Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
101
CHAPTER - V
FACTORS INFLUENCING THE LABOUR WELFARE MEASURES
AND SOCIAL SECURITY
5.1 INTRODUCTION
There may be a number of factors that influence the Labour Welfare
Measures and Social Security. Those factors that influence the level of Labour
Welfare Measures and Social Security are the subject matter of this chapter.
Thirteen factors were found to be influencing the Labour Welfare Measures
and Social Security. They are:
1. Selection and Training process
2. Performance Appraisal
3. Carrier Planning
4. Feedback and Counseling
5. Rewards, Labour Welfare and Work Life
6. Organizational Development
7. Employees Participation
8. Labour Management Relation
9. Commitment and Involvement
10. Skill and Knowledge
11. Motivation
12. Absenteeism
13. Labour Welfare Legislations
102
In order to measure the level of Labour Welfare Measures and Social
Security, 80 components were identified and they were given in the questionnaire.
The respondents were asked to give their opinion about how each of these
components influenced their Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security with
regard to their organization.. The components identified for this purpose are given
in Appendix II.
Accordingly, the buyer Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security has
been measured by applying a scoring scheme with a five point scale. Table 5.1 has
the scores given to each level of influence.
Table 5.1
Scores Given to Each Level of Influence
S. No Level of Influence Scores
1. Highly influenced 5
2. Fairly influenced 4
3. Influenced 3
4. Not much influenced 2
5. Not at all influenced 1
After allotting scores for each component, the total scores taken by each
respondent were computed for further processing.
103
5.2 INFLUENCING LEVEL
Based on the individual scores the respondents were classified into three
categories namely high, medium and low according to their organizations Labour
Welfare Measures and Social Security. Arithmetic Mean (x) and Standard
deviation scores for all the 600 respondents were computed. Those who have
secured scores above (x + σ ) classified as high level and those with scores below
(x - σ ) were classified as low level and those with scores in between (x + σ ) and
(x - σ) were classified as medium level of organizations Labour Welfare Measures
and Social Security. Accordingly, the respondents who scored 468 scores and
above were placed under high level of buying behaviour and those with 318 and
below were classified under the low level of buying behaviour. Those with scores
between 468 and 318 were classified under the medium level of buying behaviour.
The table 5.2 reveals the classification of respondents on the basis of level of
organizations Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security.
Table 5.2
Classification on the Basis of Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security
S.No Category Number of Respondents Percentage
1. High 78 13
2. Medium 432 72
3. Low 90 15
Total 600 600
Source: Primary data
104
It is inferred from table 5.2 that out of 600 respondents, 78 respondents (13
percent) had high level of Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security, 432 of
them (72 percent) had medium-level of Labour Welfare Measures and Social
Security and 90 of them (15 percent) had low level of Labour Welfare Measures
and Social Security.
The significant relationship between dependent variables viz., level of
Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security and independent variables like
selection and training process, Performance appraisal, Carrier planning, Feedback
and councelling, Rewards, Labour welfare and work life, Organizational
development, Employees participation, Labour management relation,
Commitment and involvement, Skill and knowledge, Motivation, Absenteeism
and Labour welfare legislations of the respondents have been studied by means
of Chi-square test. The following formula has been used.
(O – E) 2
Chi-square test = ------------
E
Where
O = Observed frequency
E = Expected frequency
DF = Degree of freedom ( r-1) (c-1)
r = Row
C = column
105
If the calculated value is greater than table value at 0.05 level, it is
concluded that there is a significant relationship between the level of Labour
Welfare Measures and Social Security and that of independent variables. If
calculated value is lesser than the table value, it is concluded that the independent
variables have no significant relationship in the level of Labour Welfare Measures
and Social Security of respondents.
5.3 FACTORS INFLUENCING
An attempt has been made to study the factors influencing the level of
Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security.
5.3.1 Gender of the Respondents
The sex of the readers has been identified as one of the most important
factors that influence the level of Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security.
The table 5.3 exhibits the Gender-wise classification of the respondents.
Table 5.3
Gender-Wise Classification of the Respondents
S.No Gender Number of Respondents Percentage
1. Male 388 64.66
2. Female 212 35.34
Total 600 100
Source: Primary data
The table 5.3 reveals that out of 600 respondents, 388 respondents (64.66
percent) are male and 212 respondents (35.34 percent) are female.
106
In order to find out whether there is any relationship between gender and
level of Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security, a two way table has been
prepared. The table 5.4 shows the gender-wise classification of readers and the
level of Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security.
Table 5.4
Gender-Wise Classification of Respondents and The Level of Selection
Process
S.No Sex Level of Selection Process
High Medium Low Total
1. Male 39 264 85 388
2 Female 38 161 13 212
Total 77 425 98 600
Source: Primary Data
Ho: Gender of the respondents does not influences the level of selection
process.
H1: Gender of the respondents influenced the level of selection process.
Degree of Freedom : 2
Calculated value : 12.746
Table value at 0.05 level : 5.991
Since the calculated value of Chi-square test is more than the table value at
5 percent level of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be
concluded that gender of the respondents influence the level of selection process.
107
Table 5.5
Gender-Wise Classification of Respondents and
The Level of Training Process
S.No Sex Level of Training Process
High Medium Low Total
1. Male 35 268 85 388
2 Female 30 169 13 212
Total 77 425 98 600
Source: Primary Data
Ho: Gender of the respondents does not influences the level of training
process.
H1: Gender of the respondents influenced the level of training process.
Degree of Freedom : 2
Calculated value : 11.476
Table value at 0.05 level : 5.991
Since the calculated value of Chi-square test is more than the table value at
5 percent level of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be
concluded that gender of the respondents influence the level of training process.
108
Table 5.6
Gender-Wise Classification of Respondents and
The Level of Performance Appraisal
S.No Sex Level of Performance Appraisal
High Medium Low Total
1. Male 39 264 85 388
2 Female 38 161 13 212
Total 77 425 98 600
Source: Primary Data
Ho: Gender of the respondents does not influence the level of performance
appraisal.
H1: Gender of the respondents influenced the level of performance
appraisal.
Degree of Freedom : 2
Calculated value : 11.460
Table value at 0.05 level : 5.991
Since the calculated value of Chi-square test is more than the table value at
5 percent level of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be
concluded that gender of the respondents influence the level of performance
appraisal.
109
Table 5.7
Gender-Wise Classification of Respondents and
The Level of Career Planning
S.No Sex Level of Career Planning
High Medium Low Total
1. Male 39 264 85 388
2 Female 38 161 13 212
Total 77 425 98 600
Source: Primary Data
Ho: Gender of the respondents does not influence the level of career
planning.
H1: Gender of the respondents influenced the level of career planning.
Degree of Freedom : 2
Calculated value : 10.60
Table value at 0.05 level : 5.991
Since the calculated value of Chi-square test is more than the table value at
5 percent level of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be
concluded that gender of the respondents influence the level of career planning.
110
Table 5.8
Gender-Wise Classification of Respondents and
The Level of Feedback and Counseling
S.No Sex Level of Feedback and Counseling
High Medium Low Total
1. Male 39 264 85 388
2 Female 38 161 13 212
Total 77 425 98 600
Source: Primary Data
Ho: Gender of the respondents does not influence the level of feedback and
counseling.
H1: Gender of the respondents influenced the level of feedback and
counseling.
Degree of Freedom : 2
Calculated value : 11.489
Table value at 0.05 level : 5.991
Since the calculated value of Chi-square test is more than the table value at
5 percent level of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be
concluded that gender of the respondents influence the level of feedback and
counseling.
111
Table 5.9
Gender-Wise Classification of Respondents and
The Level of Rewards, Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security and
Quality of Work Life
S.No Sex Level of Rewards, Labour Welfare Measures and Social
Security and Quality of Work Life
High Medium Low Total
1. Male 39 264 85 388
2 Female 38 161 13 212
Total 77 425 98 600
Source: Primary Data
Ho: Gender of the respondents does not influences the level of Rewards,
Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security and quality of work life.
H1: Gender of the respondents influenced the level of rewards, Labour
Welfare Measures and Social Security and quality of work life.
Degree of Freedom : 2
Calculated value : 11.272
Table value at 0.05 level : 5.991
Since the calculated value of Chi-square test is more than the table value at
5 percent level of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be
concluded that gender of the respondents influence the level of rewards, Labour
Welfare Measures and Social Security and quality of work life.
112
Table 5.10
Gender-Wise Classification of Respondents and
The Level of Organizational Development
S.No Sex Level of Organizational Development
High Medium Low Total
1. Male 39 264 85 388
2 Female 38 161 13 212
Total 77 425 98 600
Source: Primary Data
Ho: Gender of the respondents does not influence the level of
Organizational development.
H1: Gender of the respondents influenced the level of organizational
development.
Degree of Freedom : 2
Calculated value : 11.006
Table value at 0.05 level : 5.991
Since the calculated value of Chi-square test is more than the table value at
5 percent level of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be
concluded that gender of the respondents influence the level of organizational
development.
113
Table 5.11
Gender-Wise Classification of Respondents and
The Level of Employee Participation
S.No Sex Level of Employee participation
High Medium Low Total
1. Male 39 264 85 388
2 Female 38 161 13 212
Total 77 425 98 600
Source: Primary Data
Ho: Gender of the respondents does not influence the level of employee
participation.
H1: Gender of the respondents influenced the level of employee
participation.
Degree of Freedom : 2
Calculated value : 11.000
Table value at 0.05 level : 5.991
Since the calculated value of Chi-square test is more than the table value at
5 percent level of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be
concluded that gender of the respondents influence the level of employee
participation.
114
Table 5.12
Gender-Wise Classification of Respondents and
The Level of Labour Management Relations
S.No Sex Level of Labour Management Relations
High Medium Low Total
1. Male 39 264 85 388
2 Female 38 161 13 212
Total 77 425 98 600
Source: Primary Data
Ho: Gender of the respondents does not influence the level of employee
participation.
H1: Gender of the respondents influenced the level of employee
participation.
Degree of Freedom : 2
Calculated value : 11.000
Table value at 0.05 level : 5.991
Since the calculated value of Chi-square test is more than the table value at
5 percent level of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be
concluded that gender of the respondents influence the level of Labour
Management Relations.
115
Table 5.13
Gender-Wise Classification of Respondents and
The Level of Commitment and Involvement
S.No Sex Level of Commitment and Involvement
High Medium Low Total
1. Male 39 264 85 388
2 Female 38 161 13 212
Total 77 425 98 600
Source: Primary Data
Ho: Gender of the respondents does not influence the level of commitment
and involvement.
H1: Gender of the respondents influenced the level of commitment and
involvement.
Degree of Freedom : 2
Calculated value : 11.000
Table value at 0.05 level : 5.991
Since the calculated value of Chi-square test is more than the table value at
5 percent level of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be
concluded that gender of the respondents influence the level of commitment and
involvement.
116
Table 5.14
Gender-Wise Classification of Respondents and
The Level of Skill and Knowledge
S.No Sex Level of Skill and Knowledge
High Medium Low Total
1. Male 39 264 85 388
2 Female 38 161 13 212
Total 77 425 98 600
Source: Primary Data
Ho: Gender of the respondents does not influence the level of skill and
knowledge.
H1: Gender of the respondents influenced the level of skill and knowledge.
Degree of Freedom : 2
Calculated value : 11.000
Table value at 0.05 level : 5.991
Since the calculated value of Chi-square test is more than the table value at
5 percent level of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be
concluded that gender of the respondents influence the level of skill and
knowledge.
117
Table 5.15
Gender-Wise Classification of Respondents and
The Level of Employee Motivation
S.No Sex Level of Motivation
High Medium Low Total
1. Male 39 264 85 388
2 Female 38 161 13 212
Total 77 425 98 600
Source: Primary Data
Ho: Gender of the respondents does not influence the level of motivation.
H1: Gender of the respondents influenced the level of motivation.
Degree of Freedom : 2
Calculated value : 11.001
Table value at 0.05 level : 5.991
Since the calculated value of Chi-square test is more than the table value at
5 percent level of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be
concluded that gender of the respondents influence the level of motivation.
118
Table 5.16
Gender-Wise Classification of Respondents and
The Level of Absenteeism
S.No Sex Level of Absenteeism
High Medium Low Total
1. Male 39 264 85 388
2 Female 38 161 13 212
Total 77 425 98 600
Source: Primary Data
Ho: Gender of the respondents does not influence the level of absenteeism.
H1: Gender of the respondents influenced the level of absenteeism.
Degree of Freedom : 2
Calculated value : 11.000
Table value at 0.05 level : 5.991
Since the calculated value of Chi-square test is more than the table value at
5 percent level of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be
concluded that gender of the respondents influence the level of absenteeism.
119
Table 5.17
Gender-Wise Classification of Respondents and
The Level of Labour Welfare Legislation
S.No Sex Level of Labour Welfare Legislation
High Medium Low Total
1. Male 39 264 85 388
2 Female 38 161 13 212
Total 77 425 98 600
Source: Primary Data
Ho: Gender of the respondents does not influence the level of labour welfare
legislation.
H1: Gender of the respondents influenced the level of labour welfare
legislation.
Degree of Freedom : 2
Calculated value : 11.000
Table value at 0.05 level : 5.991
Since the calculated value of Chi-square test is more than the table value at
5 percent level of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be
concluded that gender of the respondents influence the level of labour welfare
legislation.
120
5.3.2 Age of the Respondents
Age is also identified as one of the variables that have significant
relationship with the level of selection process of the respondents. Generally,
young people will have higher level of selection process than the old people. Thus,
the age of respondents has a close relationship with the level of selection process.
The table 5.5 reveals the age of the respondents of the study.
In the present study the age of the respondents is classified into four
categories as mentioned in table 5.18.
Table 5.18
Age –wise Classification of the Respondents
S.No Age group Number of respondents Percentage
1. Below 30 189 31.5
2. 30 – 35 126 21
3. 35 – 40 134 22.33
4. Above 40 151 25.17
Total 600 100
Source: Primary Data
The table 5.18 makes it clear that, 189 respondents, (31.5 percent) fall
under the category of up to 30 years, 126 respondents (21 percent) fall between
30-40 years, 134 respondents (22.33 percent) fall under 35-40 years and 151
(25.17 percent) respondents are above 61 years.
121
In order to find out whether there is any relationship between the age and
level of selection process, a two way table has been prepared. For the purpose of
applying Chi-square test, the age of the respondents is classified into three
categories viz. upto 30, 30-40, and above 40. The table 5.19 reveals the age-wise
classification of respondents and the level of selection process.
Table 5.19
Age –wise Classification of the Respondents and
The Level of Selection Process
Source: Primary data
Ho: Age of the respondents does not influence the level of selection process
H1: Age of the respondents influences the level of selection process
Degree of freedom : 3
Calculated value : 0.186
Table value at 0.05 level : 1.610
S.No Age Group Level of Selection Process
High Medium Low Total
1. Upto 30 30 255 68 189
2. 30 -40 25 105 17 260
3. Above 40 22 65 13 151
Total 77 425 98 600
122
Since the calculated value of Chi-square (0.186) is greater than the table
value at 5 percent level of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be
concluded that the age of the respondents influence the level of selection process
of the respondents.
Table 5.20
Age –wise Classification of the Respondents and
The Level of Training Process
S.No Sex Level of Training Process
High Medium Low Total
1. Upto 30 30 255 68 189
2 30 – 40 25 105 17 260
3. Above 40 22 65 13 151
Total 77 425 98 600
Source: Primary data
Ho: Age of the respondents does not influence the level of training process
H1: Age of the respondents influences the level of training process
Degree of freedom : 3
Calculated value : 1.629
Table value at 0.05 level : 1.610
Since the calculated value of Chi-square is greater than the table value at 5
percent level of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be concluded
123
that the age of the respondents influence the level of training process of the
respondents.
Table 5.21
Age –wise Classification of the Respondents and
The Level of Performance Appraisal (ANOVA)
Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F p- value
Between
Groups
4.401 3 1.467 0.366 0.777
Within
Groups
2385.839 596 4.003
Total 2390.240 599
Source: Primary data
Ho: Age of the respondents does not influence the level of performance
appraisal.
H1: Age of the respondents influences the level of performance appraisal.
Since the calculated value is greater than the table value at 5 percent level
of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be concluded that the age
of the respondents influence the level of performance appraisal of the respondents.
124
Table 5.22
Age –wise Classification of the Respondents and
The Level of Career Planning (ANOVA)
Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F p- value
Between
Groups
178.504 3 59.501 22.404 0.000
Within
Groups
1582.894 596 2.656
Total 1761.398 599
Source: Primary data
Ho: Age of the respondents does not influence the level of career planning.
H1: Age of the respondents influences the level of career planning.
Since the calculated value is greater than the table value at 5 percent level
of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be concluded that the age
of the respondents influence the level of career planning of the respondents.
125
Table 5.23
Age –wise Classification of the Respondents and
The Level of Feedback and Counseling (ANOVA)
Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F p- value
Between
Groups
35.100 3 11.700 3.724 0.011
Within
Groups
1872.685 596 3.142
Total 1907.785 599
Source: Primary data
Ho: Age of the respondents does not influence the level of feedback and
counseling.
H1: Age of the respondents influences the level of feedback and counseling.
Since the calculated value is greater than the table value at 5 percent level
of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be concluded that the age
of the respondents influence the level of training process of the respondents.
126
Table 5.24
Age –wise Classification of the Respondents and
The Level of Rewards, Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security and
Quality of Work Life (ANOVA)
Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F p- value
Between
Groups
127.173 3 42.391 6.549 .000
Within
Groups
3857.745 596 6.473
Total 3984.918 596
Source: Primary data
Ho: Age of the respondents does not influence the level of rewards, Labour
Welfare Measures and Social Security and quality of work life.
H1: Age of the respondents influences the level of rewards, Labour Welfare
Measures and Social Security and quality of work life.
Since the calculated value is greater than the table value at 5 percent level
of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be concluded that the age
of the respondents influence the level of rewards, Labour Welfare Measures and
Social Security and quality of work life of the respondents.
127
Table 5.25
Age –wise Classification of the Respondents and
The Level of Organisational Development (ANOVA)
Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F p- value
Between
Groups
22.063 3 37.354 2.458 0.062
Within
Groups
1783.122 596 2.992
Total 1805.185 596
Source: Primary data
Ho: Age of the respondents does not influence the level of organizational
development.
H1: Age of the respondents influences the level of organizational
development.
Since the calculated value is greater than the table value at 5 percent level
of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be concluded that the age
of the respondents influence the level of organizational development.
128
Table 5.26
Age –wise Classification of the Respondents and
The Level of Employee Participation (ANOVA)
Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F p- value
Between
Groups
65.763 3 21.921 7.351 0.000
Within
Groups
1777.277 596 2.982
Total 1843.040 596
Source: Primary data
Ho: Age of the respondents does not influence the level of employee
participation.
H1: Age of the respondents influences the level of employee participation.
Since the calculated value is greater than the table value at 5 percent level
of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be concluded that the age
of the respondents influence the level of employee participation.
129
Table 5.27
Age –wise Classification of the Respondents and
The Level of Labour Management Relations (ANOVA)
Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F p- value
Between
Groups
32.249 3 10.750 3.302 0.020
Within
Groups
1940.336 596 3.256
Total 172.585 596
Source: Primary data
Ho: Age of the respondents does not influence the level of labour
management relations.
H1: Age of the respondents influences the level of labour management
relations.
Since the calculated value is greater than the table value at 5 percent level
of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be concluded that the age
of the respondents influence the level of labour management relations.
130
Table 5.28
Age –wise Classification of the Respondents and
The Level of Commitment and Involvement (ANOVA)
Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F p- value
Between
Groups
65.763 3 21.921 7.351 0.000
Within
Groups
1777.277 596 2.982
Total 1843.040 596
Source: Primary data
Ho: Age of the respondents does not influence the level of commitment and
involvement.
H1: Age of the respondents influences the level of commitment and
involvement.
Since the calculated value is greater than the table value at 5 percent level
of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be concluded that the age
of the respondents influence the level of commitment and involvement.
131
Table 5.29
Age –wise Classification of the Respondents and
The Level of Skill and Knowledge (ANOVA)
Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F p- value
Between
Groups
87.128 3 29.043 9.980 0.000
Within
Groups
1734.457 596 2.910
Total 1821.585 596
Source: Primary data
Ho: Age of the respondents does not influence the level of skill and
knowledge.
H1: Age of the respondents influences the level of skill and knowledge.
Since the calculated value is greater than the table value at 5 percent level
of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be concluded that the age
of the respondents influence the level of employee participation.
132
Table 5.30
Age –wise Classification of the Respondents and
The Level of Motivation (ANOVA)
Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F p- value
Between
Groups
26.968 3 8.989 3.636 0.013
Within
Groups
1473.406 596 2.472
Total 1500.373 596
Source: Primary data
Ho: Age of the respondents does not influence the level of Motivation.
H1: Age of the respondents influences the level of Motivation.
Since the calculated value is greater than the table value at 5 percent level
of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be concluded that the age
of the respondents influence the level of motivation.
133
Table 5.31
Age –wise Classification of the Respondents and
The Level of Absenteeism (ANOVA)
Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F p- value
Between
Groups
72.439 3 24.146 17.932 0.000
Within
Groups
802.546 596 1.347
Total 874.985 596
Source: Primary data
Ho: Age of the respondents does not influence the level of absenteeism.
H1: Age of the respondents influences the level of absenteeism.
Since the calculated value is greater than the table value at 5 percent level
of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be concluded that the age
of the respondents influence the level of absenteeism.
134
Table 5.32
Age –wise Classification of the Respondents and
The Level of Labour Welfare Legislation (ANOVA)
Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F p- value
Between
Groups
637.242 3 212.414 8.403 0.000
Within
Groups
15066.556 596 25.279
Total 15703.798 596
Source: Primary data
Ho: Age of the respondents does not influence the level of labour welfare
legislation.
H1: Age of the respondents influences the level of labour welfare
legislation.
Since the calculated value is greater than the table value at 5 percent level
of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be concluded that the age
of the respondents influence the level of labour welfare legislation.
5.3.4 Educational Status of the Respondents
Education is an important factor which influences the level of understands
the organizations Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security of respondents.
The table 5.33 exhibits the educational qualification of respondents.
135
Table 5.33
Educational Qualification of the respondents
S. NO Education Number of Respondents Percentage
1. UG 107 17.83
2. Post Graduate 307 51.16
3. Others 186 31.01
Total 600 100
Source: Primary Data
It is inferred from 5.33 that, 107 respondents (17.83 percent) have studied
only upto under graduation, 307 respondents (51.16 percent) are post graduates
and 186 respondents (31.01 percent) are others.
In order to test the relationship between educational qualification and the
level of understands the organizations Labour Welfare Measures and Social
Security, a two way table has been framed. For the purpose of applying ANOVA
test, the educational status of the respondents has been classified into four
categories viz. UG & Diploma level, graduation and post professional. The table
5.33 reveals the educational qualification and the level of selection process.
136
Table 5.34
Education Qualification of the Respondents and
The Level of Selection Process (ANOVA)
Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F p- value
Between
Groups
27.816 2 13.908 6.740 0.001
Within
Groups
1231.982 597 2.064
Total 1259.798 599
Source: Primary data
Ho: Education qualification of the respondents does not influence the level
of selection process.
H1: Education qualification of the respondents influences the level of
selection process.
Since the calculated value is greater than the table value at 5 percent level
of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be concluded that the
education qualification of the respondents influence the level of selection process.
137
Table 5.35
Education Qualification of the Respondents and
The Level of Training Process (ANOVA)
Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F p- value
Between
Groups
56.395 2 28.198 3.697 0.025
Within
Groups
4554.003 597 7.628
Total 4610.398 599
Source: Primary data
Ho: Education qualification of the respondents does not influence the level
of training process.
H1: Education qualification of the respondents influences the level of
training process.
Since the calculated value is greater than the table value at 5 percent level
of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be concluded that the
education qualification of the respondents influence the level of training process.
138
Table 5.36
Education Qualification of the Respondents and
The Level of Performance Appraisal (ANOVA)
Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F p- value
Between
Groups
43.854 2 21.927 5.579 0.004
Within
Groups
2346.386 597 3.930
Total 2390.240 599
Source: Primary data
Ho: Education qualification of the respondents does not influence the level
of performance appraisal.
H1: Education qualification of the respondents influences the level of
performance appraisal.
Since the calculated value is greater than the table value at 5 percent level
of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be concluded that the
education qualification of the respondents influence the level of performance
appraisal.
139
Table 5.37
Education Qualification of the Respondents and
The Level of Career Planning (ANOVA)
Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F p- value
Between
Groups
15.787 2 7.893 2.700 0.068
Within
Groups
1745.611 597 2.924
Total 1761.398 599
Source: Primary data
Ho: Education qualification of the respondents does not influence the level
of career planning.
H1: Education qualification of the respondents influences the level of career
planning.
Since the calculated value is greater than the table value at 5 percent level
of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be concluded that the
education qualification of the respondents influence the level of career planning.
140
Table 5.38
Education Qualification of the Respondents and
The Level of Feedback and Counseling (ANOVA)
Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F p- value
Between
Groups
0.115 2 0.057 0.018 0.982
Within
Groups
1907.670 597 3.195
Total 1907.785 599
Source: Primary data
Ho: Education qualification of the respondents does not influence the level
of feedback and counseling.
H1: Education qualification of the respondents influences the level of
feedback and counseling.
Since the calculated value is greater than the table value at 5 percent level
of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be concluded that the
education qualification of the respondents influence the level of feedback an
counseling.
141
Table 5.39
Education Qualification of the Respondents and
The Level of Rewards, Labour Welfare Measures and Quality of Work Life
(ANOVA)
Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F p- value
Between
Groups
209.312 2 104.656 16.548 0.000
Within
Groups
3775.606 597 6.324
Total 3984.918 599
Ho: Education qualification of the respondents does not influence the level
of rewards, Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security and quality of work life.
H1: Education qualification of the respondents influences the level of
rewards, Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security and quality of work life.
Since the calculated value is greater than the table value at 5 percent level
of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be concluded that the
education qualification of the respondents influence the level of rewards, Labour
Welfare Measures and Social Security and quality of work life.
142
Table 5.40
Education Qualification of the Respondents and
The Level of Organizational Development (ANOVA)
Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F p- value
Between
Groups
24.727 2 12.363 4.146 0.016
Within
Groups
1780.458 597 2.982
Total 1805.185 599
Ho: Education qualification of the respondents does not influence the level
of organizational development.
H1: Education qualification of the respondents influences the level of
organizational development.
Since the calculated value is greater than the table value at 5 percent level
of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be concluded that the
education qualification of the respondents influence the level of organizational
development.
143
Table 5.41
Education Qualification of the Respondents and
The Level of Employee Participation (ANOVA)
Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F p- value
Between
Groups
16.263 2 8.132 2.657 0.071
Within
Groups
1826.777 597 3.060
Total 1843.040 599
Ho: Education qualification of the respondents does not influence the level
of employee participation.
H1: Education qualification of the respondents influences the level of
employee participation.
Since the calculated value is greater than the table value at 5 percent level
of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be concluded that the
education qualification of the respondents influence the level of employee
participation.
144
Table 5.42
Education Qualification of the Respondents and
The Level of Labour Management Relations (ANOVA)
Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F p- value
Between
Groups
41.992 2 20.996 6.493 0.002
Within
Groups
1930.593 597 3.234
Total 1972.585 599
Ho: Education qualification of the respondents does not influence the level
of labour management relations.
H1: Education qualification of the respondents influences the level of labour
management relations.
Since the calculated value is greater than the table value at 5 percent level
of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be concluded that the
education qualification of the respondents influence the level of labour
management relations.
145
Table 5.43
Education Qualification of the Respondents and
The Level of Commitment and Involvement (ANOVA)
Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F p- value
Between
Groups
17.285 2 8.643 4.640 0.010
Within
Groups
1112.075 597 1.863
Total 1129.360 599
Ho: Education qualification of the respondents does not influence the level
of commitment and involvement.
H1: Education qualification of the respondents influences the level of
commitment and involvement.
Since the calculated value is greater than the table value at 5 percent level
of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be concluded that the
education qualification of the respondents influence the level of commitment and
involvement.
146
Table 5.44
Education Qualification of the Respondents and
The Level of Skill and Knowledge (ANOVA)
Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F p- value
Between
Groups
62.968 2 31.484 10.688 0.000
Within
Groups
1758.617 597 2.946
Total 1821.585 599
Ho: Education qualification of the respondents does not influence the level
of skill and knowledge.
H1: Education qualification of the respondents influences the level of skill
and knowledge.
Since the calculated value is greater than the table value at 5 percent level
of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be concluded that the
education qualification of the respondents influence the level of skill and
knowledge.
147
Table 5.45
Education Qualification of the Respondents and
The Level of Motivations (ANOVA)
Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F p- value
Between
Groups
16.211 2 8.105 3.260 0.702
Within
Groups
1484.163 597 2.486
Total 1500.373 599
Ho: Education qualification of the respondents does not influence the level
of motivations.
H1: Education qualification of the respondents influences the level of
motivations.
Since the calculated value is greater than the table value at 5 percent level
of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be concluded that the
education qualification of the respondents influence the level of motivations.
148
Table 5.46
Education Qualification of the Respondents and
The Level of Absenteeism (ANOVA)
Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F p- value
Between
Groups
6.261 2 3.131 2.151 0.117
Within
Groups
868.724 597 1.455
Total 874.985 599
Ho: Education qualification of the respondents does not influence the level
of absenteeism.
H1: Education qualification of the respondents influences the level of
absenteeism.
Since the calculated value is greater than the table value at 5 percent level
of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be concluded that the
education qualification of the respondents influence the level of absenteeism.
149
Table 5.47
Education Qualification of the Respondents and
The Level of Labour Welfare Legislation (ANOVA)
Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F p- value
Between
Groups
549.690 2 274.845 10.828 0.000
Within
Groups
15154.108 597 25.384
Total 15703.798 599
Ho: Education qualification of the respondents does not influence the level
labour welfare legislations.
H1: Education qualification of the respondents influences the level of labour
welfare legislations.
Since the calculated value is greater than the table value at 5 percent level
of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be concluded that the
education qualification of the respondents influence the level of labour welfare
legislations.
150
5.3.7 Income of the Respondents
Income is one of the important factors that influence the level of Labour
Welfare Measures and Social Security. The table 5.48 exhibits the monthly
income of the respondents.
Table 5.48
Monthly Income of the Respondents
S.No Monthly Income Number of Respondents Percentage
1. Below Rs.30000 253 42.16
2. Rs.30000 to Rs.50000 178 29.67
3. Above Rs.50000 169 28.17
Total 600 600
Source: Primary data
It is inferred from the table 5.47 that, 42.16 percent of the respondents are
having less than Rs.30000 as their monthly income, 29.67percent of them are
having their monthly income between Rs.30001 to Rs.50000 and only 28.17
percent are earning more than Rs.50001 a month.
In order to test the relationship between monthly income and the level of
Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security, ANOVA test has been used.. A
two way table prepared for this purpose is given in table 5.49.
151
Table 5.49
Income of the Respondents and Career Planning (ANOVA)
Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F p- value
Between
Groups
76.093 2 38.046 13.477 0.000
Within
Groups
1685.306 597 2.823
Total 1761.398 599
Ho: Income of the respondents does not influence the level of career
planning.
H1: Income of the respondents influences the level of career planning.
Since the calculated value is greater than the table value at 5 percent level
of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be concluded that the
income of the respondents influence the level of career planning.
152
Table 5.50
Income of the Respondents and Organizational Development (ANOVA)
Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F p- value
Between
Groups
9.133 2 4.566 1.518 0.220
Within
Groups
1796.052 597 3.008
Total 1805.185 599
Ho: Income of the respondents does not influence the level of organizational
development.
H1: Income of the respondents influences the level of organizational
development.
Since the calculated value is greater than the table value at 5 percent level
of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be concluded that the
income of the respondents influence the level of organizational development.
153
Table 5.51
Income of the Respondents and Employee Participation (ANOVA)
Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F p- value
Between
Groups
56.235 2 28.117 9.394 0.000
Within
Groups
1786.805 597 2.993
Total 1843.040 599
Ho: Income of the respondents does not influence the level of employee
participation.
H1: Income of the respondents influences the level of employee
participation.
Since the calculated value is greater than the table value at 5 percent level
of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be concluded that the
income of the respondents influence the level of employee participation.
154
Table 5.52
Income of the Respondents and Skill and Knowledge (ANOVA)
Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F p- value
Between
Groups
21.510 2 10.755 7.523 0.001
Within
Groups
853.475 597 1.430
Total 874.985 599
Ho: Income of the respondents does not influence the level of skill and
knowledge.
H1: Income of the respondents influences the level of skill and knowledge.
Since the calculated value is greater than the table value at 5 percent level
of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be concluded that the
income of the respondents influence the level of skill and knowledge.
5.3.3 Marital Status of the Respondents:
Marital status of the respondents has been identified as one of the factors
influencing the level of Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security. The table
5.53 shows the classification of respondents according to the marital status.
155
Table 5.53
Marital Status of the Respondents
S.NO Marital Status Number of Respondents Percentage
1. Married 432 72
2. Single 168 28
Total 600 600
Source: Primary Data
The table 5.53 exhibits that, 432respondents (72 percent) are married and
168 (28 percent) respondents are single in the sample respondents.
In order to find out the relationship between the marital status and the level
Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security, a two way table has been prepared.
The table 5.54 reveals the marital status of the respondents and the level of
selection process.
Table 5.54
Marital status of the Respondents and the Level of Selection Process
S.No Status Level of Training Process
High Medium Low Total
1. Married 39 308 85 432
2 Single 38 117 13 168
Total 77 425 98 600
Source: Primary data
156
Ho: Marital status of the respondents does not influence the level of
selection process.
H1: Marital status of the respondents influences the level of selection
process.
Degree of freedom : 2
Calculated value : 1.236
Table value at 0.05 level : 1.610
Since the calculated value of Chi-square is greater than the table value at 5
percent level of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be concluded
that the marital status of the respondents influence the level of selection process of
the respondents.
Table 5.55
Marital status of the Respondents and the Level of Training Process
S.No Status Level of Training Process
High Medium Low Total
1. Married 39 308 85 432
2 Single 38 117 13 168
Total 77 425 98 600
Source: Primary data
Ho: Marital status of the respondents does not influence the level of training
process.
H1: Marital status of the respondents influences the level of training
process.
157
Degree of freedom : 2
Calculated value : 1.445
Table value at 0.05 level : 1.610
Since the calculated value of Chi-square is greater than the table value at 5
percent level of significance, the hypothesis Ho is rejected and it can be concluded
that the marital status of the respondents influence the level of training process of
the respondents.
Table 5.56
Marital status of the Respondents and the Level of Performance Appraisal
S.No Status Level of Performance Appraisal
High Medium Low Total
1. Married 39 308 85 432
2 Single 38 117 13 168
Total 77 425 98 600
Source: Primary data
Ho: Marital status of the respondents does not influence the level of
performance appraisal.
H1: Marital status of the respondents influences the level of performance
appraisal.
Degree of freedom : 2
Calculated value : 1.000
Table value at 0.05 level : 1.610
158
Since the calculated value of Chi-square is less than the table value at 5
percent level of significance, the hypothesis Ho is accepted and it can be concluded
that the marital status of the respondents influence the level of performance
appraisal of the respondents.
Table 5.57
Marital status of the Respondents and the 0Level of Career Planning
S.No Status Level of Career Planning
High Medium Low Total
1. Married 39 308 85 432
2 Single 38 117 13 168
Total 77 425 98 600
Source: Primary data
Ho: Marital status of the respondents does not influence the level of career
planning.
H1: Marital status of the respondents influences the level of career planning.
Degree of freedom : 2
Calculated value : 1.002
Table value at 0.05 level : 1.610
Since the calculated value of Chi-square is less than the table value at 5
percent level of significance, the hypothesis Ho is accepted and it can be concluded
that the marital status of the respondents influence the level of career planning of
the respondents.
159
Table 5.58
Marital status of the Respondents and the Level of Feedback and Counseling
S.No Status Level of Feedback and Counseling
High Medium Low Total
1. Married 39 308 85 432
2 Single 38 117 13 168
Total 77 425 98 600
Source: Primary data
Ho: Marital status of the respondents does not influence the level of
feedback and counseling.
H1: Marital status of the respondents influences the level of feedback and
counseling.
Degree of freedom : 2
Calculated value : 1.000
Table value at 0.05 level : 1.610
Since the calculated value of Chi-square is less than the table value at 5
percent level of significance, the hypothesis Ho is accepted and it can be concluded
that the marital status of the respondents influence the level of feedback and
counseling of the respondents.
160
Table 5.59
Marital status of the Respondents and the Level of Rewards, Labour Welfare
Measures and Social Security and Quality of Work Life
S.No
Status
Level of Rewards, Labour Welfare Measures and Social
Security and Quality of Work Life
High Medium Low Total
1. Married 39 308 85 432
2 Single 38 117 13 168
Total 77 425 98 600
Source: Primary data
Ho: Marital status of the respondents does not influence the level of
rewards, Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security and quality of work life.
H1: Marital status of the respondents influences the level of rewards, Labour
Welfare Measures and Social Security and quality of work life.
Degree of freedom : 2
Calculated value : 1.000
Table value at 0.05 level : 1.610
Since the calculated value of Chi-square is less than the table value at 5
percent level of significance, the hypothesis Ho is accepted and it can be concluded
that the marital status of the respondents influence the level of rewards, Labour
Welfare Measures and Social Security and quality of work life of the respondents.
161
Table 5.60
Marital status of the Respondents and the Level of Organizational
Development
S.No Status Level of Organisational Development
High Medium Low Total
1. Married 39 308 85 432
2 Single 38 117 13 168
Total 77 425 98 600
Source: Primary data
Ho: Marital status of the respondents does not influence the level of
organizational development.
H1: Marital status of the respondents influences the level of organizational
development.
Degree of freedom : 2
Calculated value : 1.023
Table value at 0.05 level : 1.610
Since the calculated value of Chi-square is less than the table value at 5
percent level of significance, the hypothesis Ho is accepted and it can be concluded
that the marital status of the respondents influence the level of organizational
development.
162
Table 5.61
Marital status of the Respondents and the Level of Employee Participation
S.No Status Level of Employee Participation
High Medium Low Total
1. Married 39 308 85 432
2 Single 38 117 13 168
Total 77 425 98 600
Source: Primary data
Ho: Marital status of the respondents does not influence the level of
employee participation.
H1: Marital status of the respondents influences the level of employee
participation.
Degree of freedom : 2
Calculated value : 1.023
Table value at 0.05 level : 1.610
Since the calculated value of Chi-square is less than the table value at 5
percent level of significance, the hypothesis Ho is accepted and it can be concluded
that the marital status of the respondents influence the level of employee
participation of the respondents.
163
Table 5.62
Marital status of the Respondents and the Level of Labour Management
Relation
S.No Status Level of Labour Management Relation
High Medium Low Total
1. Married 39 308 85 432
2 Single 38 117 13 168
Total 77 425 98 600
Source: Primary data
Ho: Marital status of the respondents does not influence the level of labour
management relation.
H1: Marital status of the respondents influences the level of labour
management relation.
Degree of freedom : 2
Calculated value : 1.000
Table value at 0.05 level : 1.610
Since the calculated value of Chi-square is less than the table value at 5
percent level of significance, the hypothesis Ho is accepted and it can be concluded
that the marital status of the respondents influence the level of labour management
relation.
164
Table 5.63
Marital status of the Respondents and the Level of Commitment and
Involvement
S.No Status Level of Commitment and Involvement
High Medium Low Total
1. Married 39 308 85 432
2 Single 38 117 13 168
Total 77 425 98 600
Source: Primary data
Ho: Marital status of the respondents does not influence the level of
commitment and involvement.
H1: Marital status of the respondents influences the level of commitment
and involvement.
Degree of freedom : 2
Calculated value : 1.0001
Table value at 0.05 level : 1.610
Since the calculated value of Chi-square is less than the table value at 5
percent level of significance, the hypothesis Ho is accepted and it can be concluded
that the marital status of the respondents influence the level of commitment and
involvement.
165
Table 5.64
Marital status of the Respondents and the Level of Skill and Knowledge
S.No Status Level of Skill and Knowledge
High Medium Low Total
1. Married 39 308 85 432
2 Single 38 117 13 168
Total 77 425 98 600
Source: Primary data
Ho: Marital status of the respondents does not influence the level of skill
and knowledge.
H1: Marital status of the respondents influences the level of skill and
knowledge.
Degree of freedom : 2
Calculated value : 1.000
Table value at 0.05 level : 1.610
Since the calculated value of Chi-square is less than the table value at 5
percent level of significance, the hypothesis Ho is accepted and it can be concluded
that the marital status of the respondents influence the level of skill and knowledge
of the respondents.
166
Table 5.65
Marital status of the Respondents and the Level of Motivation
S.No Status Level of Motivation
High Medium Low Total
1. Married 39 308 85 432
2 Single 38 117 13 168
Total 77 425 98 600
Source: Primary data
Ho: Marital status of the respondents does not influence the level of
motivation.
H1: Marital status of the respondents influences the level of motivation.
Degree of freedom : 2
Calculated value : 1.131
Table value at 0.05 level : 1.612
Since the calculated value of Chi-square is less than the table value at 5
percent level of significance, the hypothesis Ho is accepted and it can be concluded
that the marital status of the respondents influence the level of motivation of the
respondents.
167
Table 5.66
Marital status of the Respondents and the Level of Absenteeism
S.No Status Level of Absenteeism
High Medium Low Total
1. Married 39 308 85 432
2 Single 38 117 13 168
Total 77 425 98 600
Source: Primary data
Ho: Marital status of the respondents does not influence the level of
absenteeism.
H1: Marital status of the respondents influences the level of absenteeism.
Degree of freedom : 2
Calculated value : 1.001
Table value at 0.05 level : 1.610
Since the calculated value of Chi-square is less than the table value at 5
percent level of significance, the hypothesis Ho is accepted and it can be concluded
that the marital status of the respondents influence the level of absenteeism of the
respondents.
168
Table 5.67
Marital status of the Respondents and the Level of Labour Welfare
Legislation
S.No Status Level of Labour Welfare Legislation
High Medium Low Total
1. Married 39 308 85 432
2 Single 38 117 13 168
Total 77 425 98 600
Source: Primary data
Ho: Marital status of the respondents does not influence the level of labour
welfare legislation.
H1: Marital status of the respondents influences the level of labour welfare
legislation.
Degree of freedom : 2
Calculated value : 1.000
Table value at 0.05 level : 1.610
Since the calculated value of Chi-square is less than the table value at 5
percent level of significance, the hypothesis Ho is accepted and it can be concluded
that the marital status of the respondents influence the level of Labour Welfare
Measures and Social Security.
169
5.4 ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT:
Organizational Development is the one of the most vital part of the
company’s growth. In this context so many constraints influences the
development of organization. A multiple Regression Analysis is conducted by
taking organizational development as dependent variable and Training,
Performance Appraisal, Career Planning, Feedback and Counseling, Rewards,
Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security and quality of work life, Employee
Participation, Labour management relations, Commitment and Involvement, Skill
and Knowledge, Motivation and Absenteeism were taken as independent
variables. The table 5.68 exhibits the relationship of Organizational Development
(dependent) and then variables (independent).
Table 5.68
Relationship between Dependent and Independent Variables
Variables R2 Beta F (5% level) p-value
Employee Participation 0.623 0.078 12.36 <0.001
Motivation 0.623 0.065 12.36 <0.001
Feedback &
Counseling
0.623 0.058 12.36 <0.001
Training 0.623 0.051 12.36 0.021
Commitment &
Involvement
0.623 0.049 12.36 0.012
Performance Appraisal 0.623 0.045 12.36 0.011
Career Planning 0.623 0.041 12.36 0.042
170
Independent variables are mostly helpful to development of organization.
Employee Participation, Motivation, Feedback & Counseling, Training,
Commitment & Involvement, Performance Appraisal and Career Planning are the
vital part of this situation. The above table 5.68 clearly explains the calculated
value is less the table value.
5.5 PRODUCTION:
Production of the vital part of the companies’ reputation, hence the so many
variables are related to the production such as Commitment & Involvement, Skill
and Knowledge, Feedback & Counseling, Organizational development and
Employee Participation. The production has been taken as dependent variables and
Commitment & Involvement, Skill and Knowledge, Feedback & Counseling,
Organizational development and Employee Participation are taken as independent
variables. The table 5.69 exhibits the relationship of Production (dependent) and
then variables (independent).
Table 5.69
Relationship between Dependent and Independent Variables
Variables R2 Beta F (5% level) p-value
Commitment & Involvement 0.629 0.089 11.16 <0.001
Skill and Knowledge 0.629 0.075 11.16 <0.001
Feedback & Counseling 0.629 0.063 11.16 0.031
Organizational Development 0.629 0.061 11.16 0.005
Employee Participation 0.629 0.058 11.16 0.002
171
Independent variables are mostly helpful to organization’s production.
Commitment & Involvement, Skill and Knowledge, Feedback & Counseling,
Organizational development and Employee Participation are the vital part of this
situation. The above table 5.69 clearly explains the calculated value is less the
table value. Hence the independent variables will serve as significant role to arise
up the production.
5.6 TURNOVER:
Turnover of the vital part of the companies’ reputation, hence the so many
variables are related to the production such as Commitment & Involvement, Skill
and Knowledge, Feedback & Counseling, Organizational development, Rewards,
labour welfare and quality of working life and Employee Participation. The
turnover has been taken as dependent variables and Commitment & Involvement,
Skill and Knowledge, Feedback & Counseling, Organizational development and
Employee Participation are taken as independent variables. The table 5.70 exhibits
the relationship of Production (dependent) and then variables (independent).
172
Table 5.70
Relationship between Dependent and Independent Variables
Variables R2 Beta F (5% level) p-value
Commitment & Involvement 0.652 0.083 11.02 <0.001
Skill and Knowledge 0.652 0.078 11.02 <0.001
Feedback & Counseling 0.652 0.071 11.02 0.001
Organizational Development 0.652 0.064 11.02 0.032
Rewards, labour welfare and
quality of working life
0.652 0.052
11.02 0.003
Training 0.652 0.041 11.02 0.012
Independent variables are mostly helpful to organization’s turnover.
Commitment & Involvement, Skill and Knowledge, Feedback & Counseling,
Organizational development and Rewards, labour welfare and quality of working
life are the vital part of this situation. The above table 5.70 clearly explains the
calculated value is less the table value. Hence the independent variables will serve
as significant role to arise up the turnover.
173
5.7 SUMMARY
In this chapter the Labour Welfare Measures and Social Security in the IT
Industries labour has been measured in Chennai based Units.
Ten personal factors and their relationship with welfare measures have been
studied.
It has been inferred that the thirteen personal factors are influenced towards
with the employees’ welfare measures.