Chapter V

5 CHAPTER FIVE: ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
DEMOGRAPHIC DETAILS
Gender
The quality of work life is segmented over gender issues. Research on gender is being
increasingly recognized as critical to accomplishing the goals of societal development. The
college faculties in men and women‘s college have different types of Work Environment,
Welfare Measures, and Perception about the job, Educational climate and their total output.
So, itis important to study the sample unit over the gender of the respondents
Table 5-1 Gender of the Respondent
Gender of the Respondent
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulativ

ePercent
Valid Male 357 71.4 71.4 71.4
Female 143 28.6 28.6 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
From the above table 5.1 it is found that the sample unit comprises of 71.4% of male
faculties and 28.6% of female faculties working in self-financing engineering colleges. It
is concluded that the considerable percentage of male and female reflect the quality of work
life.
1
Age of the faculties
Age among the faculties play an important role in their Quality of work life. It acts as an
important function in their personal profile. One among the demographic Characteristics i.e.
age has been studied for their relationship to faculty‘s Quality of work life.
Table 5-2 Age of the Respondent
Age of the Respondent
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulativ

ePercent
Valid Below 30 years 210 42.0 42.0 42.0
31 to 40 years 149 29.8 29.8 71.8
41 to 50 years 129 25.8 25.8 97.6
Above 50 years 12 2.4 2.4 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
From the above table 5.2, it is found that out of total samples, 42% of faculties are below
30 years age, 29.8 percent of faculties are between the age group of 31 -40 years, 25.8
percent of faculties are between the age group of 41-50 years and 2.4 percent of
faculties are above 50 years of age. It is concluded that in the sample unit, the maximum
representation isfound in the below 30 years of age group.
2
Table 5-3 Marital Status of the Respondents
Marital Status of the

Respondents
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid Married 384 76.8 76.8 76.8
Unmarried 116 23.2 23.2 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
In self-financing engineering colleges there are three types of designations commonly

found among the faculties namely, professors, associate professors, and assistant professors.
The frequency of these three designations of the faculties in self-financing engineering
colleges is presented below.
Table 5-4 Designation of the Respondents
Designation of the
Respondents
Percent
Valid Assistant Professor 292 58.4 58.4 58.4

Associate Professor 136 27.2 27.2 85.6
Professor 72 14.4 14.4 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
The above table explains that 58.4% are working as assistant professors, 27.2% work as
associate professors, 14.4% contribute their services as professors. The perception of the
respondents will vary and will have direct or indirect effect on quality of work life.
3
Educational qualification
Qualification of engineering college faculties plays an important criterion in analysing their

quality of work life factors. Since the samples are from the selected private engineering
colleges the study has been made to know whether they are post graduate, M.Phil holders,
Doctorates. Position of the faculty members depends upon their qualification they hold. The
following table represents the frequency distribution of educational qualification of faculty
members in the colleges.
Table 5-5 Education Qualification of the Respondent
Education Qualification of the

Respondent
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Percent
Valid PG Degree 340 68.0 68.0 68.0
Doctorate Degree 160 32.0 32.0 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
From the table it is found that 68% of faculties are postgraduates and 32% are Doctorates.
Teaching Experience in Years

The links between research and teaching are enshrined in legislation that
describes universities as concerned with advanced learning, where research and
teaching are closely interdependent, and where most teaching is done by people active
in advancing knowledge. It shows that faculties should be encouraged more to involve
themselves in research activities by the management as motivating the faculties to involve
in research activities improves their quality of work life.
4
Table 5-6 Teaching Experience in
Years
Teaching Experience in Years

Percent
Valid Less than 5 years 168 33.6 33.6 33.6
6 to 10 years 177 35.4 35.4 69.0
More than 10 years 155 31.0 31.0 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
The teaching experience ofithe respondents in the institution is requested them to

indicate their tenure in terms of years. About 46.7% of the participants tenure in the specific
institution is less than 5 years (N=168), 31.7 % (N = 114) of them have 6 to 10 years‘
experience, whereas 21.7% of them have more than 10 years of experience (N = 78).
Table 5-7 Total Work Experience in Years
Total Work Experience in

Years
Percent
6 to 10 years 166 33.2 33.2 65.0
More than 10 years 175 35.0 35.0 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
The total teaching experience of the respondents is collected from them in terms of years.
About 31.8 % of the participants‘ tenure is less than 5 years (N=159), 33.2% (N = 166) of them
have 6 to 10 years‘ experience, whereas 35% of them have more than 10 years of experience (N =
175).
5
Table 5-8 Research Experience in Years
Research Experience in Years

Frequen Percen Valid Cumulativ
cy t Percent e
Percent
6 to 10 years 36 7.2 7.2 27.8
More than 10 years 10 2.0 2.0 29.8
No research experience 351 70.2 70.2 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
The research experience of the respondents is collected from them in terms of years. About
20.6 % of the participants‘research experience is less than 5 years (N=52), 7.2 % (N = 36)
of them have 6 to 10 years‘experience, whereas 2% of them have more than 10 years of
experience (N = 5) and majority of 70.22 % (N=285) of them have no research experience .
Nature of Appointment
The next demographic variable analyzed in the study was the nature of appointment of the
participants. This question was answered by all participants. Of the 500 respondents, 93.6
% were full-time employees (N = 468) and 6.4 % were part-time employees (N =32).
Table 5-9 Nature of Appointment
Appointment
Percent
Valid Full Time 468 93.6 93.6 93.6
Part Time 32 6.4 6.4 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
6
Appointment Type
The participants were asked to indicate their appointment type that consisted ofifour
categories as ―Regular‖, ―Ad-hoc‖, ―Contract‖, and ―Visiting‖. The results indicated that
73.3 % (N= 264) of the respondents were regular, 13.9 % (N = 50) of them were ad-hoc
employees, 12.5 % (N=45) of the respondents were contract-based employees, and just 0.3 %
(N=1)were visiting employees.
Table 5-10 Annual Salary (in Rs.)
Annual Salary (in

Rs.)
Frequency Percent Valid Cumula
Percent tive
Percent
Valid Below 250000 207 41.4 41.4 41.4
250001 to 500000 135 27.0 27.0 68.4
500001 to 1000000 132 26.4 26.4 94.8
Above 1000000 26 5.2 5.2 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
From the table 5.10 it is observed that, the annual salary levels of the
participants ranged between Rs. 250000 to more than Rs.1000000, with 541.4 % (N = 207)
ofithem have an annual salary of below Rs. 250000, whereas 27% were ranged between Rs.
250001 to Rs. 500000 (N = 153), 26.4 % (N=132) were ranged between Rs. 500001 to Rs.
1000000 and 5.2% (N=26) of them have above Rs. 1000000 annual salary.
Factor Analysis -Dimensions of Quality of Work Life
The study tries to identify the various dimensions ofiquality of work life among teachers
of higher education which influence on the job satisfaction, organisational
commitment and turnover intention job. On the basis of data collected through the pre-tested
questionnaire developed by the researcher, the collected data was used to predict the key
dimensions of quality ofiwork life of teachers working in higher education institutions. The
primary data collected is subjected to factor analysis by using SPSS v 21.0. In the present
study,
7
exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the 36 statements in the questionnaire relating to
quality of work life of teachers. Exploratory factor analysis is used to explore the
underlying structure of a relatively large set of variables.
Validity Test for Carrying out Factor Analysis
In order to predict the sampling adequacy, a measure called Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test is

used. This is preceding test for carrying out factor analysis and the test predicted that the
data can be used to do the factor analysis. According to Tabachnick and Fidell (2014), the
Bartlett‘s Test of sphericity should be significant in order to proceed further with factor
analysis (i.e. p<0.05).
The KMO measure was used to ―test whether partial correlations were small for distinct
factors to emerge for factor analysis‖. As mentioned in the Table 5.17, the KMO ―measure
of sampling adequacy‖ was 0.934 which is higher than 0.5. This signifies that in the present
study, the sample size was found to be sufficient to move ahead for factor analysis.
The Bartlett‘s test of sphericity is used to examine whether the correlation matrix is identity
matrix or not. Analysis is performed using SPSS. This test was also found to be significant
and was justified through the test results presented in Table 5.11 which prove that variables
within factors are correlated (sig. = 0.000) and also proved that the factor model was
appropriate.
Table 5-11 KMO and Bartlett's Test of quality ofiwork life dimensions
KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .875
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 31153.111
df 630
Sig. .000
Principal Component Analysis
A linear combination of study variables is used in principal component analysis in such a

way that maximum variance is extracted from the variables. Then the procedure follows the
removal of this variance and again seeks a second linear combination which describes
8
the maximum proportion of the remaining variance, and so on. Again, it follows the
extraction of variable loadings on the different factors using standard normal values of
observations of the original variables. So, this method was used in this study as it leads to
extraction of uncorrelated factors.
A total of 36 statements were used in the questionnaire to find out the dimensions
ofiquality of work life. The Varimax with Kaiser Normalisation method of rotation was used on
running the factor analysis, the results converged on 5 iterations.
Scree Plot
The Scree plot can be plotted by taking Eigen values of the factor numbers on X-axis and
the Eigen values on the Y-axis. Then the identification of the factor number at which ―the
slope of the line connecting the points of changes from steep to a gradual trailing is done‖.
―The trailing off should be towards the right of the identified factors. This change in slope of
the graph is termed as scree and the point is known as scree point‖. The factors which are
present up to the scree point from the point of origin have to be retained for future study. The
factors which fall right ofithe scree point are dropped from the study‖. The Scree Plot for
technical competencies is shown in the Figure 5 .1.
According to the Cattell‘s scree test, ―all component factors after the first elbow are
dropped‖. We can see from the above of Scree plot and the Principal Component Analysis that 6
factors are extracted in this study. The component factors accounted for 87.894 per
cent of the total variance.
―Eigen value is the sum of the squares of the factor loadings of all variables on a
factor. Eigen value for a given factor measures the variance in all variables which is accounted
by that factor. The ratio of Eigen values signifies the ratio of explanatory importance of the
factors with respect to the variables. If a factor has high Eigen value it signifies its high
contribution to the explanation of variances among the variables. Although if the factor is
having a low Eigen value it signifies its little contribution to the explanation of variances
among the variables and thus may be ignored as redundant with more important factors‖
(Malh otra, 2006). See the Figure 5.1. for Scree plot.
9
Figure 5-1 Screen Plot for quality of work life dimensions
Table 5-12 Communalities for quality of work life dimensions
Communalities
Initial Extraction
I work in a working environment featuring 1.000 .988

mutual trustamong all parties
I enjoy the freedom to work at my job 1.000 .964
There are intimate friendships between 1.000 .904
me and mycolleagues at work
I feel I am respected by others in my organization 1.000 .913
I feel good about that accomplishment I achieve in 1.000 .967
my work
I feel the quality of dealing with my colleagues in 1.000 .889
theorganization
My job dimensions and practical tasks are 1.000 .980
characterizedby importance
I feel responsible for everything that I'm doing 1.000 .960
I possess the necessary skills to perform the job 1.000 .877
I have the freedom to act in deciding everything in 1.000 .942
the job
The volume of work in my job is suitable 1.000 .860
My tasks are challenging and fun 1.000 .916
I am quite happy with my income in work 1.000 .986
My income depends on the amount of my work 1.000 .929
10
I understand fully the system of wages and 1.000 .952
bonuses in myorganization
My wage is fair comparing with those of my 1.000 .903
colleagues
My wage is fair comparing with my skills and 1.000 .956
efforts
My performance determines the amount ofimy 1.000 .914
rewards andcompensations
I feel that I am an important part of my work group 1.000 .990
My team members express their opinions freely 1.000 .914
Everyone in my team has a full understanding of 1.000 .946
institutionobjectives
Work team members exchange their feelings freely 1.000 .932
Team members participate in decisions that affect 1.000 .947
them
My team members have different experiences and 1.000 .949
practicalintegrated
My supervisor encourages me to participate in 1.000 .905
key decision-making
My boss (Principal) possesses a great ability to 1.000 .687
key pre-planning work
My boss gives complete information for his 1.000 .706
subordinates
Our boss treats us fairly and equitably 1.000 .756
Our boss explains for us the work objectives with 1.000 .743
motivational way
Our president has a high capacity for instigation 1.000 .565
of hissubordinates to make the maximum
possible effort.
I have the opportunity to influence the decisions 1.000 .948
that affectmy work
I can participate in solving the problems of my 1.000 .791
work
I get complete information about the objectives of 1.000 .749
my work
I get the appropriate information about my 1.000 .785
achievements atwork
I enjoy participation and collaboration with co- 1.000 .762
workers
I have an appropriate degree of freedom in the 1.000 .767
performanceof my work
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
11
Table 5-13 Total Variance Explained in the Factor Analysis for quality of work life
Total Variance Explained
Componen Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Rotation Sums of Squared
t Squared Loadings
Loadings
Total % of Cumulativ Tota % of Cumulati Total % of Cumulati
Variance e l Varian ve Varianc ve
% ce % e %
1 6.769 18.802 18.802 6.76 18.802 18.802 5.702 15.838 15.838
9
2 6.248 17.357 36.158 6.24 17.357 36.158 5.677 15.769 31.607
8
3 5.917 16.436 52.595 5.91 16.436 52.595 5.615 15.599 47.205
7
4 4.689 13.025 65.619 4.68 13.025 65.619 5.546 15.406 62.612
9
5 4.290 11.918 77.537 4.29 11.918 77.537 4.833 13.426 76.037
0
6 3.728 10.357 87.894 3.72 10.357 87.894 4.268 11.856 87.894
8
7 .624 1.734 89.627
8 .460 1.277 90.905
9 .330 .918 91.822
10 .317 .881 92.703
11 .307 .853 93.556
12 .276 .766 94.322
13 .266 .738 95.059
14 .255 .710 95.769
15 .157 .435 96.204
16 .151 .420 96.624
17 .123 .341 96.965
18 .112 .312 97.276
19 .109 .303 97.579
20 .104 .289 97.869
21 .099 .275 98.143
22 .082 .227 98.371
23 .075 .210 98.580
24 .075 .207 98.787
25 .061 .170 98.957
26 .061 .168 99.126
27 .059 .165 99.291
28 .056 .155 99.446
12
29 .049 .135 99.581
30 .040 .111 99.692
31 .038 .107 99.799
32 .033 .092 99.891
33 .012 .033 99.924
34 .011 .029 99.953
35 .009 .025 99.978
36 .008 .022 100.000
Component Matrix
Six factors have been extracted from component matrix which have Eigen values of more
than one. The Principal Component Analysis has been used for factor analysis. The resultant
factor loadings and the associated communalities resulted in the extraction of 6 components. The
factor loadings signify the variance in quality ofiwork life described by a component factor on
both unique and common contribution basis. Communality represents ―the sum of squares
of the factor loadings of the variable on all factors‖ (Malhotra, 2006). Thus, communality may
indicate the reliability of the dimensions related to quality of work life. From the data it could
be seen that there were six factors with Eigen values exceeding 1. The Eigen values after
rotation are 18.802, 17.357, 16.436, 13.025, 11.918 and 10.357. The total variance percentage
which is used as an index to determine how well the factor analysis accounts for different
variables together represents a total of 87.894 percent.
Further, the 36-variables relating to quality of work life are grouped under six extracted
factors. The first factor consists of 6 variables, the second factor consists of 6 variables, the third
factor consists of 6 variables, the fourth factors consist of 6 variables, the fifth factor consists
of 6 variables and the sixth factor consists of 6 variables. The loading criteria for factors have
been taken to be more than 0.5 in the present study. The factor loading of less than 0.5 has not
been displayed because the researcher has given instruction in SPSS analysis to suppress
them. Although in general factor loading of 0.5 or above are considered but in case of more than
30 variables, the researcher has we can go for a factor loading of 0.4 (Field, 2005).
It can be concluded that there are six factors extracted from the 36 variables are explaining
about 87.894 percent ofithe variance in the 36 statements relating to quality of work life of
teachers working in technical higher educational institutions. The factors were labelled according
to the variables under them (based on loading).
13
Table 5-14 Component Matrix of quality of work life
Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3 4 5 6
I work in a working .598 -.533 -.143 .417 .354 .164
environment featuring
mutual trust among all
parties
I enjoy the freedom to work .550 -.523 -.150 .437 .364 .206
at my job
There are intimate .527 -.561 -.082 .425 .338 .102
friendships between me
andmy colleagues at work
I feel I am respected by .597 -.475 -.134 .420 .335 .155
others
in my organization
I feel good about that .596 -.530 -.131 .406 .350 .161
accomplishment I achieve
in my work
I feel the quality of dealing .559 -.541 -.107 .383 .331 .128
with my colleagues in the
organization
My job dimensions and .394 .640 -.245 .503 -.298 -.114
practical tasks are
characterized by importance
I feel responsible for .379 .640 -.251 .503 -.280 -.111
everything that I'm doing
Ipossess the necessary skills .375 .630 -.217 .471 -.241 -.111
to perform the job
I have the freedom to act in .380 .630 -.235 .493 -.295 -.121
deciding everything in the
job
The volume of work in my .378 .582 -.188 .498 -.299 -.076
jobis suitable
Mytasks are challenging .393 .634 -.161 .473 -.315 -.103
andfun
I am quite happy with my .610 .463 .319 -.407 .318 .177
14
income in work
My income depends on the .576 .457 .307 -.406 .323 .154
amount of my work
I understand fully the .590 .448 .314 -.426 .305 .176
system
ofiwages and bonuses in my
organization
My wage is fair comparing .593 .425 .313 -.407 .261 .197
with those of my colleagues
My wage is fair comparing .598 .463 .332 -.396 .291 .182
with my skills and efforts
My performance .570 .463 .359 -.381 .251 .191
determinesthe amount of
my rewards and
compensations
I feel that I am an important -.030 -.079 .922 .335 -.109 -.093
part of my work group
My team members express -.024 -.047 .889 .328 -.101 -.068
their opinions freely
Everyone in my team has a -.119 -.056 .895 .351 -.070 -.026
full understanding of
institution objectives
Work team members -.077 -.084 .891 .314 -.093 -.132
exchange their feelings
freely
Team members participate -.041 -.081 .902 .323 -.105 -.101
in
decisions that affect them
My team members have -.035 -.096 .901 .325 -.108 -.096
different experiences and
practical integrated
My supervisor encourages -.461 .184 -.049 .204 .051 .782
meto
participate in key decision-
making
Myboss (Principal) -.372 .325 -.032 .226 .138 .610
possesses
a great ability to key pre-
planning work
My boss gives complete -.334 .232 -.030 .264 .148 .670
information for his
subordinates
15
Our boss treats us fairly and -.393 .159 .087 .231 -.062 .715
equitably
Our boss explains for us the -.364 .199 .022 .250 -.066 .710
work objectives with
motivational way
Our president has a high -.305 .153 .056 .082 -.056 .660
capacity for instigation of
his subordinates to make the
maximum possible effort.
I have the opportunity to -.456 .385 -.044 .244 .681 -.258
influence the decisions that
affect my work
I can participate in solving -.450 .332 -.007 .252 .587 -.264
the problems of my work
I get complete information -.414 .284 -.135 .249 .583 -.279
about the objectives of my
work
I get the appropriate -.409 .309 -.004 .193 .643 -.265
information about my
achievements at work
I enjoy participation and -.351 .317 -.069 .199 .661 -.239
collaboration with co-
workers
I have an appropriate degree -.317 .373 .051 .191 .667 -.206
of freedom in the
performance of my work
a. 6 components extracted.
16
Table 5-15 Rotated Component Matrix of quality of work life
Rotated Component Matrixa
Component
1Work 2Wages 3Work 4Job 5Decisio 6Supervi

Group and Moral Characteri n sion Style
Factors Remunera Environ stics Making Factors
tion ment Factors
I work in a working
environment featuring mutual .988
trust among all
parties
I enjoy the freedom to work
at my job .980
There are intimate .941

friendships
between me and my
colleagues at work
I feel I am respected by
others in my organization .949
I feel good about that

accomplishment .977
I achieve in my work
I feel theiquality of dealing
with my .934
colleagues in the
organization
My job dimensions and
practical tasks are .986
characterized by importance
I feel responsible for
everything that .975
I'm doing
I possess the necessary skills
to .929
perform the job
I have the freedom to act in
deciding everything in the .967
job
17
The volume of work in my
job is suitable .925
My tasks are challenging and

fun .951
I am quite happy with my
income in work .988
My income depends on the

amount of .959
my work
I understand fully the
system of wages and .973
bonuses in my organization
My wage is fair comparing
with .945
those of my colleagues
My wage is fair comparing
with my skills and efforts .972
My performance
determines the .948
amount of my rewards and
compensations
I feel that I am an
important part of .994
my work group
My team members express
their opinions freely .954
Everyone in my team has a

full .966
understanding of institution
objectives
Work team members
exchange their feelings .963
freely
Team members participate
in decisions that affect .972
them
My team members have
different experiences and .973
My supervisor encourages
me to .939
18
participate in key decision-
making
My boss (Principal)
possesses a great ability to .792
key pre-planning work
My boss gives complete
information .821
for his subordinates
Our boss treats us fairly
and equitably .855
Our boss explains for us the
work objectives with .853
motivational way
Our president has a high
capacity for .739
instigation of his
subordinates to make the
I have the opportunity to
influence the .964
decisions that affect my
work
I can participate in
solvingithe problems of my .876
work
I get complete information
about the .852
objectives of my work
I get the appropriate
information about my .881
I enjoy participation and
collaboration with co- .871
workers
I have an appropriate
degree of .864
freedom in the performance
of my work
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser
Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
19
Table 5-16 Labelling of quality of work life dimensions
Initial
S. No. Factor Name Eigenvalue % variance
1 Department and Co-Employees Factor 6.769 18.802
2 Remuneration and Reward 6.248 17.357
3 Work Moral Environment 5.917 16.436
4 Job Characteristics 4.689 13.025
5 Decision Making Factors 4.290 11.918
6 Supervision Style 3.728 10.357
Perception of quality ofiwork life work Moral Environment-dimension
Table 5-17 opinion on working environment featuring mutual trust among all parties
I work in a working environment featuring mutual trust among all parties

Percent
Valid Strongly disagree 39 7.8 7.8 7.8
Disagree 64 12.8 12.8 20.6
Neither agree nor disagree 39 7.8 7.8 28.4
Agree 68 13.6 13.6 42.0
Strongly agree 290 58.0 58.0 100.0

Total 500 100.0 100.0
From the above table 5.17it can be observed that 58 (n=290) per cent of the respondents
strongly agree that the working environment featuring mutual trust among all parties.
Another 13.6 (N=68) per cent of the respondents simply agree to the working environment
featuring mutual trust among all parties in the organisation. While 7.8 (N=39) per cent of the
respondents strongly disagree that the working environment not featuring mutual trust among all
parties in the organisation, 7.8 (N=39) per cent of the respondents remain neutral and
another 12.8 (N=64) per cent of the respondents even disagree the same statement.
20
Table 5-18 enjoy the freedom to work at my job
I enjoy the freedom to work at my job
Percent
Disagree 67 13.4 13.4 21.2
Agree 76 15.2 15.2 44.6
Strongly agree 277 55.4 55.4 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
277 respondents (55.4 per cent) strongly agree to the statement that the employees are enjoy
the freedom to work at job in the organisation. 76 respondents constituting 15.2 per cent
also agree to this fact. In total 353 respondents constituting 70.6 per cent of the sample either
strongly agree or agree to this statement. It is interesting to note that 41 sample respondents (8.2
per cent) are neutral. That means, 8.2 per cent ofithe respondents neither agree nor disagree to
the statement about the employees are enjoy the freedom to work at job in the organisation. 39
(7.8 per cent) sample respondents disagree the view. A paltry percentage of 13.4 (N=67)
strongly disagree to the view that the employees are not enjoy the freedom to work at job in
the organisation
21
Table 5-19 opinion on the intimate friendships among colleagues at work
There are intimate friendships between me and my colleagues at work
Percent
Disagree 71 14.2 14.2 22.6
Agree 75 15.0 15.0 46.2
Strongly agree 269 53.8 53.8 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
53.8 per cent (N=269) of the sample respondents agree that there is an intimate friendship
among colleagues at work place in the organisation. However, another 14.2 per cent (N=71)
of the sample respondents disagreed that there is no intimate friendship among colleagues at
work place in the organisation. 43 respondents (N=8.6 per cent) of sample respondents are
neutral, i.e. they neither agree nor disagree to the statement that an intimate friendship among
colleagues at work place in the organisation.
22
Table 5-20 opinion on respected by others in the organization
I feel I am respected by others in my organization

Percent
Disagree 59 11.8 11.8 19.2
Agree 78 15.6 15.6 42.2
Strongly agree 289 57.8 57.8 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
During the study it is observed that 57.8 (N=289) percent of the sample respondents
strongly agree with the view that the I feel I am respected by others in my organization. The
same view is simply agreed by the 78 sample respondents, constituting 15.6 percent. It is
interesting to observe that 37 sample respondents constituting 7.4 percent remained neutral.
They neither agree nor disagree to this view. 7.4 percent (N=37) of the respondents disagree
with the view that the I feel I am not respected by others in my organization. 37
respondents (7.4 per cent) expressed their strong disagreement regarding the view that
the I feel I am respected by others in my organization.
23
Table 5-21 opinion on feel good about that accomplishment I achieve in my work
I feel good about that accomplishment I achieve in my work

Percent
Disagree 65 13.0 13.0 21.0
Agree 75 15.0 15.0 43.0
Strongly agree 285 57.0 57.0 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
57 percent ofithe respondents (N=285) strongly agree to the fact that feel good about that
accomplishment achieve in my work. Another 15 percent (N=75) of the respondents also agree
that, I feel good about that accomplishment achieve in my work. While 7 percent (N=35) of the
respondents are neutral, another 8 percent (N=40) of the respondents are in disagreement
with the view. However, 13 percent (N=65) of the respondents are strongly disagree that
employees are not feel good about that accomplishment achieve in work.
Table 5-22 Opinion on feel the quality of dealing with colleagues in the organization
I feel the quality of dealing with my colleagues in the organization

Percent
Disagree 66 13.2 13.2 21.4
Agree 77 15.4 15.4 46.0
Strongly agree 270 54.0 54.0 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
54 percent (N=270) ofithe respondents in the study area strongly agree with this view
that feel the quality of dealing with colleagues in the organization and another 15.4 percent
(N=77) simply agree with the view that feel the quality of dealing with my colleagues in
the organization are very good. It is worth mentioning that 46 (9.2 percent) sample
24
respondents are neutral and they neither agree nor disagree with this view. 13.2 percent (N=66)
respondents disagree with this view that I feel the quality of dealing with my colleagues in
the organization are not good. And 41 (8.2 per cent) of them even went to the extent of
expressing their strong disagreement with the feel the quality of dealing with my colleagues in
the organization is not good.
Table 5-23 Descriptive statistics for Work moral Environment
Descriptive
Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
I work in a working 500 1.00 5.00 4.0120 1.36953
environment featuring
mutualtrust among all
parties
I enjoy the freedom to 500 1.00 5.00 3.9700 1.36998
work atmy job
There are intimate 500 1.00 5.00 3.9160 1.39457
friendships
between me and my
colleaguesat work
I feel I am respected by 500 1.00 5.00 4.0460 1.33846
othersin my organization
I feel good about that 500 1.00 5.00 4.0000 1.37250
accomplishment I achieve
in mywork
I feel the quality of 500 1.00 5.00 3.9380 1.37766
dealing withmy
colleagues in the
organization
Work moral Environment 500 1.00 5.00 3.9803 1.32462
Valid N (listwise) 500
Note: Mean Value =1.00 to 2.50 Disagree, 2.51 to 3.50 Moderately agree and 3.51 to 5.00 strongly Agree
In the table number5. 23 shows, descriptive statistics for Work moral Environment factor
fromthe table it is found that all statement relating to measuring Work moral Environment factor
have mean score from 3.91 to 4.04 which is under the strongly agree category. The overall
Work moral Environment factor mean value is 3.98 (S. D=1.32) shows under strongly agree
category.
25
Job Characteristics
Table 5-24 opinion on job dimensions and practical tasks are characterized by importance
My job dimensions and practical tasks are characterized by importance

Percent
Disagree 58 11.6 11.6 21.0
Agree 15 3.0 3.0 26.8
Strongly agree 366 73.2 73.2 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
From the above table number 5.24 it is made clear that 73.2 percent (N=366) of the
respondents strongly agree that job dimensions and practical tasks are characterized by
importance in the organisation. Another 3 percent (N=15) agree that job dimensions and
practical tasks are characterized by importance in the organisation. 2.8 percent (N=14) of the
respondents remain neutral. However, 11.6 percent (N=58) disagreed the view. The majority
of the respondents seems to be agreed that job dimensions and practical tasks are
characterized by importance.
Table 5-25 Opinion on feeling responsible for everything that I'm doing
I feel responsible for everything that I'm doing

Percent
Disagree 56 11.2 11.2 20.8
Agree 19 3.8 3.8 27.8
Strongly agree 361 72.2 72.2 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
26
More than 72.2 percent (N=361) of the respondents strongly agree that employees arefeel
responsible for everything that they doing at work. However, 11.2 percent (N=56) of the
respondents give negative feedback regarding the employees are feel responsible for
everything that they doing at work. It is interesting to observe that 16 respondents constituting
about 3.2 percent are neutral and they neither agree nor disagree with the statement. Looking
at the pattern of responses, it is very clear that the majority of 76 percent of employees are feel
responsible for everything that they doing at work.
Table 5-26 opinion on possession of necessary skills to perform the job
I possess the necessary skills to perform the job

Percent
Disagree 65 13.0 13.0 23.0
Agree 21 4.2 4.2 31.2
Strongly agree 344 68.8 68.8 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
Analysing the views of the respondents, it is very clear that more than 68.8 percent
(N=344) of the respondents are strongly agree that employees are possession of necessary
skills to perform the job. However, 10 percent (N=50) of the respondents is of the opinion
are strongly disagree that they are not possess the necessary skills to perform the job. 20
respondents, constituting 4 percent, are neutral and they neither agree nor disagree with the
statement.
Table 5-27 opinion on freedom to act in deciding everything in the job
I have the freedom to act in deciding everything in the job

Percent
Disagree 51 10.2 10.2 18.8
27
Agree 27 5.4 5.4 28.4
Strongly agree 358 71.6 71.6 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
From the results of table number 5.33 out of 500 respondents, 358 respondents (71.6%)
are strongly agreed that they have a freedom to act in deciding everything in the job, 27
respondents (5.4%) are agreed with the statement, 21 respondents (4.2%) are Neither agree
nor disagree with the statement, 43 respondents (8.6%) are strongly disagree that they have
no freedom to act in deciding everything in the job and rest of 51 respondents (10.2%) are
disagree with the statement.
Table 5-28 opinion on volume of work in my job is suitable
The volume of work in my job is suitable
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulati ve

Percent

Disagree 66 13.2 13.2 22.4
Agree 23 4.6 4.6 31.6
Strongly agree 342 68.4 68.4 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
It is evident from the table 5.28that out of 500 respondents, 342 respondents (68.4%) are
strongly agreed that the volume of work on job is suitable and reasonable, 23 respondents
(4.6%) are agreed with the statement, 23 respondents (4.6%) are Neither agree nor
disagree with the statement, 46 respondents (9.2%) are strongly disagree that the volume of
work on job is not suitable and reasonable and rest of 46 respondents (9.3%) are disagree with
the statement.
Table 5-29 opinion on tasks are challenging and fun

28
My tasks are challenging and fun
Percent
Disagree 63 12.6 12.6 22.0
Agree 28 5.6 5.6 32.6
Strongly agree 337 67.4 67.4 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
From the above table 5.35 it is inferred that out of 500 respondents, 337 respondents
(67.4%) are strongly agree with statement that tasks are challenging and fun, 28 respondents
(5..6%) are agreed with the statement, 47 respondents (9.4%) are strongly disagree that tasks
are not challenging and fun, 63 respondents (12.6%) are disagree and rest of 25
respondents (5%) areneither agree nor Disagree with the statement.
Descriptive Statistics- Job Characteristics
Table 5-30 Descriptive statistics for Job Characteristics dimension
Descriptive Statistics
My job dimensions and 500 1.00 5.00 4.1900 1.42758
practical tasks are
characterizedby importance
I feel responsible for 500 1.00 5.00 4.1780 1.42772
everythingthat I'm doing
I possess the necessary skills 500 1.00 5.00 4.0880 1.46443
toperform the job
I have the freedom to act 500 1.00 5.00 4.2120 1.37799
in deciding everything in
the job
The volume ofiwork in my 500 1.00 5.00 4.0980 1.44241
job issuitable
29
My tasks are challenging 500 1.00 5.00 4.0900 1.43876
andfun
Job Characteristics 500 1.00 5.00 4.1427 1.37116
Table number 5.30 provides a summary of mean and standard deviation score for within
each of the statement relating to measuring Job Characteristics dimension of quality of work
life. It is evident that all the statement relating to Job Characteristics dimension of quality of
work life has a mean score between 4.08 to 4.21 which indicate that employees are strongly
agree with the statement relating Job Characteristics dimension of quality ofiwork life with the
overall mean score value is 4.14 (S.D=1.37).
Remuneration and Reward -dimension

Table 5-31 opinion on quite happy with income in work
I am quite happy with my income in work

Percent
Disagree 67 13.4 13.4 22.8
Agree 71 14.2 14.2 43.8
Strongly agree 281 56.2 56.2 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
The above frequency table number 5.31 reveals that 56.2% (N=281) of respondents are Strongly
Agree that the employees are quite happy with income in work. 14.2% (N=71) are agree and
13.4% of respondents (N=67) are disagree. Whereas 9.4% (N=47) respondents strongly
disagree and 6.8%(N=34) are neither agree nor disagree.
Table 5-32 opinion on income depends on the amount of work performed
30
My income depends on the amount of my work
Percent
Disagree 68 13.6 13.6 23.2
Agree 70 14.0 14.0 45.0
Strongly agree 275 55.0 55.0 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
From the above table number 5.32 it is inferred that out of 500 respondents, 275 respondents
(55%) are strongly agree that income depends on the amount of work performed, 60 respondents
(8.6%) are agreed with the statement, 48 respondents (9.6%) are strongly disagree that income
is not depends on the amount of work performed, 68 respondents (13.6%) are disagree and
rest of 39 respondents (7.8%) are Neither agree nor Disagree with the statement.
Table 5-33 opinion on understanding the system of Remuneration and Reward in my

organization
Iunderstand fully the system of Remuneration and Reward

inmyorganization

Percent
Disagree 64 12.8 12.8 21.4
Agree 76 15.2 15.2 44.2
Strongly agree 279 55.8 55.8 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0

31
From the above table number 5.33 it is evident that out of 500 respondents, 279 respondents
(55.8%) are strongly agree that the employees are fully understanding the system of wages and
bonuses in the organization, 76 respondents (15.2%) are agreed with the statement, 43
respondents (8.6%) are strongly disagree that they are not understanding the system of
wages and bonuses in the organization, 64 respondents (12.8%) are disagree and rest of 38
respondents (7.6%) are Neither agree nor Disagree with the statement.
Table 5-34 opinion on remuneration is fair comparing withithose of colleagues
My wage is fair comparing with those of my colleagues

Percent
Disagree 65 13.0 13.0 21.6
Agree 77 15.4 15.4 45.2
Strongly agree 274 54.8 54.8 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
From the frequency analysis results present in table number 5.40 from the results it is
appeared that that out of 500 respondents, 274 respondents (54.8%) are strongly agree that wage is
fair comparing with those of colleagues, 77 respondents (15.4%) are agreed with the statement,
43 respondents (8.6%) are strongly disagree that wage is not fair comparing with those of
colleagues, 65 respondents (13%) are disagree and rest of 41 respondents (8.2%) are
Neither agree nor Disagree with the statement.
Table 5-35opinion on remuneration is fair comparing with my skills and efforts
My remuneration is fair comparing withmy skills and efforts

Percent
32
Disagree 70 14.0 14.0 23.8
Agree 72 14.4 14.4 45.2
Strongly agree 274 54.8 54.8 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
appeared that that out of 500 respondents, 274 respondents (54.8%) are strongly agree that
wage is fair comparing with skills and efforts, 72 respondents (14.4%) are agreed with the
statement, 49respondents (9.8%) are strongly disagree that wage is not fair comparing with skills
and efforts, 70 respondents (14%) are disagree and rest of 35 respondents (7%) are Neither agree
nor Disagree with the statement.
Table 5-36 opinion on performance determines the amount of rewards and compensations
My performance determines the amount of my rewards and compensations

Percent

Disagree 81 16.2 16.2 26.0
Agree 68 13.6 13.6 45.8
Strongly agree 271 54.2 54.2 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
(54.2%) are strongly agree that performance determines the amount of rewards and
compensations, 68 respondents (13.6%) are agreed with the statement, 37 respondents (5.3%) are
strongly disagree that cause not influence on the intention to purchase, 49 respondents
(9.8%) are disagree and rest of 31 respondents (6.2%) are Neither agree nor Disagree with the
statement.
Table 5-37 Descriptive Statistics-Remuneration and Reward dimension
33
I am quite happy with 500 1.00 5.00 3.9440 1.41876
myincome in work
My income depends on 500 1.00 5.00 3.9120 1.42559
theamount ofimy work
I understand fully the system 500 1.00 5.00 3.9680 1.38666
of
wages and bonuses in my
organization
My wage is fair comparing 500 1.00 5.00 3.9480 1.38750
with those of my colleagues
My wage is fair comparing 500 1.00 5.00 3.9040 1.43349
with my skills and efforts
My performance determines 500 1.00 5.00 3.8620 1.45575
the
amount of my rewards and
compensations
Wages and Remuneration 500 1.00 5.00 3.9230 1.37377
each of the statement relating to measuring Wages and Remuneration dimension of quality
of work life. It is evident that all the statement relating to Wages and Remuneration
dimension of quality of work life has a mean score between 3.86 to 3.96. Which indicate
that employees are strongly agree with the statement relating Wages and Remuneration
dimension of quality of work life with the overall mean score value is 3.92 (S. D=1.37).
34
Department and Co-Employees -dimension
Table 5-38 opinion on important part of work group
I feel that I am an important part of my work group

Percent
Disagree 86 17.2 17.2 28.8
Agree 63 12.6 12.6 46.4
Strongly agree 268 53.6 53.6 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
From the frequency analysis results present in table 5.38 from the results it is evident that out
of 500 respondents, 268 respondents (753.6%) are strongly agree that the employees feels that
they are important part of work group in the organisation, 63 respondents (12.6%) are
agreed with the statement, 58 respondents (11.6%) are strongly disagree that that the
employees feels that they are not important part of work group in the organisation, 86
respondents (17.2%) are disagree and rest of 25 respondents (5%) are Neither agree nor
Disagree with the statement.
Table 5-39 opinion on team members express their opinions freely
My team members express their opinions freely

Percent
Disagree 87 17.4 17.4 29.4
Agree 67 13.4 13.4 48.2
Strongly agree 259 51.9 51.9 99.8
Total 500 100.0 100.0
35
(51.9%) are strongly agree that team members express their opinions freely in the
organisation,67 respondents (13.4%) are agreed with the statement, 60 respondents (12%) are
strongly disagree that team members are not express their opinions freely, 87 respondents
(17.4%) are disagree and rest of 27 respondents (5.4%) are Neither agree nor Disagree with
the statement.
Table 5-40 opinion on Everyone in team has an full understanding of institution objectives
Everyone in my team has a full understanding of institution objectives

Percent
Disagree 88 17.6 17.6 29.8
Agree 68 13.6 13.6 49.4
Strongly agree 253 50.6 50.6 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
appeared that that out of 500 respondents, 253 respondents (50.6%) are strongly agree
that Everyone in team has a full understanding of institution objectives, 68 respondents
(13.6%) are agreed with the statement, 61 respondents (12.2%) are strongly disagree that
Everyone in team is not has a full understanding of institution objectives, 88 respondents
(17.6%) are disagree and rest of 30 respondents (6%) are Neither agree nor Disagree with the
statement.
Table 5-41 opinion on Work team members exchange their feelings freely
Work team members exchange their feelings freely

Percent
Disagree 90 18.0 18.0 30.0
36
Agree 67 13.4 13.4 49.2
Strongly agree 254 50.8 50.8 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
From the above table number 5.41 it is evident that out of 500 respondents, 254
respondents (50.8%) are strongly agree that Work team members exchange their feelings
freely, 67 respondents (13.4%) are agreed with the statement, 60 respondents (12%) are
strongly disagree with the statement, 90 respondents (18%) are disagree and rest of 29
Table 5-42 Opinion on Team members participate in decisions that affect them
Team members participate in decisions that affect them

Percent
Disagree 83 16.6 16.6 28.2
Agree 67 13.4 13.4 48.0
Strongly agree 260 52.0 52.0 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
(52%) are strongly agree that the organisation provide an opportunity to Team members
participate in decisions that affect them, 67 respondents (13.4%) are agreed with the
statement, 58 respondents (11.6%) are strongly disagree that organisation not provide an
opportunity to Team members participate in decisions that affect them, 83 respondents
(16.6%) are disagree and rest of 32 respondents (6.4%) are Neither agree nor Disagree with the
statement.
Table 5-43 opinion on team members have different experiences and practical integrated
37
My team members have different experiences and practical integrated
Percent
Disagree 88 17.6 17.6 29.4
Agree 61 12.2 12.2 47.0
Strongly agree 265 53.0 53.0 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
(53%) are strongly agree that team members have different experiences and practical
integrated in the organisation, 61 respondents (12.2%) are agreed with the statement, 59
respondents (11.8%) are strongly disagree that team members have not different experiences and
practical integrated in the organisation, 88 respondents (17.6%) are disagree and rest of 27
Table 5-44 Descriptive Statistics-Department and Co-Employees -dimension
I feel that I am an 500 1.00 5.00 3.7940 1.51001
importantpart of my
work group
My team members express 500 1.00 12.00 3.7700 1.55755
theiropinions freely
Everyone in my team has a 500 1.00 5.00 3.7280 1.51612
fullunderstanding of
institution
objectives
Work team members 500 1.00 5.00 3.7300 1.51582
exchangetheir feelings
freely
Team members 500 1.00 5.00 3.7760 1.49877
participate indecisions
that affect them
38
My team members 500 1.00 5.00 3.7700 1.51714
have different
experiences and
Work Group 500 1.00 6.17 3.7613 1.47590
each of the statement relating to measuring Work Group dimension ofiquality of work life. It
is evident that all the statement relating to Work Group dimension ofiquality of work life has a
mean score between 3.72 to 3.79 which indicate that employees are strongly agree with the
statement relating Work Group dimension of quality of work life with the overall mean score
value is 3.76 (S. D=1.47).
Supervision Style-dimension
Table 5-45 opinion on supervisor encourages to participate in keydecision-making
My supervisor encourages me to participate in key decision-making

Percent
Disagree 13 2.6 2.6 5.0
Agree 12 2.4 2.4 8.4
Strongly agree 458 91.6 91.6 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
appeared that that out of 500 respondents, 458 respondents (91.6%) are strongly disagree that
supervisor encourages to participate in key decision-making, 12 respondents (2.4%) are
disagreed with the statement, 12 respondents (2.4%) are agree that supervisor encourages to
participate in key decision-making, 12 respondents (2.4%) are strongly disagree and rest of 5
respondents (1%) are Neither agree nor Disagree with the statement.
39
Table 5-46 opinion on Principal possesses a great ability to key pre-planning work
My boss (Principal) possesses a great ability to key pre-planning work

Percent
Disagree 24 4.8 4.8 8.0
Agree 22 4.4 4.4 14.6
Strongly agree 427 85.4 85.4 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
(85.4%) are strongly agree that Principal possesses a great ability to key pre-planning work, 12
respondents (4.4%) are agreed with the statement, 16 respondents ( 3.2%) are strongly
disagree that Principal possesses a great ability to key pre-planning work, 24 respondents
(4.8%) are agree that Principal not possesses a great ability to key pre-planning work and rest
of 11 respondents (2.2%) are Neither agree nor Disagree with the statement.
Table 5-47 opinion on principal gives complete information for his subordinates
My boss gives complete information for his subordinates
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent
Disagree 19 3.8 3.8 6.8
Agree 25 5.0 5.0 14.4
Strongly agree 428 85.4 85.4 99.9
Total 500 100.0 100.0 100
40
evident that out of 500 respondents, 428 respondents (85.4%) are strongly agree that principal
gives complete information for his subordinates, 25 respondents (5%) are agreed with the
statement, 15 respondents (3%) are strongly disagree that principal will not give complete
information for his subordinates, 19 respondents (3.8%) are disagree and rest of 13
Table 5-48 opinion on principal treats subordinate fairly and equitably
Our boss treats us fairly and equitably

Percent
Disagree 22 4.4 4.4 7.8
Agree 20 4.0 4.0 15.0
Strongly agree 425 85.0 85.0 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
appeared that that out of 500 respondents, 425 respondents (85%) are strongly agree that
principal treats subordinate fairly and equitably, 20 respondents (4%) are agreed with the
statement, 17 respondents (3.4%) are strongly disagree that principal not treats subordinate
fairly and equitably, 22 respondents (4.4%) are disagree and rest of 16 respondents (3.2%)
are Neither agree nor Disagree with the statement.
Table 5-49 opinion on principal explains forsubordinate the work objectives withmotivational
way
Our boss explains for us the work objectives with motivational way
Percent
41
Disagree 22 4.4 4.4 7.8
Agree 18 3.6 3.6 13.4
Strongly agree 433 86.6 86.6 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
Table number 5.49 depicts the frequency and percentage distribution of employee attitude of
principal explains for subordinate the work objectiveswith motivational way. It shows that
majority of 433 (86.6%) respondents strongly agree that principal explains for subordinate the
work objectives with motivational way. 18 (3.6%) of the employees are agree and thus 3.4
percent (17) of the respondents are Strongly disagree that principal is not explains for
subordinate the work objectives with motivational way. It further shows that only 22 (4.4%)
ofithe respondents are strongly disagreeing to the above statement.
Table 5-50 opinion on principal hasa high capacity for instigationiof his subordinates to
make themaximum possible effort
Our president has a high capacity for instigation of his subordinates to make the maximum
possible effort.
Percent
Disagree 39 7.8 7.8 11.6
Agree 26 5.2 5.2 20.6
Strongly agree 397 79.4 79.4 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
Table number 5.50 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of employee attitude of
principal has a high capacity for instigation ofihis subordinates to make the maximum possible
42
effort. Majority of 397 (78.4%) respondents are strongly agree that principal has a high
capacity for instigation of his subordinates to make the maximum possible effort. 26 (5.2%)
respondents agree to the statement and 39 (7.8%) respondents are disagree to the statement and
thus 3.8 per cent ofithe respondents (N=19) strongly disagree that principal has not have a high
capacity for instigation of his subordinates to make the maximum possible effort. Also, it is
clear from the above table that majority of 423 (84.6%) respondents are agree that principal
has a high capacity for instigation of his subordinates to make the maximum possible effort.
Table 5-51 Descriptive Statistics- Supervision Style
My supervisor encourages 500 1.00 5.00 4.7820 .79734

meto participate in key
decision-
making
My boss (Principal) possesses 500 1.00 5.00 4.6400 .97381
a great ability to
key pre- planning
work
My boss gives complete 500 1.00 12.00 4.6780 .98603

information for his
subordinates
Our boss treats us fairly and 500 1.00 5.00 4.6280 .98568
equitably
Our boss explains for us the 500 1.00 5.00 4.6560 .96930
work objectives with
motivational way
Our president has a high 500 1.00 5.00 4.4860 1.11907
capacity for instigation of his

subordinates to make the
43
Supervision Style 500 1.00 5.67 4.6450 .81036

each ofthe statement relating to measuring Work Group dimension of quality of work life. It is
evident that all the statement relating to Work Group dimension ofiquality of work life has a
mean score between 3.72 to 3.79 which indicate that employees are strongly agree with the
statement relating Work Group dimension of quality of work life with the overall mean score
value is 3.76 (S. D=1.47).
Decision Making-Dimension
Table 5-52 opinion on employees havethe opportunity to influencethe decisions that affect
ofiwork
I have the opportunity to influence the decisions that affect my work
Percent
Disagree 25 5.0 5.0 9.0
Neither agree nor disagree 2 .4 .4 9.4
Agree 19 3.8 3.8 13.2
Strongly agree 434 86.8 86.8 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
Table number 5.52 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of employee attitude
towards the statement that employees have the opportunity to influence the decisions that
44
effect of work. Majority of 434 (86.8%) respondents strongly agree are that
employees have the opportunity to influence the decisions that effect of work and 19
(3.8%) respondents are agree with the statement. 20(4%) strongly disagree that employees
are not having the opportunity to influence the decisions that effect of work and thus 0.4
per cent (N=2) ofithe respondents are neither agree nor disagree with the statement.
Table 5-53 opinion on employees caniparticipate in solving the problemsiof work
I can participate in solving the problems ofimy work
Percent
Disagree 28 5.6 5.6 9.4
Agree 36 7.2 7.2 17.2
Strongly agree 414 82.8 82.8 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
From the table no 5.53 frequency analysis shows that 82.8 % (N=414) of the respondents
are strongly agree that employees can participate in solving the problems of work; 7.2%
(N=36) of the respondents are agreed that they employees can participate in solving the
problems of work; 0.6 % (N=3) of respondents are ―Neither agree nor disagree‖ about
the statement and 3.8% (N=19) of the respondents are strongly disagree with the statement and
rest of 5.6% (N=28) of respondents are disagree that employees are not have an opportunity to
participate in solving the problems of work.
Table 5-54 opinion on got complete information about the objectives of work
I get complete information about the objectives of my work
Percent
45
Disagree 31 6.2 6.2 11.2
Agree 24 4.8 4.8 16.6
Strongly agree 417 83.4 83.4 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
From the table no 5.54 it is inferred that 83.4 % (N=417) of the respondents are strongly
agree that they got complete information about the objectives of work; 4.8% (N=24) of the
respondents are agreed that they got complete information about the objectives of work; 0.6 %
(N=31) of respondents are ―Neither agree nor disagree‖ about the statement and 5%
(N=25) of the respondents are strongly disagree with the statement and rest of 6.2% (N=31) of
respondents are disagree that they not got complete information about the objectives of work.
Table 5-55 opinion on employee got the appropriate information about achievements at
work
I get the appropriate information about my achievements at work

Percent
Disagree 29 5.8 5.8 10.4
Agree 32 6.4 6.4 18.2
Strongly agree 409 81.8 81.8 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
From the table no 5.55 it is inferred that 81.8% (N=409) of the respondents are strongly
agree that employees are got the appropriate information about achievements at work; 6.4%
(N=32) of the respondents are agreed that employees are got the appropriate information
about achievements at work; 1.4% (N=7) of respondents are ―Neither agree nor
disagree‖ about the statement and 4.6% (N=23) of the respondents are strongly disagree
with the statement and rest of 5.8% (N=29) of respondents are disagree that employee are not
46
got the appropriate information about achievements at work
Table 5-56 opinion on employees enjoy participation and collaboration with co-workers
I enjoy participation and collaboration with co-workers
Percent
Disagree 34 6.8 6.8 11.2
Agree 27 5.4 5.4 18.0
Strongly agree 410 82.0 82.0 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
From the table no 5.56 frequency analysis shows that 82% (N=410) of the respondents are
strongly agree that on employees enjoy participation and collaboration with co-workers; 5.4%
(N=27) of the respondents are agreed with the statement. 1.4 % (N=7) of respondents are
―Neither agree nor disagree‖ about the statement and 4.4% (N=22) of the respondents
are strongly disagree that employees are not enjoy participation and collaboration with co-
workers in the organisation and rest of 6.8% (N=34) of respondents are disagree that
employees are not enjoy participation and collaboration with co-workers in the organisation.
Table 5-57 opinion on employees have an appropriate degree of freedom in the
performance of work
I have an appropriate degree of freedom in the performance of my work
Frequency Perce nt Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Disagree 34 6.8 6.8 12.0
Agree 40 8.0 8.0 21.4
47
Strongly agree 393 78.6 78.6 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
From the table no 5.57 it is inferred that 78.6 % (N=393) of the respondents are
strongly agree that employees have an appropriate degree of freedom in the performance of
work; 8% (N=40) of the respondents are agreed with the statement; 1.4% (N=7) of
respondents are ―Neither agree nor disagree‖ about the statement and 5.2% (N=26) of the
respondents are strongly disagree that employees have not an appropriate degree of freedom in
the performance of work and rest of 6.8% (N=34) of respondents are disagree that employees
are have not an appropriate degree of freedom in the performance of work
Table 5-58 Descriptive Statistics- Decision Making
I have the opportunity to 500 1.00 5.00 4.6440 1.00961
influence the decisions
thataffect my work
I can participate in solving 500 1.00 5.00 4.5960 1.02317
theproblems of my work
I get complete information 500 1.00 5.00 4.5540 1.11065
about the objectives of my
work
I get the appropriate 500 1.00 5.00 4.5500 1.08529
informationabout my
I enjoy participation and 500 1.00 5.00 4.5380 1.10226
collaboration with co-
workers
I have an appropriate 500 1.00 5.00 4.4800 1.14552
degree offreedom in the
performance of
my work
Decision Making 500 1.00 5.00 4.5603 .95924
Table 5.58 presents the mean and standard deviation values for the Decision-Making
48
dimension ofiquality of work life. It is evident that the perception of the employees was found to
be high towards the statement ―I have the opportunit y to influence the decisions that affect
my work‖ with mean value of 4.64, followed by ―I can participate in solving the
problems of my work‖ with mean value of 4.59 and ―I get complete information about the
objectives of my work‖ with mean score 4.55. The least mean score (4.48) is obtained for
―I have an appropriate degree of freedom in the performance of my work‖. The overall mean
score based on the perception of employees for Decision-Making dimension is 4.56 and
standard deviation is 0.95.
Factor Analysis- Job Satisfaction
Table 5-59 Component Matrix- Job Satisfaction
Component Matrixa
Component
My job dimensions and practical tasks are characterized by .990

importance
I feel responsible for everything that I'm doing .979
I possess the necessary skills to perform the job .934
I have the freedom to act in deciding everything in the job .970
The volume of work in my job is suitable .926
My tasks are challenging and fun .956
a. 1components extracted.
Table 5.59 shows the results of the factor analysis for the statements concerning the Job
Satisfaction and six statements have attracted a coefficient of over 0.50, so they have been
kept for further analysis.
Opinion on Job Satisfaction
49
Table 5-60 opinion on satisfaction with current job
In general, I am satisfied with my current job
Percent
Disagree 38 7.6 7.6 14.2
Agree 32 6.4 6.4 24.0
Strongly agree 380 76.0 76.0 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
From the table no 5.60 the frequency analysis results shows that 76% (N=380) of the
respondents are strongly agreed that they are satisfied with the current job; 6.4% (N=32) of the
respondents are agreed that they satisfied with current job; 3.4 % (N=17) of respondents are
―Neither agree nor disagree‖ about the statement and 6.6% (N=33) of the respondents are
strongly disagree that they are not satisfied with current job with the statement and rest of 7.6%
(N=38) ofirespondents are disagree that they are not satisfied with current job.
Table 5-61 opinion on satisfaction with physical working conditions
I am satisfied with my physical working conditions.
Percent
Disagree 45 9.0 9.0 16.8
Agree 41 8.2 8.2 29.8
Strongly agree 351 70.2 70.2 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
50
From the table no 5.61 the frequency analysis results shows that 70.2% (N=351) of the
respondents are strongly agreed that they are satisfied with the physical working conditions;
8.2% (N=41) of the respondents are agreed that they satisfied with physical working
conditions; 4.8 % (N=24) of respondents are ―Neither agree nor disagree‖ about the
statement and 7.8% (N=39) of the respondents are strongly disagree that they are not satisfied
with physical working conditions and rest of 9% (N=45) of respondents are disagree that they are
not satisfied with physical working conditions.
Table 5-62 opinion on satisfaction with hours of work
I am satisfied with my hours of work
Percent
Disagree 45 9.0 9.0 16.4
Agree 40 8.0 8.0 29.2
Strongly agree 354 70.8 70.8 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
respondents are strongly agreed that they are satisfied with the hours of work; 8% (N=40) of the
respondents are agreed that they satisfied with hours of work; 4.8 % (N=24) of respondents
are ―Neither agree nor disagree‖ about the statement and 7.4% (N=37) of the
respondents are strongly disagree that they are not satisfied with hours of work and rest of 9%
(N=45) of respondents are disagree that they are not satisfied with hours of work.
Table 5-63 opinion on satisfaction with earnings from current job
51
I am satisfied with my earnings from my current job.
Percent
Disagree 52 10.4 10.4 18.6
Agree 47 9.4 9.4 32.8
Strongly agree 336 67.2 67.2 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
respondents are strongly agreed that they are satisfied with the earnings from current job; 9.4%
(N=47) of the respondents are agreed that they satisfied with the earnings from current job;
4.8 % (N=24) of respondents are ―Neither agree nor disagree‖ about the statement and 8.2%
(N=41) of the respondents are strongly disagree that they are not satisfied with the earnings
from current job and rest of 10.4% (N=52) of respondents are disagree that they are not
satisfied with the earnings from current job.
Table 5-64 opinion on work is critical
I find my work is critical
Percent
Disagree 64 12.8 12.8 22.6
Agree 59 11.8 11.8 40.6
Strongly agree 297 59.4 59.4 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
52
respondents are strongly agreed that work is critical to employees; 11.8% (N=59) of the
respondents are agreed that work is critical to employees; 6.2 % (N=31) of respondents are
―Neither agree nor disagree‖ about the statement and 9.8% (N=49) of the respondents
are strongly disagree that they are not feel work is critical to them and rest of 12.8% (N=64) of
respondents are disagree with the statement.
Table 5-65 Descriptive Statistics- Job Satisfaction

In general, I am satisfied 500 1.00 5.00 4.3760 1.24649
withmy current job
I am satisfied with my 500 1.00 5.00 4.2400 1.32586
physicalworking
conditions.
I am satisfied with my 500 1.00 5.00 4.2580 1.31106
hours ofwork
I am satisfied with 500 1.00 5.00 4.1700 1.35970
my earningsfrom my
current job.
I find my work is critical 500 1.00 5.00 3.9820 1.43310
Job Satisfaction 500 1.00 5.00 3.7820 1.41651
Note: Mean Value =1.00 to 2.50 Low Satisfied, 2.51 to 3.50 Moderately Satisfied and 3.51 to 5.00 Highly Satisfied
The table number 5.65 illustrated the mean and standard deviation score for measuring the
job satisfaction of teachers working in higher education institutions. The mean value for all
statements measuring the job satisfaction is between 3.98 to 4.37. Which indicate highly satisfied
range and the mean score of employees‘ job satisfaction was 3.78 (S.D.= 1.41) on a five-scale
implying that overall, the level of job satisfaction was Highly Satisfied.
53
Factor Analysis- Employee Organisational Commitment
Table 5-66 Employee Organisational Commitment- Component Matrix
Component Matrixa
Component
1
I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond the normal .992
expectation inorder to help this organization to be successful
I talk up this organization to my friends as a great organization to .970
work for
I would accept almost any type of job assignment in order to keep .962
workingfor this organization
I am extremely glad that I chose this organization to work for over .939
others Iwas considering at the time I joined
I really care about the fate of this organization .950
It would be very hard for me to leave my organization right now, .951
even Iwanted to
Too much in my life would be disrupted if I decided I to leave my .969
organizations now
I was taught to believe in the value of remaining loyal to the .932
organization
Table number 5.66 shows the factor analysis results for statements regarding Employee
Organisational Commitment and eight statements attracted a coefficient of more than 0.4 hence
were retained for further analysis.
Opinion on Organisational Commitment
Table 5-67 Opinion on employee put in a great deal of effort beyond the normal
expectation in order to help this organization to be successful
I am willing to put in a great deal ofieffort beyond the normal expectation in order
to help thisorganization to be successful
Percent
54
Disagree 74 14.8 14.8 25.0
Agree 89 17.8 17.8 48.6
Strongly agree 257 51.4 51.4 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
Majority of 257 (51.4%) respondents strongly agree are that employee put in a great deal
of effort beyond the normal expectation in order to help this organization to be successful and 89
(17.8%) respondents are agree with the statement. 51 (10.2%) strongly disagree that
employees are not put in a great deal ofieffort beyond the normal
expectation in order to help this organization to be successful and thus 5.8 per cent
(N=29) of the respondents are neither agree nor disagree with the statement.
Table 5-68 Opinion on employee talk up the organization with friends as a great
organization to work
I talk up this organization to my friends as a great organization to work for
Percent
Disagree 83 16.6 16.6 26.8
Agree 94 18.8 18.8 51.4
Strongly agree 243 48.6 48.6 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
From the table no 5.68 the frequency analysis results shows that 48.6%
(N=243) ofithe respondents are strongly agreed that employee talk up the organization with
friends as a great organization to work; 18.8% (N=94) of the respondents are agreed with
the statement; 5.8% (N=29) of respondents are ―Neither agree nor disagree‖ about the
55
statement and 10.2% (N=51) of the respondents are strongly disagree employee are not talk
about the organization with friends as a great organization to work and rest of 16.6% (N=83)
of respondents are disagree with the statement.
Table 5-69 opinion on employee accept almost any type of job assignment in order to keep
working for the organization
I would accept almost any type of job assignment in order to keep working for this organization
Percent
Disagree 77 15.4 15.4 26.0
Agree 90 18.0 18.0 51.2
Strongly agree 244 48.8 48.8 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
Majority of 244 (48.8%) respondents strongly agree are that employee accept almost any
type of job assignment in order to keep working for the organization and 90 (18%)
respondents are agree with the statement. 53 (10.6%) strongly disagree that employees
are not accept almost any type of job assignment in order to keep working for the
organization and thus 7.2 per cent (N=36) of the respondents are neither agree nor disagree
with the statement.
Table 5-70 opinion on employees feel extremely glad to choose the organization to work at
the time of joining
I am extremely glad that I chose this organization to work for over others I was considering
at the time Ijoined
Percent
Disagree 78 15.6 15.6 26.4

56
Agree 109 21.8 21.8 55.0
Strongly agree 225 45.0 45.0 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
From the table number 5.70 the frequency analysis results shows that 45% (N=225) of the
respondents are strongly agreed that employees feel extremely glad to choose the organization to
work at the time of joining ; 21.8% (N=109) of the respondents are agreed with the
statement; 6.8 % (N=34) of respondents are ―Neither agree nor disagree‖ about the
statement and 10.8% (N=54) of the respondents are strongly disagree that employees not feel
extremely glad to choose the organization to work at the time of joining and rest of 15.6%
(N=78) of respondents are disagree about the statement.
Table 5-71 Opinion on employee really care about the fate of the organization
I really care about the fate ofithe organization
Percent
Disagree 80 16.0 16.0 27.0
Agree 108 21.6 21.6 54.0
Strongly agree 230 46.0 46.0 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
From the table number 5.71 the frequency analysis results shows that 46% (N=230) of the
respondents are strongly agreed that employee really care about the fate of the organization;
21.6% (N=108) of the respondents are agreed with the statement; 5.4 % (N=27) of
respondents are ―Neither agree nor disagree‖ about the statement and 11% (N=55) of the
respondents are strongly disagree that employee not really care about the fate of the
57
organization and rest of 16% (N=80) of respondents are disagree with the statement.
Table 5-72 opinion of employee it will be very hard to leave the organization right now
It would be very hard for me to leave my organization right now, even I wanted to

Percent
Disagree 79 15.8 15.8 26.8
Agree 100 20.0 20.0 53.2
Strongly agree 234 46.8 46.8 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
Majority of 234 (46.8%) respondents strongly agree are that employee will feel very hard to
leave the organization right now and 89 (17.8%) respondents are agree with the statement. 51
(10.2%) strongly disagree that employee will not feel very hard to leave the organization
right now and thus 6.4 per cent (N=32) of the respondents are neither agree nor disagree with the
statement.
Table 5-73 life would be disrupted if leave the organizations
Too much in my life would be disrupted if I decided I to leave my organizations now
Percent
Disagree 77 15.4 15.4 26.0
Agree 94 18.8 18.8 51.0
Strongly agree 245 49.0 49.0 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
58
Majority of 245 (49%) respondents strongly agree are that life would be disrupted if leave the
organizations now and 94 (18.8%) respondents are agree with the statement. 53 (10.6%)
strongly disagree that employee opinion that life will be not be disrupted if leave the
organizations and thus 6.2 per cent (N=31) ofithe respondents are neither agree nor disagree
with the statement.
Table 5-74 opinion on employee are remaining loyal to the organization
Percent
Disagree 74 14.8 14.8 25.8
Agree 125 25.0 25.0 57.6
Strongly agree 212 42.4 42.4 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
From the table number 5.80 the frequency analysis results shows that 42.4% (N=212) of the
respondents are strongly agreed that employees employee are remaining loyal to the
organization; 25% (N=125) of the respondents are agreed with the statement; 6.8 % (N=34) of
respondents are ―Neither agree nor disagree‖ about the statement and 11% (N=55) of
the respondents are strongly disagree that employee are not remaining loyal to the
organization andrest of 14.8% (N=74) of respondents are disagree about the statement.
Table 5-75 Descriptive Statistics- Employee Organisational Commitment
I am willing to put in a 500 1.00 5.00 3.8540 1.43695

great deal ofieffort beyond
the normal expectation in
order to help
59
this organization to be
successful
I talk up this organization 500 1.00 5.00 3.7900 1.44432

to my
friends as a great
organization to work for
I would accept almost any 500 1.00 5.00 3.7900 1.44571

typeof job assignment in
order to keep working for
this
organization
I am extremely glad that I 500 1.00 5.00 3.7460 1.43304

chose this organization to
work for over others I was
considering
at the time I joined
I really care about the fate 500 1.00 5.00 3.7560 1.44521
of this organization
It would be very hard for 500 1.00 5.00 3.7580 1.44901

me to leave my organization
right now, even I wanted to
Too much in my life would 500 1.00 5.00 3.8020 1.44463

be
disrupted ifiI decided I to

leave my organizations now
I was taught to believe in 500 1.00 5.00 3.7300 1.41602

the value of remaining loyal
to the
60
organization
Employee Orgnisation 500 1.00 5.00 3.7660 1.43784

Commitment

Note: Mean Value =1.00 to 2.50 Low commitment, 2.51 to 3.50 Moderate commitment and 3.51 to 5.00 very High
commitment
The table number 5.75 illustrated the mean and standard deviation score for measuring the
Employee Organisational Commitment of teachers working in higher education institutions. The
mean value for all statements measuring the Organisational Commitment is between 3.73 to
3.85. Which indicate high Organizational Commitment among the employees and the mean
score of Organisational Commitment was 3.76 (S.D.= 1.43) on a five-scale implying that
overall the level of Organisational Commitment was very High commitment.
Factor Analysis- Turnover Intention

Table 5-76 Turnover Intention - Component Matrix
Component Matrixa
Component
I often think about quitting his/her present job. .949
I would probably look for a new job in the near future. .912
As soon as possible, I would leave this organization. .834
Table number 5.76 shows the factor analysis results for statements regarding Turnover
Intention and three statements attracted a coefficient of more than 0.50 hence were retained for
further analysis
Opinion on Turnover Intention

Table 5-77 opinion on employee often thinkiabout quitting his/her present job
61
I often think about quitting his/her present job.
Percent
Disagree 70 14.0 14.0 91.8
Agree 16 3.2 3.2 98.0
Strongly agree 10 2.0 2.0 100.0
Total 500 100.0 100.0
From the table number 5.77 the frequency analysis results shows that 77.8% (N=389) of the
respondents are strongly disagreed that employee often not think about quitting his/her
present job; 14% (N=70) ofithe respondents are disagreed with the statement; 3% (N=15)
of respondents are ―Neither agree nor disagree‖ about the statement and 2% (N=10)
of the respondents are strongly agree that employee often think about quitting his/her
present job and rest of 3.2% (N=16) of respondents are agree with the statement.
Table 5-78 opinion on employee probably look for anewjobin the near future
I would probably look for a new job in the near future.
Percent
Disagree 90 18.0 18.0 90.0
Agree 16 3.2 3.2 96.8
Total 500 100.0 100.0
62
Majority of 360 (72%) of respondents strongly disagree that theyprobably look for a new
job in the near future and 90 (18%) respondents are disagree with the statement. 16(3.2%)
strongly agree that employee probably look for a new job in the near future and thus 3.2 per
cent (N=16) of the respondents are agree with the statement and rest of 3.6 percent (N=18) are
neither agree nor disagree with the statement.
Table 5-79 As soon as possible, employee would leave the organization
As soon as possible, I would leave this organization.
Frequency Percen Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

t
Disagree 97 19.4 19.4 84.4
Neither agree nor 22 4.4 4.4 88.8

disagree
Agree 23 4.6 4.6 93.4
Total 500 100.0 100.0
Majority of 325 (65%) of respondents strongly disagree that employeeAs soon as possible,
e would leave the organization and 97 (19.4%) respondents are disagree with the statement.
33(6.6%) respondents are strongly agree that employee would not leave the organisation and
thus 4.6 per cent (N=23) of the respondents are agree with the statement and rest of 4.4
percent (N=22) are neither agree nor disagree with the statement.
Table 5-80 Descriptive Statistics- Turnover Intention
I often think about quitting
500 1.00 5.00 1.3760 .85328
his/her present job.
I would probably look for a
500 1.00 5.00 1.4760 .94827
new job in the near future.
63
As soon as possible, I
would leave this 500 1.00 5.00 1.6840 1.17256
organization.
Turnover Intention 500 1.00 5.00 1.5120 .81107
Note: Mean Value =1.00 to 2.50 Low Turnover Intention, 2.51 to 3.50 Moderate Turnover Intention and 3.51 to
5.00 High Turnover Intention
The statistical data presented in the table number 5.80 concern the Turnover Intention
among teachers working in higher educational institutions. It is seemed that all statements
Turnover Intention show the mean score between 1.37 to 1.68 which show teachers are having
low turnover intention. From the table (no.5.86) it is inferred that the mean score 1.51
(S.D.=0.81) for employee turnover was very low.
Hypothesis Testing
H01: There is no relationship between perceived overall Quality ofiwork life of teachers with
demographics factors.
This main hypothesis is subdivided into the following sub-hypothesis
H01a : There is no association between perceived overall Quality ofiwork life of teachers with
marital status.
Chi-Square Test
Table 5-81 Crosstabulation between Perceived Quality ofiWork Life and Marital Status
Crosstab
Perceived Quality ofiWork Life Total
Low Moderate High
Marital Status ofithe Married Count 114 26 244 384

Respondents Expected
Count 106.0 25.3 252.7 384.0
Unmarrie Count 24 7 85 116

d Expected
64
Count 32.0 7.7 76.3 116.0
Total Count 138 33 329 500
Expected
Count 138.0 33.0 329.0 500.0
Table 5-82 Chi-Square Test between Perceived Quality of Work Life and Marital Status
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 3.969a 2 .137
Likelihood Ratio 4.117 2 .128
Linear-by-Linear Association 3.959 1 .047
N ofiValid Cases 500
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 7.66.
Table Value = 1.38
Results:
Since the chi-square (X2) value = 3.96 the more than the table value (1.38) with 2 degree of
freedom at 0.05 level ofisignificance. Hence, reject the null hypothesis. There is an association
between perceived overall Quality ofiwork life of teachers with marital status.
Independent Sample t-test
H01e: There is no significant difference between perceived overall Quality ofiwork life of
teachers with gender.
Table 5-83 Group Statistics-gender ofthe respondents
Group Statistics
Gender of the N Mean Std. Std.

Respondent Deviation Error
Mean
Percived Quality of Male 357 2.37 .891 .047
65
Work Female 143 2.42 .883 .074
LIfe (Binned)
Table 5-84 Independent sample t-test betweengender and perceived overall Quality of work
life
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances
F Sig. t df
Equal variances .503 -.598 498

assumed .449
Equal variances -.600 263.950

not assumed
The results in the table 5.84 show a no significant difference between the perceived
overall Quality ofiwork life scores of male and female teachers t (df=498) =-.598,
p>.05. The mean scores of female teachers (M=2.42) are higher than the mean score of male
teachers (M=2.37). This means that perceived overall Quality of work life Score of female
teachers is higher than male. From the result the null hypothesis is accepted.
One- way ANOVA

One way between-group analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conduct to explore the
significant difference of age, designation, educational qualification, designation, Teaching
Experienceand Annual Salary on perceived overall Quality ofiwork life.
H01f : There is no significant difference between perceived overall Quality of work life of
teachers based on age
Table 5-85 Descriptive statistics between age and Quality ofiwork life
Age group N Mean Std. Deviation
Below 30 years 210 2.44 .869
31 to 40 years 149 2.28 .923
66
41 to 50 years 129 2.38 .886
Above 50 years 12 2.67 .778
Total 500 2.38 .889
From the table number 5.85 it is evident that there was a significant difference among the
mean score for the four group of age categories of the respondents. The mean score
(M=2.44, SD=.86) of below 30 years, group of 31 to 40 years age categories (M=2.28, SD=.92),
group of 41 to 50 years age category (M=2.38, SD=.88) and group of above 50 years age
(M=2.67, SD=.77).
Table 5-86ANOVA test between age group and Quality ofiwork life
ANOVA
Perceived Quality of Work Life
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 3.127 3 1.042 1.323 .266
Within Groups 390.911 496 .788
Total 394.038 499
The table number 5.86 Shows that there was no statistically significant difference at the
p<0.05 level on perceived quality of work life on four age categories {f (3,496) = 1.32, p>.007}.
Hence, the null hypothesis is accepted.
H01f : There is no significant difference between perceived overall Quality ofiwork life of
teachers base on designation.
Table 5-87 Descriptive statistics between designation and perceived Quality ofiwork life
N Mean Std. Deviation
Assistant Professor 292 2.41 .879
Associate Professor 136 2.40 .872
Professor 72 2.22 .953
Total 500 2.38 .889
67
mean score for the three group of designation the respondents. The mean score (M=2.41,
SD=.87) for Assistant Professor, for Associate Professor category (M=2.40, SD=.87) and for
professor category the mean score is (M=2.38, SD=.88).
Table 5-88ANOVA test between education qualification and perceived Quality ofiwork life
ANOVA
Percived Quality of Work LIfe (Binned)
Between Groups 2.151 2 1.076 1.364 .257
Total 394.038 499
p<0.05 level on quality of work life on three types of designations of the sample respondents
{f (2,497) = 1.36, Sig.0.257, p>.05}. Hence, the null hypothesis is accepted.
H01g : There is no significant difference between perceived overall Quality ofiwork life of
teachers base on Educational Qualification.
Table 5-89 Descriptive statistics between Educational Qualification and perceived overall
Quality ofiwork life
Educational Qualification N Mean Std. Deviation
PG Degree 340 2.39 .887
Doctorate Degree 160 2.38 .895
Total 500 2.38 .889
From the table no 5.89 it is evident that there was a mean score difference for group of
PG Degree (M=2.39, SD=.88) and group of doctorate degree (M=2.38, SD=.89).
Table 5-90ANOVA test between Educational Qualification group and perceived Quality
ofiwork life
68
ANOVA
Perceived Quality of Work Life (Binned)
Between Groups .012 1 .012 .015 .904
Total 394.038 499
p<0.05 level on perceived Quality of work life on two educational qualification {f (1,498) =
0.015, Sig.0.904, p>.05}. Hence, the null hypothesis is accepted.
H01h : There is no significant difference between perceived overall Quality ofiwork life of
teachers base on Teaching Experience.
Table 5-91 Descriptive statistics between Teaching Experience and perceived Quality
ofiwork life
N Mean Std. Deviation
Less than 5 years 168 2.62 .741
6 to 10 years 177 2.12 .963
More than 10 years 155 2.42 .874
Total 500 2.38 .889
mean score for the three group of experience of the respondents. The mean score (M=2.62,
SD=.74) for Less than 5 years‘ experience category, for 6 to 10 years of experience category
(M=2.12, SD=.96) and for more than 10 years of experience category the mean score is
(M=2.42, SD=.87).
Table 5-92ANOVA test between Teaching Experience and perceived Qualityiofiwork life
69
ANOVA
Between Groups 21.411 2 10.706 14.279 .000
Total 394.038 499
The table number 5.92 Shows that there was a statistically significant difference at the
p<0.05 level on quality ofiwork life on three categories of Teaching Experience of the sample
respondents {f (2,497) = 14.27, Sig.0.00, p<.05}. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected.
H01k : There is no significant difference between perceived overall Quality ofiwork life of
teachers base on Annual Salary.
Table 5-93 Descriptive statistics between Annual Salary and perceived Quality ofiwork life
Annual Salary N Mean Std. Deviation
Rs 250000 207 2.55 .792
Rs 250001 to 500000 135 2.10 .972
Rs 500001 to 1000000 132 2.35 .899
Above Rs 1000000 26 2.65 .745
Total 500 2.38 .889
mean score for the four group of annual salary categories of the respondents. The mean score
(M=2.55, SD=.79) for Rs 250000 per annual salary category, group of Rs 250001 to 500000
for annual salary categories (M=2.10, SD=.97), for Rs 500001 to 1000000 annual salary age
category (M=2.35, SD=.898) and for Above Rs 1000000 annual salary category is (M=2.65,
SD=.74).
70
Table 5-94ANOVA test between Annual Salary and perceived Quality ofiwork life
ANOVA
Between Groups 18.418 3 6.139 8.107 .000
Total 394.038 499
The table number 5.94 Shows that there was a statistically significant difference at the p<0.05
level on perceived Quality ofiwork life on four categories of annual salary category f (3,496) =
8.10, Sig.0.00, p<.05}. Hence, the null hypothesis is accepted.
H02: There is no significant relationship between perceived overall Quality ofiwork life and
dimensions of quality ofiwork life.
This main hypothesis is subdivided into the following sub-hypothesis
H02a: There is no significant relationship between perceived overall Quality ofiwork life and
Work Moral Environment
H02b: There is no significant relationship between perceived overall Quality ofiwork life
and Job Characteristics
H02c: There is no significant relationship between perceived overall Quality ofiwork life and
Wages and Remuneration
H02d: There is no significant relationship between perceived overall Quality ofiwork life and
Work Group
H02e: There is no significant relationship between perceived overall Quality ofiwork life and
Supervision Style
H02f: There is no significant relationship between perceived overall Quality ofiwork life and
Decision Making
Correlation Analysis
Correlation is a concept for investigating the relationship between two quotative continuous
variables. Correlation coefficient measures the strength of the association between the two
variables the study sought to test the relationship between perceived quality of work life and its
dimensions using correlation analysis presented in the table below.
Table 5-95 Correlations Matrix between quality ofiworkilife and it’s dimensions
71
Correlations
Perceived WME JOC WAR WGF SSF DMF
Quality of
Work Life
Perceived Quality Pearson 1 .944** .966** .960** .927** .933** .906**

of Work Life Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 500 500 500 500 500 500 500
Work Moral Pearson .944** 1 .950** .942** .909** .915** .888**

Environment Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 500 500 500 500 500 500 500
Job Pearson .966** .950** 1 .964** .931** .937** .911**

Characteristics Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 500 500 500 500 500 500 500
Remuneration Pearson .960** .942** .964** 1 .926** .932** .905**

and Reward Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 500 500 500 500 500 500 500
Department and Pearson .927** .909** .931** .926** 1 .899** .872**

Co-employees Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 500 500 500 500 500 500 500
Supervision Style Pearson .933** .915** .937** .932** .899** 1 .879**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
72
N 500 500 500 500 500 500 500
Decision Making Pearson .906** .888** .911** .905** .872** .879** 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 500 500 500 500 500 500 500
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
The Pearson correlation matrix highlights that there is a strong and positive
significant correlation exist among the dependent variables (perceived quality ofiwork
life ) and independent variables such as Work Moral Environment (r=0.944), Job
Characteristics (r=0.966) ,Remuneration and Reward (r=0.960), Department and Co-
employees factor (r=0.927), Supervision Style (r=0.933) and Decision Making (r=0.906)
respectively. the results are significant at 0.01 and 0.05 percent significant level.
Multiple Regression Analysis

Regression Analysis Regression analysis is a statistical process for estimating the
relationships among variables. It includes many techniques for Modeling and analysing
several variables,
when the focus is on the relationship between a dependent variable and one or more independent
variables. one of the hypotheses of the study is that there is no significant relations hip between
perceived overall Quality of work life and dimensions of quality ofiwork life.; thus, regression
analysis is one of the best analytical models to analyze this relationship.
A multivariate regression model was used to determine the relative importance of each of the
six variables in respect to perceived overall Quality of work life.
The Multiple regression model for the study was
73
Y=f(x) (1)
Yi = β0 + βX1 + βX2 + βX3 + βX4+ βX5+ βX64 … + βXn + ε ------------------------ (2)
Where Y= Dependent variable is (Perceived Quality of work life)
X= Independent variables whereby as measured by the various indicators ofifinancial

inclusion i.e.
X1= Work Moral
Environment, X2= Job
Characteristics,
X3= Remuneration and Reward
X4= Department and Co-

employees X5= Supervision Style
X6= Decision Making
β0= Constant term

β0= Gradient/Slope of the regression measuring the amount of the change in Y associated
with a unit change in X
ε= Error term within a confidence interval of 5%
Model Summaryb
Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of the Durbin-Watson

Square Estimate
1 .975a .951 .950 .32571 1.903
a. Predictors: (Constant), DMF, WGF, SSF, WME, WAR, JOC
b. Dependent Variable: Percived Quality of Work LIfe
74
75
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 1013.612 6 168.935 1592.461 .000b
Residual 52.300 493 .106
Total 1065.912 499
a. Dependent Variable: Perceived Quality of Work Life
b. Predictors: (Constant), DMF, WGF, SSF, WME, WAR, JOC
Table 5-96regression coefficient of Quality of Work Life Dimensions
Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Standardiz t Sig. Collinearity

Coefficients ed Statistics
Coefficien
ts
B Std. Beta Tolerance VIF

Error
1 (Constant) .011 .041 .280 .780
Work Moral .133 .034 .134 3.901 .000 .085 11.826

Environment
Job .344 .047 .344 7.317 .000 .045 22.154

Characteristics
Remuneration .252 .043 .249 5.888 .000 .055 18.027

and Reward
Department .094 .029 .096 3.293 .001 .117 8.531
and Co-
employees
Supervision .108 .030 .109 3.564 .000 .106 9.433
76
Style
Decision .067 .025 .069 2.738 .006 .156 6.407

Making
a. Dependent Variable: Perceived Quality of Work Life
Correlation Analysis
H04: Perceived degree ofiquality of work life will not have an inverse relationship with the
turnover intention of teachers
Table 5-97 Pearson Correlation betweeniquality of work life anditurnover intention
Correlations
Perceived Quality Turnover

Intention
of Work Life
Perceived Quality of Work Pearson Correlation 1 -.942**

Life Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 500 500
Turnover Intention Pearson Correlation -.942** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 500 500
Table 5.97 shows the Pearson Correlation between quality of work life and turnover
intention is r = 0.-942**. This indicates that there is a very significant (negative) relationship
between quality of work life and turnover intention. from the results it is inferred that quality of
work life has inverse relationship with turnover intention. Based on the result of Bivariate
Correlation analysis, H04 is rejected.
77
H05: Perceived degree ofiquality of work life will not have a positive impact on Employee
commitment
Table 5-98 Pearson Correlation between quality ofiwork life and Employee commitment
Correlations
Perceived Employee
Quality of Organisation
Work Life Commitmen
t
Perceived Quality of Work Pearson Correlation 1 .959**

N 500 500
Employee Organisation Pearson Correlation .959** 1

Commitment Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 500 500
From Table number 5.98, it indicates that the Pearson Correlation between Perceived degree
of quality ofiwork life and Employee commitment is r=0.959**. This indicates that there is a
very significant (positive) relationship between Perceived degree of quality of work life and
Employee commitment. From the results it is inferred that increased quality of work life positive
influence on Employee commitment of faculties working in private engineering colleges.
Based on the result of Bivariate Correlation analysis, H05 is accepted.
H06: Perceived degree of quality ofiwork life will not have a positive impact on job
satisfaction
Table 5-99 Pearson Correlation between quality ofiwork life will and job satisfaction
Correlations
78
Perceived Job Satisfaction
Quality
of Work Life
Perceived Quality of Work Pearson Correlation 1 .960**

N 500 500
Job Satisfaction Pearson Correlation .960** 1
N 500 500
From Table number 5.99, it indicates that the Pearson Correlation between Perceived degree
of quality of work life and job satisfaction is r=0.960**. This indicates that there is a very
significant (positive) relationship between Perceived degree of quality ofiwork life and job
satisfaction. from the results it is inferred that increased quality ofiwork life positive
influence on job satisfaction of working in private engineering colleges. Based on the result of
Bivariate Correlation analysis, H06 is accepted.
H05: There is no significant relationship between job satisfaction and employees’

organisational commitment.
Table 5-100Pearson Correlation betweenijob satisfaction and employees’ organisational

commitment
Correlations
Job Satisfaction Employee
Organisation
Commitment
Job Satisfaction Pearson Correlation 1 .955**
79
N 500 500
Employee Organisation Pearson Correlation .955** 1

N 500 500
Table number 5.100shows the Pearson Correlation between job satisfaction and employees‘
organisational commitment is r = 0.955**. This indicates that there is a very significant positive
relationship between job satisfaction and employees‘ organisational commitment. Based on the
result ofiBivariate Correlation analysis, H05 is rejected.
H06: employees’ organisational commitment will not have an inverse relationship with the
turnover intention of teachers
Table 5-101Pearson Correlation between employees’ organisational commitment
anditurnover intention of teachers
Correlations
Employee Turnover
Organisation Intention
Commitmen
t
Employee Organisation Pearson Correlation 1 . -940**

N 500 500
Turnover Intention Pearson Correlation . -940** 1
N 500 500
As shown in Table number 5.101, the Pearson Correlation between employees‘ organisational
80
commitment and turnover intention of faculties are r=0.-940**. This indicates that there is a very
significant (negative) relationship between employees‘ organisational commitment and turnover
intention of faculty. Based on the result of Bivariate Correlation analysis, H06 is rejected.
From the results it is inferred that employees‘ organisational commitment will have an
inverse relationship with the turnover intention of teachers.
H07: Job Satisfaction will not have an inverse relationship with the turnover intention of
teachers
Table 5-102Pearson Correlation between Job Satisfaction and turnover intention of teachers
Correlations
Job Satisfaction Turnover Intention
Job Satisfaction Pearson Correlation 1 . -940**
N 500 500
Turnover Intention Pearson Correlation . -940** 1
N 500 500
Table number 5.102shows the Pearson Correlation between Job Satisfaction and turnover
intention of faculties are r=0.-940**. This indicates that there is a very significant (negative)
relationship between Job Satisfaction and turnover intention. From the results it is inferred that
increased job satisfaction reduce the turnover intention of faculties. Hence. the null hypothesis
is H07 is rejected.
81

Chapter V

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Chapter V

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5 CHAPTER FIVE: ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Table 5-1 Gender of the Respondent

Gender of the Respondent

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulativ

Valid Male 357 71.4 71.4 71.4

Female 143 28.6 28.6 100.0

Total 500 100.0 100.0

Table 5-2 Age of the Respondent

Age of the Respondent

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulativ

Valid Below 30 years 210 42.0 42.0 42.0

31 to 40 years 149 29.8 29.8 71.8

41 to 50 years 129 25.8 25.8 97.6

Above 50 years 12 2.4 2.4 100.0

Total 500 100.0 100.0

Marital Status of the

In self-financing engineering colleges there are three types of designations commonly

Valid Assistant Professor 292 58.4 58.4 58.4

Qualification of engineering college faculties plays an important criterion in analysing their

Education Qualification of the

Valid PG Degree 340 68.0 68.0 68.0

Doctorate Degree 160 32.0 32.0 100.0

Total 500 100.0 100.0

Teaching Experience in Years

Teaching Experience in Years

The teaching experience ofithe respondents in the institution is requested them to

Table 5-7 Total Work Experience in Years

Total Work Experience in

Research Experience in Years

Table 5-9 Nature of Appointment

Table 5-10 Annual Salary (in Rs.)

Annual Salary (in

Validity Test for Carrying out Factor Analysis

In order to predict the sampling adequacy, a measure called Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test is

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Principal Component Analysis

A linear combination of study variables is used in principal component analysis in such a

Table 5-12 Communalities for quality of work life dimensions

I work in a working environment featuring 1.000 .988

Rotated Component Matrixa

1Work 2Wages 3Work 4Job 5Decisio 6Supervi

There are intimate .941

I feel good about that

My tasks are challenging and

My income depends on the

Everyone in my team has a

a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.

Perception of quality ofiwork life work Moral Environment-dimension

I work in a working environment featuring mutual trust among all parties

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Strongly agree 290 58.0 58.0 100.0

I feel I am respected by others in my organization

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

I feel good about that accomplishment I achieve in my work

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

I feel the quality of dealing with my colleagues in the organization

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

My job dimensions and practical tasks are characterized by importance

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

I feel responsible for everything that I'm doing

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Table 5-26 opinion on possession of necessary skills to perform the job