Printer Friendly

Communication competence of the professionals from India & Turkey.

This paper studies the communication competence of the working professionals from India and Turkey. Both these countries have fast growing young populations and rapidly developing economies. There are significant differences between Indian and Turkish respondents, however. Indians perceive that they are easy to talk to, would not argue just to prove they are right, ignore others' feelings, do not make unusual demands on their friends and think that they are effective conversationalists, likable people and flexible. Turkish respondents treat people as individuals, are good listeners; their personal relationships are cold and distant, they try to understand other people and listen to what people say to them.

Introduction

The communication competence is a multidimensional concept which has over the years constantly been changed and adapted to the context of its use. Initially, the concept of communication competence triggered varying definitions and responses from the scholars and academicians. Gradually they have narrowed down on the definition of communication competence. Lately, a consensus is built among the theoreticians on the basic content of the definition of communication competence. Initially, Chomsky (2006) identified communication competence as an ability to produce grammatically correct sentences in a language which convey the intended semantic meaning as it is. But this is the linguistic perspective on communication which is restrictive in its scope. It does not take into account how "the interlocutor perceives reality, nor the norms that govern social relationships" (Lesenciuc & Codreanu, 2012). As a result, the concept has evolved under the influence of interactionist schools and has grown beyond the realms of linguistics. Hymes (1972:284) unlike Chomsky who focused on the syntactic dimension of communication or Habermas who emphasized the semantic view, takes a pragmatic view of communication competence and defines it as a combination of knowledge participants need to make the speech in order to interact at a social level and skill set in order to be successful in communication and the right attitude that they employ by adapting themselves to concrete communication situations. Thus, the concept is redefined as the linguistic instantiation of the knowledge necessary for interaction within a given context that requires ability for the use of such knowledge. There are hosts of scholars who have, over a period of time, contributed to the definition of communication competence. For instance, Spitzberg (1988:68) defined communication competence as "the ability to interact with others with accuracy, clarity, comprehensibility, coherence, expertise, effectiveness and appropriateness". Friedrich (1994) defined communication competence as "a situational ability to set realistic and appropriate goals and to maximize their achievement by using knowledge of self, other, context, and communication theory to generate adaptive communication performances." Another definition is that the communication competence is about interpersonal communication and communication skills that specialists view as "specific components that make up or contribute to the manifestation or judgment of competence" (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1989:6). McCroskey (1982:5) attempts to clarify the importance of competence when he writes, "The domain of communicative competence includes learning what are the available means (available strategies), how they have been employed in various situations in the past, and being able to determine which ones have the highest probability of success in a given situation. Thus, it can be said that communicative competence is dependent on the context in which the interaction takes place. (Cody & McLaughlin, 1985; Applegate & Leichty, 1984; Rubin, 1985). Communication which is successful with one group in one situation may not be perceived as competent with a different group in another situation. Parks (1985:175) defines communicative competence as "the degree to which individuals perceive they have satisfied their goals in a given social situation without jeopardizing their ability or opportunity to pursue their other subjectively more important goals". This combination of cognitive and behavioral perspectives is consistent with Wiemann and Backlund's (1980:188) argument that communication competence is: The ability of an interactant to choose among available communicative behaviors in order that he (sic) may successfully accomplish his (sic) own interpersonal goals during an encounter while maintaining the face and line of his (sic) fellow interactants within the constraints of the situation. According to Widdowson (2007:25), the communication competence is not only " a matter of matching different forms of knowledge, but also a matter of complex negotiation of the common knowledge framework within which the linguistic instantiation takes place".

Based on this brief theoretical background, it can be said that communication competence can be broadly defined as a theory that seeks to understand an individual's ability to effectively convey meaning within given contexts. Each context demands different set of skills, knowledge and strategy. According to Payne (2005) for instance, communication competence in organizations involves knowledge of the organization and of communication, ability to carry out skilled behaviors, and one's motivation to perform competently. Similarly, intercultural communication competence (ICC) demands for an ability to negotiate cultural meanings while efficiently and appropriately transferring information, namely as the identification and evaluation of multiple identities in a specific communication environment. Therefore, to meet the various communication contextual challenges, the scholars and academicians together have identified some components of communication competence, which are widely accepted and which include grammatical competence, discourse competence, sociolinguistic competence, and strategic competence.

Why This Study

Globalization and informatization has triggered intercultural communication across the globe. Communicating with other cultures characterizes today's business, classroom and community (Gitimu, 2012). Thus, intercultural communication competence is becoming more relevant in the increasingly multicultural communities that we live in. It is obvious that the art of knowing how to communicate in a globalized and technologized social context should be a workplace skill that is emphasized. Targowski and Metwalli (2003) viewed this millennium as era that global organizations will increasingly focus on the critical value of cross-cultural communication process, efficiency and competence and cost of doing business. Working with colleagues, customers or clients from different cultural backgrounds, with different religions, values, and etiquettes can occasionally lead to problems. The potential pitfalls cross-cultural differences present to companies are extensive (Raina, 2012). Cross- cultural differences manifest in general areas such as in behavior, etiquette, norms, values, expressions, group mechanics and non-verbal communication. These cross-cultural differences then impact management styles, corporate culture, marketing, HR etc.

Lately, international business in India grew manifold at the rate of 7% annually. The performance of the stock market in India in comparison to the other international bourses, has drawn all the more attention of the international business organizations and multinationals. It is attracting people from different geographical locations- the US, UK, Europe, Africa, China, Japan etc. especially in the present regime. Therefore, it will be of interest to find out how Indian professionals perceive their communication skills while interacting with foreign nationals, when English in India is not a native language. Prasad and Darrad (2003) for instance, noted with respect to health care professionals that communication with non-English patients was still unsatisfactory and there is need for more research to overcome some of the barriers in the intercultural communication.

The present study aims at comparing the communication skills of professionals from India and Turkey because the latter too like India has a fast growing young population and a rapidly developing economy. In Turkey, again like India, English is not a mother tongue, although Turkish people generally see themselves as Europeans- a popular metaphor for Turkey is as a bridge between Europe and Asia. As such the cultural differences between the Europeans and the Turkish people are not so great as compared to others. The cultural difference between the professionals coming from England and Turkish speaking are perhaps not as great as between someone from England and Japanese professionals (Peltokorpia, 2008). However, some research studies have indicated that the Turkish participants' willingness to communicate and self-perceived communication competencies were low, they were found to be most competent communicators when they communicated with their peers, and least competent with strangers (Asmalya, Bilkib & Duban, 2015).This finding may be considered an expected result due to the fact that people generally feel less anxious with peers and most anxious with strangers. The possible reason why Turkish participants' willingness to communicate was considerably low could be related to several different reasons such as their introvert personality, their previous experiences with foreign people or inadequate capability of speaking English (Demircioolu & Cakir, 2015; Asmalya, Bilkib & Duban, 2015). In Turkey, English is a foreign language that people learn mainly for instrumental reasons, as it gives the promise of access to better schools, better universities and ultimately better jobs. Especially in Turkey, the growth of the tourism sector as an important source of employment means knowing another language is an advantage for a widening number of occupations even in those spheres that do not require university education. Therefore, having adequate competence in foreign language especially in English, will not only give them access to the international academic and business community, it is also "an exclusion mechanism" (Holly, 1990). If you do not know English, some gates are closed to you.

Thus, in this highly competitive and globalized business-socio-eco system, it becomes imperative that the professionals develop adequate global-culture approach so it provides them an understanding of broad differences in communication among cultures so that their business objectives are met successfully and at the same time avoid any kind of unpleasant situation (Zaidman, 2001). Hence, this study will help us understand and at the same time identify the communication competency of the professionals from India and Turkey.

Research Question & Design

An exploratory research design was used to find out the self-perceived communication competence of the working professionals from India and Turkey.

Sampling

Respondents, both in India and Turkey, were majorly drawn from IT/ITES, telecom and financial institutions. The sample in both the countries was not restricted to one specific sector or industry as the purpose of the study was to find out the communication competence of working professionals across different sectors. In India, with the help of institutionally available resources, a list of National Capital Region (NCR)-based organizations was prepared and over 200 companies operating from the region were contacted, out of which 34 organizations agreed to participate in the survey. HR managers of these organizations were contacted telephonically, through e-mail and personal visits. After receiving formal approval, these organizations were requested to circulate the survey among employees with the request to return the responses directly to the researcher. The data for the study were collected by means of self-administered questionnaires delivered in person to all the respondents. Similarly, in Turkey, data was collected from white collar employees working in 41 private organizations located in major cities in Turkey. The survey produced 146 usable responses from India and 134 from Turkey. The age in both the samples ranged from 20 years to 40 years corresponding to freshers till about 20 years of work experience being represented in the sample for adequate coverage of a wide range of respondents' experiences.

Tools Used & Data Collection

The communication competence scale by Wiemann (1977) was used to measure the communication competence of the working professionals from India and Turkey. The scale developed by Wiemann (1977:198) measures communicative competence, an ability "to choose among avail able communicative behaviors" to accomplish one's own "interpersonal goals during an encounter while maintaining the face and line" of "fellow interactants within the constraints of the situation". The scale included 36 Likert-type items to assess five dimensions of interpersonal competence-interaction management, empathy, affiliation/support, behavioral flexibility, and social relaxation with interaction management playing a central role. The competent communicator as per Wiemann (1977) is thus described as empathic, affinitive and supportive, and relaxed while interacting; he is capable of adapting his behavior as the situation within an encounter changes and as he moves from encounter to encounter. The manner in which the interaction is managed contributes, in part at least, to his fellow interactants' perceptions of his competence. Thus, Wiemann (1977) scale met comprehensively the purpose of the present study.

Calculating the CCS

The communication competence scale by Wiemann (1977) has provided with the manual \ scoring key in order to calculate the communication competence score (CCS) as follows:

1. Add your responses to items 4, 8, 11, 12, and 28 = --

2. Add your responses to all other items

3. Then, complete the following formula: 30 - total from Step 1 = --

+ total from Step 2 = --

Your total CCS score = --

Based on this formula, the CCSs for Indian and Turkish respondents were calculated. The findings are:
India
Mean CCS          133.09
Median CCS        133.00
Mode CCS          129.00
Turkey
Mean CCS         133.779
Median CCS        133.00
Mode CCS          125.00


There is hardly any difference in the mean CCS. Both the countries have a very similar self-reported CCS thus respondents in both these nations perceive themselves to be effective communicators.

Independent Samples t-test

To reveal item-wise differences, the data was subjected to independent samples t-test based on the two distinct groups--Indian and Turkish samples.

First of all, Table 2 is reviewed. Initially Levene's F test for equality of variances is seen. If the significance value in column 3 is greater than 0.05 we accept, at 95% confidence level, the null hypothesis of this test that variances of the two groups are equal and we look for independent samples test significance in the 6th column in the top row of that variable. If the significance value is less than 0.05, we look for the independent samples test significance in the 6th column corresponding to the bottom row of that variable (equal variances not assumed).

By this procedure, out of a total of 36 items on the scale, there are 16 items where there is a significant difference between the self-perception of Indian and Turkish respondents. These items are:

I treat people as individuals, I am a good listener, My personal relationships are cold and distant, I am easy to talk to, I won't argue with someone just to prove I am right, I ignore other people's feelings, I understand other people, I listen to what people say to me, I usually do not make unusual demands on my friends, I am an effective conversationalist, I am supportive of others, I do not mind meeting strangers, I can easily put myself in another person's shoes, I am a likable person, I am flexible, and I generally say the right thing at the right time.

From Table 1, items where Indian respondents agreed more strongly are:

I am easy to talk to, I won't argue with someone just to prove I am right, I ignore other people's feelings, I usually do not make unusual demands on my friends (at 94% confidence level), I am an effective conversationalist, I am a likable person, and I am flexible.

From Table 1, items where Turkish respondents agreed more strongly are:

I treat people as individuals, I am a good listener, My personal relationships are cold and distant, I understand other people, I listen to what people say to me, I am supportive of others, I do not mind meeting strangers, I can easily put myself in another person's shoes, and I generally say the right thing at the right time.

Conclusions

From the data analysis, it can be concluded that Indians try to project themselves as more likeable and try not to offend others. At the same time, they come out as more self-centered. On the other hand, Turkish people emerge as having introvert personality. This could be traced to the fact that Turkey throughout, in its modern history, has identified more with the West, especially with Europe, while maintaining a lower profile in her relations with the Muslim Middle East from which much of its cultural heritage is derived. It is said that Turkish people do not belong to one single civilization, but to a heterogeneous cultural construct that embraces Eastern and Western values (Mardin, 1997: 12). They appear to be more individualistic when it comes to dealing with business which could be attributed to their geographical closeness to the European world. They display as having more empathy towards others, treat others as individuals and support others. But, their personal relationships are cold and distant which could be attributed to the fact of what is said about the Turkish people: one has to win Turkish people's trust before doing business with them. In fact, a business relationship is a personal relationship and it is therefore important to establish ones' credibility and win over their trust for moving forward in doing business with them. Thus, Turkish people prefer to maintain an appropriate amount of interpersonal space with people they do not know. Otherwise, personal space is closer for Turks as they come from the collectivistic culture (Atay & Ece, 2009). Also, the results indicate that Turkish people are rather experienced in working with foreign businesses.

Limitations & Directions for Future Research

The major limitation of this study could be the limited sample size which cannot be said to be the representative of the whole population of either India or Turkey, though it may indicate in general the communication behavior of both the Indians and the Turkish people. Also, various variables like age, experience, gender etc. could have been used to throw light on the communication skills of people from India and Turkey.

References

Applegate, J. L. & Leichty, G. B. (1984), "Managing Interpersonal Relationships: Social Cognitive and Strategic Determinants of Competence", in R. N. Bostrom (Ed.), Competence in Communication: A Multidisciplinary Approach, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Asmalya, M, Bilkib. U, & Duban. C. A. (2015), "A Comparison of the Turkish and Romanian Students' Willingness to Communicate and Its Affecting Factors in English", Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 11(1): 59-74.

Atay, Derin & Ayse Ece. (2009), "Multiple Identities as Reflected in English-Language Education: The Turkish Perspective", Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 8(1).

Chomsky, Noam A. (2006), Language and Mind, third edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Cody, M. J. & McLaughlin, M. L. (1985), "The Situation as a Construct in Interpersonal Communication Research", in M. L. McLaughlin & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Hand book of Interpersonal Communication, Beverly Hills, Sage.

Friedrich, G. W. (1994), [Lecture Notes], University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK.

Demircioolu. S. Cakyr. C. (2015), "Intercultural Competence of English Language Teachers in International, Baccalaureate World Schools in Turkey and Abroad, Journal Of Language and Linguistic Studies, 11(1).

Gitimu, (2012), Intercultural Communication: Its Importance to Various Career Fields and Perspectives by Various Authors, retrieved on 20lh September, 2015, http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cei/viewcontent.cgi? article=1013&context=ojwed

Habermas, J. (1979), Communication and the Evolution of Society, Beacon Press

Hymes, D. (1972),"The Concept of Communication Competence Revisited" in Martin Putz (Ed), Thirty Years of Linguistic Evolution, John Benjamin Publishing.

Lesenciuc, A. & Codreanu, A. (2012), "Interpersonal Communication Competence: Cultural Underpinnings", Journal of Defense Resources Management, 2(6): 127-38.

Mardin,a. (1997), Tiirk Modernle[degrees]mesi [Turkish Modernization], Istanbul, Turkey: Ile-tis Yayynlary.

McCroskey, J. C. (1982), "Communication Competence and Performance: A Research and Pedagogical Perspective", Communication Education, 31: 1-7.

Parks, M. R. (1985), "Interpersonal Communication and the Quest for Personal Competence", in M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Payne, H.J. (2005), "Re-conceptualizing Social Skills in Organizations: Exploring the Relationship between Communication Competence, Job Performance, and Supervisory Roles", Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11(2): 63-77.

Peltokorpia, V. (2008), "Cross-cultural Adjustment of Expatriates in Japan", The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(9): 1588-66.

Prasad, V. & Darrad, K. (2003), "A Touch of Spice-General Practitioner Views about Cross-Cultural Communication", Education for Health: Change in Learning and Practice, 16(2), 222-27, Retrieved on March 1, 2004 from EBSCO database.

Rubin, R. B. (1985), "The Validity of the Communication Competency Assessment Instrument", Communication Monographs, 52: 173-85

Steele, GA & Plenty, G (2015), "Supervisor-Subordinate Communication Competence and Job and Communication Satisfaction", International Journal of Business Communication, 52 (3):294-318.

Spitzberg, B. & Cupach, W. (1989), Handbook of Interpersonal Competence Research, New York, Springer

Targowski, A. & Metwalli, A. (2003), "A Framework for Asymmetric Communication Across Cultures", Dialogue and Universalism, 7-8: 49-67.

Widdowson, H.G. (2007), Discourse Analysis. Oxford Introductions to Language Study, Oxford : Oxford University Press

Wiemann, J.M. (1977), "Explication and Test of a Model of Communicative Competence", Human Communication Research, 3(3): 195-213

Wiemann, J. M & Backlund, P. (1980), "Current Theory and Research In Communicative Competence", The Review of Educational Research, 50(1): 185-99.

Zaidman, N. (2001), "Cultural Codes and Languages Strategies in Business Communication Interactions between Israeli and Indian Business People", Management Communication Quarterly, 14: 408.

Reeta Raina (Email: rraina@fsm.ac.in) & Asif Zameer are Professors from FORE School of Management, New Delhi 110016
Table 1 Group Statistics

                                         Std.    Std. Error
       Nationality     N    Mean    Deviation          Mean

Q1          India    146    4.28         .702          .058
           Turkey    134    4.20         .773          .067

Q2          India    146    4.16         .685          .057
           Turkey    134    4.03         .949          .082

Q3          India    146    3.77        1.254          .104
           Turkey    134    4.33         .874          .075

Q4          India    146    3.85         .949          .079
           Turkey    134    3.93         .819          .071

Q5          India    146    3.81         .779          .064
           Turkey    134    3.84         .748          .065

Q6          India    146    3.95         .698          .058
           Turkey    134    4.04         .857          .074

Q7          India    146    4.00         .954          .079
           Turkey    134    4.43         .780          .067

Q8          India    146    4.14         .994          .082
           Turkey    134    3.60        1.215          .105

Q9          India    146    4.22         .765          .063
           Turkey    134    3.72         .978          .084

Q10         India    146    3.65        1.229          .102
           Turkey    134    2.89        1.288          .111

Q11         India    146    3.88        1.054          .087
           Turkey    134    3.78        1.199          .104

Q12         India    146    4.23         .962          .080
           Turkey    134    4.63         .571          .049

Q13         India    146    3.70        1.011          .084
           Turkey    134    3.82         .713          .062

Q14         India    146    4.01         .766          .063
           Turkey    134    4.04         .703          .061

Q15         India    146    4.03         .637          .053
           Turkey    134    4.21         .661          .057

Q16         India    146    3.95         .877          .073
           Turkey    134    3.90         .852          .074

Q17         India    146    4.21         .707          .058
           Turkey    134    4.48         .657          .057

Q18         India    146    3.95         .927          .077
           Turkey    134    3.90         .903          .078

Q19         India    146    3.97         .770          .064
           Turkey    134    4.06         .932          .081

Q20         India    146    4.02         .921          .076
           Turkey    134    3.79        1.090          .094

Q21         India    146    3.74         .863          .071
           Turkey    134    3.39         .965          .083

Q22         India    146    4.20         .571          .047
           Turkey    134    4.45         .556          .048

Q23         India    146    3.86        1.021          .085
           Turkey    134    4.13         .916          .079

Q24         India    146    3.66         .950          .079
           Turkey    134    4.28         .791          .068

Q25         India    146    4.15         .708          .059
           Turkey    134    4.19         .631          .055

Q26         India    146    3.83         .935          .077
           Turkey    134    3.88         .910          .079

027         India    146    4.09         .642          .053
           Turkey    134    4.12         .786          .068

Q28         India    146    4.12         .854          .071
           Turkey    134    3.96         .839          .073

Q29         India    146    3.83        1.059          .088
           Turkey    134    3.78        1.067          .092

Q30         India    146    4.10         .651          .054
           Turkey    134    3.70         .867          .075

Q31         India    146    4.14         .705          .058
           Turkey    134    3.94         .882          .076

Q32         India    146    3.95        1.029          .085
           Turkey    134    3.94         .847          .073

Q33         India    146    4.27         .698          .058
           Turkey    134    4.16         .824          .071

Q34         India    146    3.71         .863          .071
           Turkey    134    3.99         .766          .066

Q35         India    146    3.95         .923          .076
           Turkey    134    3.82         .916          .079

Q36         India    146    4.15         .678          .056
           Turkey    134    4.21         .823          .071

Note: Items 4, 8, 11, 12 and 28 are negatively worded and hence their
scores have to be seen as 5 meaning 'strongly disagree' to 1 meaning
'strongly agree'.

Table 2 Independent Samples Test

          Levene's Test for Equality of Variances

                                          F     Sig.

Q1     Equal variances assumed        2.010     .157
       Equal variances not assumed              .879

Q2     Equal variances assumed       15.796     .000
       Equal variances not assumed             1.349

Q3     Equal variances assumed       10.362     .001
       Equal variances not assumed

Q4     Equal variances assumed         .183     .669
       Equal variances not assumed

Q5     Equal variances assumed        1.825     .178
       Equal variances not assumed

Q6     Equal variances assumed       19.821     .000
       Equal variances not assumed

Q7     Equal variances assumed        1.556     .213
       Equal variances not assumed

Q8     Equal variances assumed       15.568     .000
       Equal variances not assumed

Q9     Equal variances assumed       13.526     .000
       Equal variances not assumed

Q10    Equal variances assumed         .159     .690
       Equal variances not assumed

Q11    Equal variances assumed        8.668     .004
       Equal variances not assumed

Q12    Equal variances assumed        9.773     .002
       Equal variances not assumed

Q13    Equal variances assumed        6.595     .011
       Equal variances not assumed

Q14    Equal variances assumed        1.638     .202
       Equal variances not assumed

Q15    Equal variances assumed       13.377     .000
       Equal variances not assumed

Q16    Equal variances assumed        2.606     .108
       Equal variances not assumed

Q17    Equal variances assumed        2.562     .111
       Equal variances not assumed

Q18    Equal variances assumed        2.312     .129
       Equal variances not assumed

Q19    Equal variances assumed       16.489     .000
       Equal variances not assumed

Q20    Equal variances assumed       13.593     .000
       Equal variances not assumed

Q21    Equal variances assumed        7.076     .008
       Equal variances not assumed

Q22    Equal variances assumed       10.592     .001
       Equal variances not assumed

Q23    Equal variances assumed         .625     .430
       Equal variances not assumed

Q24    Equal variances assumed         .852     .357
       Equal variances not assumed

Q25    Equal variances assumed         .516     .473
       Equal variances not assumed

Q26    Equal variances assumed        2.594     .108
       Equal variances not assumed

Q27    Equal variances assumed       12.834     .000
       Equal variances not assumed

Q28    Equal variances assumed        2.256     .134
       Equal variances not assumed

Q29    Equal variances assumed        1.043     .308
       Equal variances not assumed

Q30    Equal variances assumed       25.249     .000
       Equal variances not assumed

Q31    Equal variances assumed        8.432     .004
       Equal variances not assumed

Q32    Equal variances assumed        1.772     .184
       Equal variances not assumed

Q33    Equal variances assumed        4.809     .029
       Equal variances not assumed

Q34    Equal variances assumed        1.251     .264
       Equal variances not assumed

Q35    Equal variances assumed        4.278     .040
       Equal variances not assumed

Q36    Equal variances assumed       10.051     .002
       Equal variances not assumed

       Levene's Test for Equality      t-test for Equality of Means
              of Variances
                                           t         df          Sig.
                                                           (2-tailed)

Q1     Equal variances assumed          .883        278          .378
       Equal variances not assumed   269.110       .380          .078

Q2     Equal variances assumed         1.368        278          .173
       Equal variances not assumed   240.183       .179          .135

Q3     Equal variances assumed        -4.308        278          .000
       Equal variances not assumed    -4.373    259.730        .000 *

Q4     Equal variances assumed         -.735        278          .463
       Equal variances not assumed     -.739    276.972          .460

Q5     Equal variances assumed         -.255        278          .799
       Equal variances not assumed     -.256    277.423          .798

Q6     Equal variances assumed         -.999        278          .318
       Equal variances not assumed     -.991    256.886          .323

Q7     Equal variances assumed        -4.134        278        .000 *
       Equal variances not assumed    -4.170    274.411          .000

Q8     Equal variances assumed         4.084        278          .000
       Equal variances not assumed     4.050    257^502        .000 *

Q9     Equal variances assumed         4.825        278          .000
       Equal variances not assumed     4.775    251.612        .000 *

Q10    Equal variances assumed         5.030        278        .000 *
       Equal variances not assumed     5.020    273.228          .000

Q11    Equal variances assumed          .798        278          .426
       Equal variances not assumed      .793    265.840          .428

Q12    Equal variances assumed        -4.122        278          .000
       Equal variances not assumed    -4.208    239.273        .000 *

Q13    Equal variances assumed        -1.114        278          .266
       Equal variances not assumed    -1.130    261.189          .259

Q14    Equal variances assumed         -.430        278          .668
       Equal variances not assumed     -.432    278.000          .666

Q15    Equal variances assumed        -2.248        278          .025
       Equal variances not assumed    -2.245    273.831        .026 *

Q16    Equal variances assumed          .480        278          .632
       Equal variances not assumed      .481    277.101          .631

Q17    Equal variances assumed        -3.245        278        .001 *
       Equal variances not assumed    -3.255    277.951          .001

Q18    Equal variances assumed          .516        278          .606
       Equal variances not assumed      .517    277.002          .606

Q19    Equal variances assumed         -.855        278          .393
       Equal variances not assumed     -.848    258.652          .397

Q20    Equal variances assumed         1.908        278          .057
       Equal variances not assumed     1.894    261.365        .059 *

Q21    Equal variances assumed         3.202        278          .002
       Equal variances not assumed     3.187    267.678        .002 *

Q22    Equal variances assumed        -3.693        278          .000
       Equal variances not assumed    -3.698    276.999        .000 *

Q23    Equal variances assumed        -2.332        278        .020 *
       Equal variances not assumed    -2.343    277.855          .020

Q24    Equal variances assumed        -5.963        278        .000 *
       Equal variances not assumed    -6.010    275.446          .000

Q25    Equal variances assumed         -.539        278          .590
       Equal variances not assumed     -.542    277.766          .589

Q26    Equal variances assumed         -.469        278          .639
       Equal variances not assumed     -.470    277.037          .639

Q27    Equal variances assumed         -.355        278          .723
       Equal variances not assumed     -.352    257.411          .725

Q28    Equal variances assumed         1.658        278          .098
       Equal variances not assumed     1.660    276.689          .098

Q29    Equal variances assumed          .414        278          .679
       Equal variances not assumed      .414    275.624          .679

Q30    Equal variances assumed         4.452        278          .000
       Equal variances not assumed     4.399    245.947        .000 *

Q31    Equal variances assumed         2.141        278          .033
       Equal variances not assumed     2.121    254.339        .035 *

Q32    Equal variances assumed          .043        278          .965
       Equal variances not assumed      .044    274.848          .965

Q33    Equal variances assumed         1.131        278          .259
       Equal variances not assumed     1.123    261.632          .263

Q34    Equal variances assumed        -2.788        278        .006 *
       Equal variances not assumed    -2.802    277.695          .005

Q35    Equal variances assumed         1.130        278          .260
       Equal variances not assumed     1.130    276.282          .260

Q36    Equal variances assumed         -.648        278          .517
       Equal variances not assumed     -.643    258.334          .521

       Levene's Test for Equality      t-test for Equality
             of Variances                    of Means

                                           Mean    Std. Error
                                     Difference    Difference

Q1     Equal variances assumed             .078          .088
       Equal variances not assumed         .089         -.096

Q2     Equal variances assumed             .135          .098
       Equal variances not assumed         .100         -.062

Q3     Equal variances assumed            -.561          .130
       Equal variances not assumed        -.561          .128

Q4     Equal variances assumed            -.078          .106
       Equal variances not assumed        -.078          .106

Q5     Equal variances assumed            -.023          .091
       Equal variances not assumed        -.023          .091

Q6     Equal variances assumed            -.093          .093
       Equal variances not assumed        -.093          .094

Q7     Equal variances assumed            -.433          .105
       Equal variances not assumed        -.433          .104

Q8     Equal variances assumed             .540          .132
       Equal variances not assumed         .540          .133

Q9     Equal variances assumed             .504          .105
       Equal variances not assumed         .504          .106

Q10    Equal variances assumed             .757          .150
       Equal variances not assumed         .757          .151

Q11    Equal variances assumed             .107          .135
       Equal variances not assumed         .107          .135

Q12    Equal variances assumed            -.394          .096
       Equal variances not assumed        -.394          .094

Q13    Equal variances assumed            -.117          .105
       Equal variances not assumed        -.117          .104

Q14    Equal variances assumed            -.038          .088
       Equal variances not assumed        -.038          .088

Q15    Equal variances assumed            -.174          .078
       Equal variances not assumed        -.174          .078

Q16    Equal variances assumed             .050          .104
       Equal variances not assumed         .050          .103

Q17    Equal variances assumed            -.265          .082
       Equal variances not assumed        -.265          .082

Q18    Equal variances assumed             .057          .110
       Equal variances not assumed         .057          .109

Q19    Equal variances assumed            -.087          .102
       Equal variances not assumed        -.087          .103

Q20    Equal variances assumed             .230          .120
       Equal variances not assumed         .230          .121

Q21    Equal variances assumed             .350          .109
       Equal variances not assumed         .350          .110

Q22    Equal variances assumed            -.249          .067
       Equal variances not assumed        -.249          .067

Q23    Equal variances assumed            -.271          .116
       Equal variances not assumed        -.271          .116

Q24    Equal variances assumed            -.626          .105
       Equal variances not assumed        -.626          .104

Q25    Equal variances assumed            -.043          .080
       Equal variances not assumed        -.043          .080

Q26    Equal variances assumed            -.052          .110
       Equal variances not assumed        -.052          .110

Q27    Equal variances assumed            -.030          .085
       Equal variances not assumed        -.030          .086

Q28    Equal variances assumed             .168          .101
       Equal variances not assumed         .168          .101

Q29    Equal variances assumed             .053          .127
       Equal variances not assumed         .053          .127

Q30    Equal variances assumed             .406          .091
       Equal variances not assumed         .406          .092

Q31    Equal variances assumed             .204          .095
       Equal variances not assumed         .204          .096

Q32    Equal variances assumed             .005          .113
       Equal variances not assumed         .005          .112

Q33    Equal variances assumed             .103          .091
       Equal variances not assumed         .103          .092

Q34    Equal variances assumed            -.273          .098
       Equal variances not assumed        -.273          .097

Q35    Equal variances assumed             .124          .110
       Equal variances not assumed         .124          .110

Q36    Equal variances assumed            -.058          .090
       Equal variances not assumed        -.058          .091

       Levene's Test for Equality      t-test for Equality
              of Variances                   of Means

                                     95% Confidence Interval
                                        of the Difference

                                         Lower        Upper

Q1     Equal variances assumed           -.096         .251
       Equal variances not assumed        .252

Q2     Equal variances assumed           -.059         .328
       Equal variances not assumed        .331

Q3     Equal variances assumed           -.818        -.305
       Equal variances not assumed       -.814        -.309

Q4     Equal variances assumed           -.288         .131
       Equal variances not assumed       -.286         .130

Q5     Equal variances assumed           -.203         .157
       Equal variances not assumed       -.203         .156

Q6     Equal variances assumed           -.276         .090
       Equal variances not assumed       -.278         .092

Q7     Equal variances assumed           -.639        -.227
       Equal variances not assumed       -.637        -.228

Q8     Equal variances assumed            .280         .800
       Equal variances not assumed        .277         .803

Q9     Equal variances assumed            .299         .710
       Equal variances not assumed        .296         .712

Q10    Equal variances assumed            .461        1.053
       Equal variances not assumed        .460        1.054

Q11    Equal variances assumed           -.158         .373
       Equal variances not assumed       -.159         .374

Q12    Equal variances assumed           -.582        -.206
       Equal variances not assumed       -.578        -.210

Q13    Equal variances assumed           -.325         .090
       Equal variances not assumed       -.322         .087

Q14    Equal variances assumed           -.211         .136
       Equal variances not assumed       -.211         .135

Q15    Equal variances assumed           -.327        -.022
       Equal variances not assumed       -.327        -.021

Q16    Equal variances assumed           -.154         .253
       Equal variances not assumed       -.154         .253

Q17    Equal variances assumed           -.426        -.104
       Equal variances not assumed       -.426        -.105

Q18    Equal variances assumed           -.159         .272
       Equal variances not assumed       -.159         .272

Q19    Equal variances assumed           -.288         .113
       Equal variances not assumed       -.289         .115

Q20    Equal variances assumed           -.007         .466
       Equal variances not assumed       -.009         .468

Q21    Equal variances assumed            .135         .565
       Equal variances not assumed        .134         .566

Q22    Equal variances assumed           -.382        -.116
       Equal variances not assumed       -.382        -.116

Q23    Equal variances assumed           -.500        -.042
       Equal variances not assumed       -.499        -.043

Q24    Equal variances assumed           -.833        -.419
       Equal variances not assumed       -.831        -.421

Q25    Equal variances assumed           -.202         .115
       Equal variances not assumed       - 701         .114

Q26    Equal variances assumed           -.269         .166
       Equal variances not assumed       -.269         .165

Q27    Equal variances assumed           -.199         .138
       Equal variances not assumed       -.200         .139

Q28    Equal variances assumed           -.031         .368
       Equal variances not assumed       -.031         .367

Q29    Equal variances assumed           -.198         .303
       Equal variances not assumed       -.198         .303

Q30    Equal variances assumed            .226         .585
       Equal variances not assumed        .224         .587

Q31    Equal variances assumed            .016         .391
       Equal variances not assumed        .015         .393

Q32    Equal variances assumed           -.218         .228
       Equal variances not assumed       -.216         .226

Q33    Equal variances assumed           -.076         .282
       Equal variances not assumed       -.078         .283

Q34    Equal variances assumed           -.465        -.080
       Equal variances not assumed       -.464        -.081

Q35    Equal variances assumed           -.092         .341
       Equal variances not assumed       -.092         .341

Q36    Equal variances assumed           -.235         .119
       Equal variances not assumed       -.237         .120

Note: * p <0.05 (95% confidence),
COPYRIGHT 2016 Shri Ram Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Resources
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2016 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Raina, Reeta; Zameer, Asif
Publication:Indian Journal of Industrial Relations
Geographic Code:7TURK
Date:Jan 1, 2016
Words:5848
Previous Article:HRD climate & customer satisfaction in Indian private banks.
Next Article:Talent categorization & justice perception: an empirical study.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters