# 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),

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: |