Bivariate Analysis:

Bivariate analysis is one among the many simplest forms of the quantitative analysis used. It is done by making an analysis of two variables (often denoted as X, Y). In order to check if the variables are related to one another, it is common to measure in which way those two variables simultaneously change together. Bivariate analysis can be helpful in testing simple hypotheses of association and causality checking by what extent it becomes easier to know and predict a value for the dependent variable if we know a case's value on the independent variable. Bivariate analysis is different from univariate analysis in such a way that only one variable is analysed. The analysis of a univariate analysis is descriptive. Subgroup comparison the description in the analysis of two variables can be sometimes seen as a very simple form of bivariate analysis. The major difference between univariate and bivariate analysis, apart from looking at more than one variable, is that the purpose of a bivariate analysis goes more than simply describing the property. It is the analysis of the relationship between the two variables.

There are so many tools to use for Bivariate analysis. To name a few, Pearson method, Spearman rank correlation method, Cross tabulation etc. We have few tools for the analysis using different variables.

Cross tabulation: It is a process of making a contingency table with variables picked up from the multivariable frequency distribution of the survey held. This gives the percentage distribution of different classes of a particular variable over the different classes of the other variable. It helps us in better understanding of the survey and makes us realize about the region where highest percentage of population willing to be.

In our survey, while finding out the prominent factors for the satisfaction levels in an organization we drew two cross tabulation.

Table 1: Monetary perks vs Working hours per week Working hours per week 35 Monetaryperks Low 2 3 4 High Total 28.6 50.0 32.6 40.7 66.7 38.9 45 57.1 33.3 30.2 51.9 16.7 37.9 55 0.0 16.7 32.6 7.4 16.7 20.0 65 14.3 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 3.2

Description: Figures in the table shows the percentage of people of that category of Monetary perks in the corresponding category of Working hours per week. So summation of every row will give us 100%.

Inference: By viewing the table we can find out that people with interest of low monetary perks are also least interested in working for long hours. As we go down the table, in the category 3 of monetary perks, people are ready to work for more working hours also. So 32.6 % of category 3 in monetary perks are ready to work for 55 hours a week. This is the trade-off for working more hours by expecting more monetary perks. Hence it would be suggested for employers to offer that particular monetary perks to get the highest working hours without affecting the satisfactory levels of the employees

Table 1: Monetary perks vs Growth prospects Growth Prospects Low Monetary perks Low 2 3 4 High Total 0.0 0.0 2.7 5.4 0.0 3.2 2 100.0 11.1 16.2 16.2 27.3 17.9 3 0.0 0.0 54.1 18.9 27.3 31.6 High 0.0 55.6 18.9 43.2 27.3 32.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total

Description: Figures in the table shows the percentage of people of that category of Monetary perks in the corresponding category of Growth prospects in the organisation. Hence it is evident that summation column at last has 100% in every row.

Inference: Similar to the above cross tabulation, here also we can see a trade-off between monetary perks and growth prospects. If someone is expecting a high monetary perks then they are less bothered about the growth prospects. People with low monetary perks are expecting high growth prospects. In the table 55.6% of the category 2 in monetary perks are expecting high growth in the organization. Gradually down the table, people are compromising with their growth for higher monetary benefits. Hence we can conclude that if some employer is offering low income to their employees, they should give enough provision for growth for their employees or else their satisfaction levels may get dented.

Correlation: