Stagnation (RS) 2.80a 2.95a 2.72a 1.72b [F(3,246)=7.35,P=0.000]

Role expectation Conflict(REC) 2.43a 2.791a 2.60a 1.82b [F(3,246)=5.38,P=0.001]
Role Erosion (RE) 3.14a 3.05a 2.82a 2.08b [F(3,246)=10.09,P=0.000]
Self Role Distance (SRD) 2.82b 2.58a 2.64a 2.14b [F(3,246)=2.80 ,P=0.040]
Role Ambiguity(RA) 2.82a 2.68a 2.64a 2.14b [F(3,246)=5.95,P=0.001]
Resource Inadequacy (RIN) Means 2.33a 2.66a 2.44a 1.52b ,[F(3,246)=3.84 ,P=0.010]
difference p<0.01 & P<0.05 for the above parameters Inter Role Distance (IRD), Role Stagnation
(RS), Role expectation Conflict(REC), Role Erosion (RE), Role Ambiguity(RA) and Resource
Inadequacy (RIN).
Results indicated that for these parameters, there is a significant difference in the mean scores ,
brought about by the Age Group (45-58 years).The overall results indicate that this age group
experiences the least levels of Organizational Stress. The maximum stress is experienced by the
age group (27-35yrs).For the parameter of Self Role Distance (SRD); there is significant
difference p<0.05, with the age group (45-58yrs), showing the least amount of role stress as
indicated by the mean scores.

Commitment, by respondents Age of employees of IT industry
Affective_commitment Between Groups 206.752 3 68.917 3.770 .011
Within Groups 4497.472 246 18.282
Total 4704.224 249
Continuance_commitment Between Groups 321.349 3 107.116 8.702 .000
Within Groups 3028.235 246 12.310
Total 3349.584 249
Normative_commitment Between Groups 489.456 3 163.152 10.693 .000
Ph.D. Thesis 157

Chapter-4
Within Groups 3753.328 246 15.257
Employee Commitment, based on the Age of the respondents in IT industry.

Age 20-26 27- 36-45yrs 45- Sig-Value
Groups yrs 35yrs 58yrs
N 99 59 78 14
Affective Commitment 3.30a 2.98a 3.37a 3.26a [F(3,246)=,3.77 P=0.01]
Continuance commitment Means 3.00a 2.57b 2.88a,b 2.90a,b [F(3,246)= 8.70 ,P=0.000]
Normative commitment 3.13a 2.73b 3.19a 3.46a [F(3,246)=10.69,P=0.000]
sc ipt ‘a’ an ‘b’ with th h lp of post hoc ncan anal sis R s lts in icat that fo Affective
Commitment , the mean scores for all the age groups are significantly different p<0.01 with the
age group (27-35yrs) showing the lowest means for commitment than the other groups, and the
age group (36-45yrs)showing the highest levels of Affective Commitment; as indicated by the
mean scores.
For Continuance Commitment, there is significant difference p<0.01, in mean scores between
the age group (20-26yrs) and (27-35 yrs).As seen, the group (20-26 yrs) shows highest
Continuance Commitment and the group (27-35 yrs) shows lowest continuance commitment ,as
indicated by mean scores.
For normative commitment, the difference in means is due to the age group (27-35 yrs), as it has
the lowest mean scores and the group (45-58yrs) has the highest levels, as indicated by the mean
scores.
Ph.D. Thesis 158

Chapter-4
4.5.7 Examining the Influence of Work Experience on Emotional Intelligence,

Organizational Stress and Employee Commitment, amongst the employees of Hospitality
Industry.
Commitment on Work Experience; among the employees of both industries. t- tests have been
applied to see the significant difference p<0.01 & p<0.05 between the demographic factors. We
start with examination of these three factors on the employees of the hospitality industry.
Table. 4.41 Statistical significance of between group differences (ANOVA) in Employee

Commitment, by Work Experience in Hospitality industry
ANOVA
Total 206.321 249
Threshold_emo_arousal Between Groups 31.595 3 10.532 10.120 .000**
Within Groups 256.005 246 1.041
Total 287.600 249
Flexibility_Adaptability Between Groups 21.795 3 7.265 8.904 .000**
Total 222.515 249
Handling_egoism Between Groups 6.984 3 2.328 3.093 .028*
Total 192.123 249
Within Groups 272.142 246 1.106
Total 289.675 249
Ph.D. Thesis 159

Chapter-4
Total 247.383 249
Communication Between Groups 14.010 3 4.670 5.199 .002*
Total 235.000 249
Total 239.509 249

Emotional Intelligence, based on the Work Experience of the respondents in IT industry.

Work 1-5 yrs 6-10 yrs 11-20 yrs Above 20 Sig-Value
Ex yrs
Groups
N 35 118 85 12
Self Esteem 3.16a 3.19a 2.80a,b 2.50b [F(3,246)=4.99 ,P=0.002]
Threshold Of 3.36a 3.35a 2.74b 2.28c [F(3,246)=6.10.12,P=0.00]
Emotional
Arousal Means
Flexibility & 3.15a 3.08a 2.64b 2.15c [F(3,246)=7.77,P=0.000]
Adaptability
Handling Egoism 2.94a 2.88a 2.66a,b 2.33b [F(3,246)=3.09 ,P=0.028]
Empathy 3.30a,b 3.34a 2.88b,c 2.60c [F(3,246)=5.28,P=0.002]
Building Bonds 3.19a 3.34a 2.62b 2.31b [F(3,246)=12.15 ,P=0.000]
Communication 3.06a 3.13a 2.73ab,b 2.31b [F(3,246)=5.19 ,P=0.02]
Developing 3.22a,b 3.54b 2.89a,ba 2.87a [F(3,246)=7.31 ,P=0.000]
Others
difference p<0.01 for all the parameters of Emotional Intelligence.
Ph.D. Thesis 160

Chapter-4
Post hoc comparisons using Duncan Analysis test indicated that for the parameter, Self Esteem,
Handling Egoism and Communication the mean score for the work ex groups (1-5 yrs), (6-10
yrs) was significantly different from the mean score of the age group (Above 20 yrs).The
(Above 20 yrs) group shows the lowest scores on these parameters. For, the parameter of
Threshold of Emotional Arousal and Flexibility & Adaptability; there is significant difference
p<0.01 for the mean score of three groups, (1-5 & 6-10 yrs), (11-20 yrs) and (Above 20 yrs
group). All the three groups show difference on the aforementioned parameters, with the group
(1-5 & 6-10 yrs) having the highest mean scores. The (above 20 yrs) group shows the lowest
scores on these parameters
For the parameter of Empathy, there is significant difference, P<0.01; (610 years) (above 20
yrs), with the highest empathy seen in the group (6-10) and least in the group (Above 20 yrs).For
the parameter, Building Bonds; there is difference in scores in the age groups (1-5 & 6-10 yrs)
and (11-20 & above 20 yrs); with the first group showing higher mean scores. For the parameter
of Developing Others, there is significant difference between two broad groups (6-10 yrs) and
(11-20 & Above 20 yrs), with higher mean scores for the group (610yrs).
Table 4. 43 Statistical significance of between group differences (ANOVA) in

Organizational Stress by Work Experience in the hospitality industry
Between Groups 6.005 3 2.002 2.295 .078

InterRole Distance (IRD) Within Groups 214.581 246 .872 (NS)
Total 220.586 249
Role Stagnation (RS) Between Groups 2.921 3 .974 1.196 .312
Within Groups 200.222 246 .814 (NS)
Total 203.144 249
Role Expectation Conflict Between Groups 5.761 3 1.920 2.492 .061

(REC) Within Groups 189.534 246 .770 (NS)
Total 195.294 249
Role Erosion (RE) Between Groups 2.224 3 .741 1.029 .381
Ph.D. Thesis 161

Chapter-4
Total 179.511 249
Role Overload (RO) Between Groups 4.963 3 1.654 2.091 .102
Total 199.560 249
Role Isolation (RI) Between Groups 3.891 3 1.297 1.528 .208
Total 212.644 249
Personal Inadequacy (PI) Between Groups 4.857 3 1.619 1.919 .127
Total 212.358 249
SelfRole Distance (SRD) Between Groups 2.550 3 .850 1.061 .366
Total 199.696 249
Role Ambiguity (RA) Between Groups 9.519 3 3.173 3.207 .024*
Total 252.916 249
Resource Inadequacy Between Groups 6.009 3 2.003 2.109 .100

(RIN) Within Groups 233.591 246 .950 (NS)
Organizational Stress, based on the Work Experience of the respondents in IT industry.

Ex yrs
Groups
N 35 118 85 12
Role Ambiguity Means 2.64a 2.95a,b 3.14b 2.93a,b [F(3,246)=3.20,P=0.024]
Ph.D. Thesis 162

Chapter-4
difference p<0.05 for the Role Ambiguity parameter of Organizational Stress.
There is a difference in the means of the group (1-5 yrs) and (11- 20 yrs), with the group (11- 20
yrs) experiencing highest Role Ambiguity as indicated by the mean scores.

Commitment by Work Experience in the hospitality industry
Affective commitment Between Groups 11.530 3 3.843 8.067 .000**
Total 128.728 249
Continuance commitment Between Groups 9.879 3 3.293 6.312 .000**
Total 138.225 249
Normative commitment Between Groups 10.802 3 3.601 5.551 .001*
Total 170.368 249

Employee Commitment, based on the Work Experience of the respondents in IT industry.
Ex yrs
Groups
N 35 118 85 12
Affective 2.90a,b 3.20b 2.71a 3.18b [F(3,246)=,8.06 P=0.000 ]
commitment
Continuance Means 2.57a 2.96b 2.51a 2.57a [F(3,246)= 6.31 ,P=0.003]
commitment
Normative 2.69a,b 3.01b 2.51a 2.72a,b [F(3,246)=5.55 ,P=0.001]
commitment
Ph.D. Thesis 163

Chapter-4
sc ipt ‘a’ an ‘b’ with th h lp of post hoc ncan analysis. As noted above, there is significant
difference p<0.05 for all the three types of commitments.
For Affective Commitment, the work ex groups (11- 20 years) shows a significant difference
p<0.01 and highest means. The lowest Affective Commitment is shown by the group (11-20yrs).
In case of Continuance Commitment, there is significant differences p<0.01 in the mean scores
are seen in the age group (6- 10yrs), which also shows the highest levels of continuance
commitment. In the case of normative commitment, significant differences p<0.01 are seen for
the work ex group (6-10 yrs) that has a significantly higher mean than ; the group (11-20 yrs).
4.5.8 Examining the Influence of Work Experience on Emotional Intelligence,

Organizational Stress and Employee Commitment, amongst the employees of IT Industry.
IT Industry
Table 4.47 Statistical significance of between group differences (ANOVA) in Emotional

Intelligence, by Work Experience in the IT industry
Self_esteem Between Groups 18.39 3.00 6.13 9.102 .000**
Within Groups 165.64 246.00 0.67
Total 184.03 249.00
Threshold_emo_arousal Between Groups 11.76 3.00 3.92 4.430 .005**
Within Groups 217.57 246.00 0.88
Total 229.33 249.00
Flexibility_adaptability Between Groups 10.32 3.00 3.44 5.136 .002**
Within Groups 164.82 246.00 0.67
Total 175.15 249.00
Handling_egoism Between Groups 5.14 3.00 1.71 2.449 .064
Ph.D. Thesis 164

Chapter-4
Within Groups 172.17 246.00 0.70
Total 177.31 249.00
Empathy Between Groups 27.75 3.00 9.25 10.579 .000**
Within Groups 215.06 246.00 0.87
Total 242.80 249.00
Building_bonds Between Groups 13.25 3.00 4.42 6.902 .000**
Within Groups 157.45 246.00 0.64
Total 170.70 249.00
Communication Between Groups 7.60 3.00 2.53 3.130 .026*
Within Groups 199.03 246.00 0.81
Total 206.62 249.00
Developing_others Between Groups 7.91 3.00 2.64 3.967 .009**
Within Groups 163.52 246.00 0.66
Total 171.44 249.00
Total 18.39 3.00 6.13
Emotional Intelligence, based on the Work Experience of the respondents in IT industry.
Work 1-5 yrs 6-10 yrs 11-20 yrs Above 20 yrs Sig-Value
Ex
Groups
N 99 59 78 14
Self Esteem 3.53b 3.14a 3.06a 4.02c F(3,246)=9.10 ,P=0.000]
Threshold Of 3.48a 3.22a 3.08a 3.85b [F(3,246)=4.43.12,P=0.05]
Emotional Arousal
Flexibility & Means 3.34a 3.04a 3.02a 3.76b [F(3,246)=5.13,P=0.003]
Adaptability
Empathy 3.65a 3.10b 3.02b 4.04a [F(3,246)=10.57,P=0.000]
Building Bonds 3.55a 3.20b 3.20a 4.04b [F(3,246)=6.90 ,P=0.000]
Communication 3.44a 3.06a 3.11a 3.39a [F(3,246)=3.13 ,P=0.026]
Developing Others 3.69a 3.38a 3.33a 3.82b [F(3,246)=3.96 ,P=0.009]
Ph.D. Thesis 165

Chapter-4
difference p<0.01 and p<0.05
For the parameter, Self Esteem; the mean score for the work ex groups (1-5 yrs) is significantly
different from the mean score of the age group (above 20 yrs) and (6-10 yrs & 11-20yrs) .The
group (above 20 yrs) shows the highest means in this parameter. For, the parameter of Threshold
of Emotional Arousal Flexibility, Adaptability and Developing others; there is significant
difference p<0.05 and p<0.01 for the work ex groups, (above 20 yrs), as it also shows the highest
mean scores. For the parameter of Empathy, the group (1-5yrs& above 20 yrs) show significantly
different levels of empathy from the groups(6-10 yrs & 11-20yrs).As indicated by the mean
scores, the levels of empathy are higher (above 20 yrs). For the parameter of Building Bonds,
there is significant difference in means for the age group (1-5 &11-20yrs) and (6-10 & above 20
yrs).The means indicate that the group (6-10 yrs & above 20 yrs) has highest means on this
parameter.
Table 4. 49 Statistical significance of between group differences (ANOVA) in

Organizational Stress by work Experience in the IT industry
Between Groups 21.797 3 7.266 11.638 .000**

Inter Role Distance (IRD) Within Groups 153.583 246 .624
Total 175.380 249
Role Stagnation (RS) Between Groups 25.700 3 8.567 13.720 .000**
Total 179.296 249
Role Expectation Conflict Between Groups 18.024 3 6.008 8.262 .000**

(REC) Within Groups 178.891 246 .727
Ph.D. Thesis 166

Chapter-4
Total 196.915 249
Role Erosion (RE) Between Groups 10.796 3 3.599 6.465 .000**
Total 147.742 249
Role Overload (RO) Between Groups 21.092 3 7.031 9.148 .000**
Total 210.161 249
Role Isolation (RI) Between Groups 20.919 3 6.973 10.102 .000**
Total 190.726 249
Personal Inadequacy (PI) Between Groups 6.248 3 2.083 2.817 .040*
Total 188.142 249
SelfRole Distance (SRD) Between Groups 5.098 3 1.699 2.443 .065
Total 176.193 249
Role Ambiguity (RA) Between Groups 25.480 3 8.493 10.762 .000**
Total 219.629 249
Resource Inadequacy Between Groups 18.641 3 6.214 8.766 .000**

(RIN) Within Groups 174.371 246 .709
193.013 249
Organizational Stress, based on the Work Experience of the respondents in IT industry.

Work Ex 1-5 yrs 6-10 11-20 yrs Abov Sig-Value
Groups yrs e 20
yrs
N 99 59 78 14
Ph.D. Thesis 167

Chapter-4
Inter Role Distance (IRD) 2.43a 2.91b 2.99b 2.08a [F(3,246)=11.63,P=0.000]

Role Stagnation (RS) 2.60a 3.19b 2.95a,b 1.92c [F(3,246)= 13.72,P=0.000]
Role expectation Conflict 2.36a 2.88b 2.84b 2.12a [F(3,246)=8.26,P=0.000]
(REC)
Role Erosion (RE) Means 2.94a 3.11a 3.07a 2.18b [F(3,246)=6.46 ,P=0.000]
Role Overload (RO) 2.38a 3.05b 2.86b 2.35a [F(3,246)=9.14 ,P=0.000]
Role Isolation (RI) 2.45a 2.93b 3.01b 2.15a [F(3,246)=10.1 ,P=0.000]
Personal Inadequacy (PI) 2.64a.b 2.88b 2.94b 2.44a [F(3,246)=2.81 ,P=0.04]
Role Ambiguity(RA) 2.69a 2.85a 2.88a 2.30c [F(3,246)=10.76 ,P=0.000]
Resource Inadequacy (RIN) 2.23a 2.78b 2.71b 1.64c [F(3,246)=8.76 ,P=0.000]
differ significantly
sc ipt ‘a’ an ‘b’ with th h lp of post hoc ncan analysis. As noted above, there is significant
difference p<0.01& P<0.05 for all the parameters of Role Stress.
For the parameter of Role expectation Conflict (REC), Role Overload (RO), Inter Role Distance
(IRD), and Role Isolation (RI); there is a significant difference p<0.01 in the mean scores for
the group (1-5 yrs &11-20yrs) and (6-10 & 11-20 yrs). For the parameter of Role Stagnation
(RS), there is significant difference p<0.01 in the mean scores of the group (above 20 yrs), with
the lowest mean score. For the parameter of Role Erosion (RE), there is significant difference
brought about by the group (Above 20 yrs with the lowest mean score. For the parameter of
Personal Inadequacy (PI), there is significant difference p<0.05 between the groups, with the
(above 20 yrs) group) with the lowest men score on the parameter. For Role Ambiguity (RA),
there is significant difference p<0.05 between the three groups, with the group (above 20) having
the lowest mean scores. For Resource Inadequacy (RIN), there is significant difference between
the three groups (1-5yrs), (above 20 yrs) and the group (6-10yrs & 11- 20 yrs), with this group
having the highest mean scores.
Ph.D. Thesis 168

Chapter-4

Commitment by work experience in the IT industry
Affective_commitment Between Groups 9.70 3.00 3.23 6.576 .000**
Within Groups 120.97 246.00 0.49
Total 130.67 249.00
Continuance_commitment Between Groups 2.86 3.00 0.95 2.603 .053
Within Groups 90.18 246.00 0.37 (NS)
Total 93.04 249.00
Normative_commitment Between Groups 10.87 3.00 3.62 8.332 .000**
Within Groups 106.98 246.00 0.43
Total 117.86 249.00
Employee Commitment, based on the Work Experience of the respondents in IT industry.

Ex yrs
Groups
N 35 118 85 12
Affective 3.25a 2.81b 3.17a 3.50a [F(3,246)=,6.57 P=0.000 ]
commitment
Normative Means 3.06a 2.64b 2.99a 3.50c [F(3,246)=8.33,P=0.000]
commitment
difference p<0.01 Affective and Normative Commitment. In the case of Affective Commitment,
the difference in means is brought about by the groups (above 6-10yrs), with the lowest mean
scores; from the other three groups. In case of Normative commitment, the differences in the
mean scores are seen in the age group (1-5yrs & 11-20yrs) and (above 20 yrs) and (6-10 yrs).
The highest men scores are seen for the group (above 20 yrs).
Ph.D. Thesis 169

11 Chapter4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

11 Chapter4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter-4

RESULTS & FINDINGS

Descriptive representation of the Respondents

Table. 4.1 showing Descriptive representation of the Respondents (N=500)

4.1 Levels of Emotional Intelligence, Organizational Stress and Employee Commitment

The results of the analysis are elaborated by explaining each hypothesis:

4.1.1 Emotional Intelligence in the Hospitality Industry

Table 4.2 Means, SD and percentage of Emotional Intelligence in Hospitality industry.

Self_esteem 6 6-30 250 .830 2.98 0.91 49

Threshold_emo_arousal 2 2-10 250 .726 3.04 1.07 51

Self Awareness : Total Mean:6.02 Mean as % : 50%

Handling_egoism 3 3-15 250 .662 3.08 1.08 52

Self Management Total Mean: 5.86 Mean as %:48%

Empathy 3 3-15 250 .813 2.95 0.99 49

Social Awareness Total Mean: 2.95 Mean as % :49%

Building_bonds 5 5-25 250 .884 2.87 0.95 47

Communication 2 2-10 250 .635 2.90 0.97 47

Developing_others 2 2-10 250 .578 3.16 0.9 54

Relationship Management Total : 8.93 Mean as % :49%

Ph.D. Thesis 110

4.1.2 Emotional Intelligence in the IT Industry

Table 4.3 Showing Means, SD and percentage of Emotional Intelligence in IT industry.

Threshold_emo_arousal 2 2-10 250 .720 3.32 0.96 58

Self Awareness : Total Mean:6.64 Mean as % : 58%

Handling_egoism 3 3-15 250 .679 3.35 0.99 59

Self Management Total Mean: 6.46 Mean as %: 55%

Empathy 3 3-15 250 .979 3.39 0.83 60

Social Awareness Total Mean: 3.39 Mean as % :60%

Building_bonds 5 5-25 250 .805 3.20 0.84 55

Communication 2 2-10 250 .711 3.25 0.91 56

Developing_others 2 2-10 250 .705 3.52 0.83 63

Relationship Management Total : 9.97 Mean as % :58%

Ph.D. Thesis 111

Ph.D. Thesis 112

4.1.3 Organizational Stress in the Hospitality Industry

4.1.4 Organizational Stress in the IT Industry

Ph.D. Thesis 113

5 5-25 250 .821 54.6

Self Role Distance (SRD) 1 Role Erosion (RE) 1

Role Overload (RO) 2 Role Stagnation (RS) 2

Role Stagnation (RS) 4 Self Role Distance (SRD) 4

Ph.D. Thesis 114

4.1.5 Employee Commitment in the Hospitality Industry

4.1.6 Employee Commitment in the IT Industry

Table 4.8 Means, SD and Percentage of Employee Commitment in the IT Industry

Affective commitment 6 6-30 250 .747 3.14 0.72 62.8

Ph.D. Thesis 115

4.2 Difference in levels of Emotional Intelligence, Organizational Stress and Employee

H01: There is no significant difference in the levels of Emotional Intelligence Organizational

The Null Hypothesis is rejected

Self_esteem Hospitality 250 2.98 4.235 498 .000**

Developing_others Hospitality 250 3.16 4.406 498 .000**

Ph.D. Thesis 116

Hospitality 250 3.17 5.938 498

Ph.D. Thesis 117

4.2 Relationship between Emotional Intelligence, Organizational Stress and Employee

The Null Hypothesis is rejected

4.2.1 Relationship of Emotional Intelligence with Organizational Stress and Employee

A Pearson product moment correlation coefficient r was computed to relationship

Ph.D. Thesis 118

Table 4.12 Correlation of Emotional Intelligence, Organizational Stress and Employee

Ph.D. Thesis 119

4.2.2 Relationship of Emotional Intelligence with Organizational Stress and Employee

Flexibility_Adaptability - - - - - - - - - - .362 .266 .503**

Handling_Egoism - - - - - - - - - - .326 .272 .585**

Empathy - - - - - - - - - - .441 .190 .592**

Building_Bonds .- - - - - - - - - - .405 .271 .610**

Communication - - - - - - - - - - .401 .184 .500**

Developing_Others - - - - - - - - - - .269 .230 .487**