Printer Friendly

Workplace gender diversity & inclusive growth in public & private organizations.

Introduction

In the past, all women in the workplace were automatically assigned to temporary or part-time or low responsibility jobs because it was understood that their first priority was taking care of their families. Unmarried women were likely to quit as soon as they are married (often to an up-and-coming executive in the company), and married women were likely to quit as soon as they became pregnant. Women with children were understood to care more about the children than about work. In addition, there was a widespread belief that women were not as capable as men, either physically or mentally or emotionally. Today, women are not generally seen as inferior to men (in fact, it is common to hear that men are inferior to women). And there are women who want to put work first and family second. Most women in the workforce do not see it as temporary--something to do until they "catch a man"--nor as "extra" income. Organizations have been slowly adjusting to these changes, learning to treat women as the equals of men. Discriminating against female employees (in terms of hiring and advancement) and treating them in a sexual manner (sexual harassment) are now against the law.

Gender differences in the level and type of formal education and in participation in the labor force are rapidly disappearing; but the rate of advancement of women into higher positions is relatively slow. The position of women worldwide in managerial jobs is increasing and the position in the last decade has been described as improving but women are still at a disadvantage when compared to men's position. Generally, a growing number of women occupy management positions, but at top levels still very few women are present. Some sources even indicate that no. of women in top positions is currently declining, a trend observed in both the United States and Europe.

Review of Literature

The growing recognition of women managers by companies is due to the fact that like all other diversity initiatives (Thomas & Ely, 1997), the approach of investment in female talent works because they are to some extent outsiders. Their experiences can reveal not only different ways of working and innovative practices (Thomas & Ely, 1997; Martin, 1998) but they can also help to question those aspects in the work environment which are rarely noticed by those in the mainstream. Gender equity is therefore essential for increasing organization performance, however research on gender and organizations has analyzed the emergence, persistence, and transformation of gender discrimination in detail (e.g., Alvesson & Billing, 1992; Hearn & Parkin, 1987 ; Knights, 1994 ; Mills & Tancred, 1992). A common theme is that although workers are often constructed as disembodied and gender neutral, if one looks at the skills, behaviors, and norms these workers are expected to display and conform to more masculine characteristics, traits, and behaviors. Acker (1990), Ferguson, (1984); Kanter (1977) Martin (1998), for example, found that men and women displayed different work styles and showed how men's styles were better rewarded as they fulfilled the organizational efficiency goal than were women's styles. While organizations claim that their norms and practices are gender neutral, this body of research shows that one gender is consistently seen as deviating from the norm and that discrimination continues to hold sway, although in a disguised form. In the Asian context also similar studies were done (Tan, 1991; Selmer & Leung, 2003; Youkondi & Benson, 2005) which examined the increased acceptance of participation of women managers in management in Asian countries and the barriers that existed in their career paths. Similarly in Indian context also, a number of studies are done indicating improvement in Indian women's economic productive roles and issues related to female labor force participation (Liddle, 1988; Joshi, 1993; Buddapriya, 1999). The study by Liddle (1988) indicates segregation of Indian men and women in different sectors and has also done a comparative analysis of work done by Indian and Western women. Buddapriya (1999) has concluded that there are certain stereotypes for men and women and the main difference lies in the differential treatment being given to women managers in terms of decision making and wage rates. Recent years have witnessed more research in this area as compared to earlier years as women have largely entered into corporate sector in recent past due to Equal Employment Opportunity legislations, pressures of competitors and customers due to globalization and the need to manage the best talent as a competitive advantage. Creating gender equitable workplace environments cannot be achieved simply by increasing the numbers of women within the organization, but by adapting policies and procedures to women's needs or even by providing gender sensitivity training (Kolb, et al., 1998). The focus should be on identifying and changing those systemic issues that both reproduce gender inequity and negatively effect organizational performance (Bailyn et al., 2003; Kolb, et al., 1998), inhibiting the organization's ability to envision alternative work practices or adapt to new demands. An important component of gender equity is breaking the glass ceiling on which a number of studies are done (Davidson & Burke, 2004; Chugh & Sehgal, 2007) revealing that the differences in terms of education and recruitment among men and women are disappearing but the advancement of women to higher positions is slow. A study by Ibarra, Carter & Silva (2010) reveals that men get more promotions than women as both are being mentored but mentoring outcomes are different for both. This is because men are sponsored more as compared to women by their mentors in promotions. Along with gender equity, this study focuses attention on inclusive organizational culture as dimensions of organization's culture that have a differential impact on men and women. The organizational culture includes norms, values, core assumptions and behaviors promoted in an organization; work processes and practices; roles and types of work; core management systems (such as performance appraisal and reward systems);decision making and communication processes (both formal and informal);resource allocation processes; accepted leadership and management styles and the use and management of time. Chalofsky (2003) says, the best employers are not because of their perks and benefits, but because of their organizational culture and policies that promote meaningful work, and a nurturing as well as supportive workplace. The study by Emmerik, Euwema & Wendt (2008) examined the associations of gender and cultural clusters with two classical leadership styles: consideration and initiating structure. Gender equity and inclusive organizational culture would lead to job satisfaction among female employees leading to higher retention and increased organization commitment. Schwartz (1989) revealed that top women managers were two and half times more likely to leave their employment than men, not because of family obligations but due to dissatisfaction with their career prospects. In a longitudinal study of mid-career MBAs, Schneer & Reitman (1994) reported that gender did not affect the work environment during early careers, but mid-career women compared with their counterparts were less satisfied, on lower salaries, feeling less appreciated by their bosses, and experiencing more discrimination. A study by Sandhu & Mehta (2007), attempts to develop, refine and validate a scale for measuring attitudes of women executives towards their job. The findings reveal that women executives are quite positive in their approach and are reportedly accepted as executives in India. Biswas (2010) studies that the two attitudinal variables of job satisfaction and job involvement act as mediators between psychological climate and employees' turnover intentions and extends it to their impact on organizational effectiveness. If gender equity and inclusive organizational culture are promoted at the workplace, it would lead to increased job satisfaction especially among female employees and would increase their commitment to the organization. Porter et al. (1974) and Steers (1977) said that an individual whose needs are satisfied in an organization is more likely to be committed and likely to stay with it. While another body of research (William &Hazer, 1986; Brown & Peterson, 1993; DeConink & Stilwell, 2004) suggests that it is organizational commitment that indicates the relationship between job satisfaction and job commitment. A study by Chawla & Sondhi (2011) on a sample group of women professionals from the BPO sector and school teachers revealed that organizational commitment had significant and negative impact on turnover intentions. Finally a number of models have been developed by different researchers (Cox Jr., 1993; McDonald, 2003; Saxena, et al., 2009) which have related gender equity and inclusive organization culture with organization effectiveness taking job satisfaction and organizational commitment as mediators.

Scope & Objectives

Women constitute almost 50% of the population in our country and cannot therefore be ignored as earning hands. As more and more women are entering labor force, they are facing problems at all the three levels- lower, middle & senior levels as is evident from the statistics. This study is being done to highlight these problems. Specifically it aims:

1. To examine whether women face the

glass ceiling as they rise to higher levels in their jobs

2. To know the level of women participation in policy formulation and decision making.

3. To know if there exists some degree of biasness in job allocation in favor of men.

Methodology

Data were collected from the different branches of the 4 public and 4 private organizations functioning in

Jammu city. Table 1 shows the level wise profile of 550 female employees in 8 public and private organizations in Jammu city. A sample of 562 employees of 8 public and private sector organizations was taken randomly. Analytical tables are used to analyze ratio of men and women at different levels of management.

As is evident from the table the participation level of females at the top most level is nil. Even at the senior management level their participation is insignificant. Women are mostly there at clerical levels in banks. With few women at senior levels there are no policies favoring women at the lowest level as there can be no participation in decision making. Also those women at the lowest level have no women mentors to guide them leading to further deterioration of the situation.

To measure the objectives, crosstabs were used along with Chi square tests. For the first objective, crosstabs between gender and different statements of glass ceiling in the questionnaires were used.

The 9th statement shown in table 2 asks whether there are equal provisions for males and females in these organizations for skill development. Out of total 555 employees, 162 were male and 393 were females, but majority of the employees i.e 515 said that there were equal provisions.

The Pearson Chi-square test shows that there is no association between the two variables equality in provisions for skill development and gender as the value of significance is .334 which is greater than .1.

The 10th statement is whether enough learning opportunities are provided to women for career advancement in these organiations. Table 4 depicts that 494 employees , 155 males and 339 females agree that they are provided opportunities but 61 employees (54 females and 7 males) disagree. The low value 001 of Chi-square test clearly indicates that there is significant relationship between learning opportunities for women for career advancement and gender.

The 11th statement whether women are provided mentors for their career enhancement as shown in Table 6- depicts that almost equal no. of employees both agree and disagree with the statement indicating that mentors are provided in some organizations and not in others. The Pearson Chi-square test shows that there is no association between the two variables, providing mentors to employees and gender, as the value of significance is .997 which is greater than .1

The 12th statement that women have ranks significantly different from those of men of equivalent qualification shows (Table 8) that majority of the employees i. e, 476 disagree with this indicating that ranking is not biased on the basis of gender in these organizations. The Pearson Chi-square test shows that there is no association between the two variables, ranking of employees on qualification basis and gender, as the value of significance is .582 which is greater than .1.

The 13th statement that there is increase in no. of women in the past few years at higher levels was agreed upon by majority of the employees (471) indicating that females have increased in numbers at higher levels in past few years thus changing the earlier scenario and breaking the glass ceiling.

The low value .050 of Chi-square test clearly indicates that there is significant relationship between increase in number of women at higher levels in past few years and gender.

The second objective was measured using crosstabs for decision making and gender.

Table 13 indicates that 336 employees agreed and 219 disagreed with the 4th statement that women are a part of key decision making bodies in resource allocation, recruitment etc. signifying that while some organizations involve them in decision making some do not. The Pearson Chi-square test shows that there is no association between the two variables, involvement of female employees in key decision making bodies and gender as the value of significance is .176 which is greater than .1.

The 6th statement that including women in important committees will improve decision making was agreed upon by majority of employees (530). Even males (93.8%) endorsed this statement signifying that there is dire need of placing female members in all important committees of the organizations.

The Pearson Chi-square test shows that there is no association between the two variables inclusion of female employees in key decision making committees and gender as the value of significance is .224 which is greater than .1.

The third objective to know if there exists some degree of bias in job allocation in favor of men was measured by one-way ANOVA.

The high value of significance of F i.e. .482 as shown in Table no 18 clearly indicates that there exists some degree of biasness in favor of allocation of resources towards men.

Findings:

1. In case of whether there are equal provisions for males and females in these organizations for skill development, out of total 555 employees, 162 were male and 393 were females. Majority of the employees, i.e 515 said that there were equal provisions.

2. In case of whether enough learning opportunities are provided to women for career advancement in these organizations, 494 employees (155 males and 339 females) agreed that they were provided opportunities but 61 employees (54 females and 7 males) disagreed.

3. In case of whether women are provided mentors for their career enhancement our analysis shows that those who agreed almost equaled those who disagreed with the statement indicating that mentors are provided in some organizations while not in others.

4. In case of women having rank significantly different from those of men of equivalent qualification our results show that majority of the employees i.e. 476 disagreed indicating that ranking was not biased on the basis of gender in these organizations.

5. In case of whether there is increase in no. of women in the past few years at higher levels majority of the employees (471) responded positively thus changing the earlier scenario and breaking the glass ceiling.

6. To the question whether women are a part of key decision making bodies in resource allocation, recruitment etc. while 336 employees answered positively and 219 negatively signifying that some organizations involve them in decision making and in some they are not.

7. The statement that including women in important committees will improve decision making was agreed upon by majority of employees (530). That even males (93.8%) endorsed this statement signifies that there is the dire need of placing female members in all important committees of the organizations.

Conclusion

Technological and social change move at an ever-increasing pace. We increasingly learn to think of ourselves as a "learning society." As the notion of lifelong learning becomes ever more integrated into our expectations women must not be left behind. But history suggests that women will be left behind doing the data entry, clerical data-retrieval, nontechnical service jobs and facing a lifetime of lower earnings, lower retirement benefits, and greater risk of poverty if we do not act positively to ensure that women are included in these changes. However the results of this study provide a ray of hope that women slowly and steadily are breaking the glass ceiling.

References

Acker, J. (1990), "Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations", Gender & Society, 4(2): 139-58.

Anderson, Deirdre & Clare Kelliher (2009), "Flexible Working and Engagement: The Importance of Choice", Strategic HR Review, 8 (2): 13-18.

Alvesson, M. & Billing, Y.D. (1992), "Gender and Organization: Towards a Differentiated Understanding", Organization Studies, 13(1): 73-103.

Bailyn, L. (2003), "Academic Careers and Gender Equity: Lessons Learned from MIT", Gender, Work & Organization, 10(2): 13753.

Biswas, S. (2010), "Relationship between Psychological Climate and Turnover Intentions and Its Impact on Organizational Effectiveness: A Study in Indian Organizations", IIMB Management Review, 22: 102-10

Brown, S.P. & Peterson, R.A.(1993), "Antecedents and Consequences of Sales Person Job-Satisfaction: Meta Analysis and Assessment of Casual Effects", Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 63-77.

Budhapriya, Sanghamitra (1999), Women in Management, APH Publishing Corporation, New Delhi.

Chalfosky, N (2003), "Meaningful Work", T+D, 57(12): 54-58.

Chawla, D. & Sondhi, N. (2011), "Assessing the Role of Organizational and Personal Factors in Predicting Turnover Intentions: A Case of School Teachers and BPO Employees", Decision, 38 (2), 5-33.

Chugh, S. & Sehgal, P. (2007), "Why Do Few Women Advance to Leadership Positions"? Global Business Review, 8(2): 351-65.

Cox Jr, T. (1993), Cultural Diversity in Organizations: Theory, Research and Practice. San Francisco: Berrett- Koehler Publishers.

Davidson, M. & Burke, J.R. (2004), Women in Management, Ashgate Publishing Company, USA.

De Coninck, J.B. & Stilwell, C.D. (2004), Incorporating Organizational Justice, Role Stated Pay Satisfaction in a Model of Turnover Intentions, Journal of Business Research, 57: 225-31.

Emmerik, H. V., Euwema, C.M. & Wendt, H. (2008), "Leadership Behaviors around the World- The Relative Importance of Gender versus Cultural Background", International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 8 (3): 297-315.

Ferguson, K. (1984), The Feminist Case Against Bureaucracy, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Hearn, J. & Parkin, W. (1987), Sex at Work: The Power and Paradox of Organizational Sexuality, New York: St. Martins Press: 20-24.

Ibarra, H., Carter, M.N. & Silva, C. (2010), "Why Men Still Get More Promotions Than Women", Harvard Business Review

Ilavarasan, Vigneswara (2007), "Is Indian Software Workforce a Case of Uneven and Combined Development"? Equal Opportunities International, 26(8): 802-22

Joshi, J.R. (1993). "Labor Law and Female Employment", Equal Opportunities International, 7 (4/5), 36-53

Kanter, K. (1977), Work and Family in the United States: A Critical Review and Agenda for Research and Policy. New York: Sage.

Kelliher, C. & D. Anderson (2008), "For Better or for Worse? An Analysis of How Flexible Working Practices Influence Employees' Perceptions of Job Quality", International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(3):19-43.

Kniight, J (1994), "Motherhood and Management," in Morgan Tanton (Ed.), Women in Management: A Developing Presence, New York: Routledge

Kolb, D., Fletcher, J., Meyerson, D., MerillSands, D. & Ely.R.(1998), Making Change: A Framework for Promoting Gender-Equity.

CGO Insights, 1, Boston MA: The Center for Gender in Organizations, Simmons Graduate School of Management.

Kumra S. & S. Vinnicome (2008), "A Study of the Promotion to Partner Process in a Professional Services Firm: How Women are Disadvantaged", British Journal of Management, 19: S65-74

Liddle, J. (1988), "Occupational Sex Segregation and Women's Work in India", Equal Opportunities International, 7(4/5): 7-25.

Martin, P. (1998), "Men, Masculinities and Working: From (Some) Women's Standpoint". Paper Presented at Case Conference, Simmons Institute for Leadership and Change, April 14, 1988. Boston, MA.

McDonald, M.D. (2003), "Strategic Human Resource Management Approaches to Workforce Diversity in Japan: Harnessing Corporate Culture for Organizational Competitiveness", Global Business Review, 4(1): 100-13.

Mills, A. & Tancred, P. (1992), Gendering Organizational Analysis, Newbury Park: Sage.

Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T. & Boulian, V. (1974), "OC, JS and Turnover among Psychiatric Technicians." Journal of Applied Psychology, 5:603-09.

Sandhu, H.S & Mehta, R. (2007), "Personal and Organizational Correlates Affecting Attitudes of Women Executives Towards their Jobs", Global Business Review, 8(10): 135-51.

Saxena, R. (2009), "Gender and Workplace Experience", Vikalpa, 34 (4), 79-117.

Schneer, J.A. & Reitman, F. (1994), "The Importance of Gender in Mid-career: A Longitudinal Study of MBAs", Journal of Organizational Behavior. 15: 199-207.

Schwartz, F (1989), "Management Women and the New Facts of Life", Harvard Business Review, 67(1): 65-76.

Selmer, J., & Leung, S.M.A. (2003), "Personal Characteristics of Female vs Male Business Expatriates", International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 3 (2): 195212

Steers, R.M. (1977), " Antecedents and Outcomes of Organizational commitment", Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 46-56.

Tan, Anne Jactinta (1991), "A Study of Women Managers in Private Enterprises in Peninsular Malaysia", Journal of Malaysian Management Review, 26 (3)

Thomas, D. & Ely, R. (1997). "Making Differences Matter: A New Paradigm for Managing Diversity", Harvard Business Review, Sept- Oct 1996: 79-90.

Venkata Ratnam, C.S & Harish C. Jain, (2002), "Women in Trade Unions in India", International Journal of Manpower, 23(3): 277-92.

Williams, L.J. & Hazer, J.T. (1986), Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction and Commitment in Turnover Models: a Reanalysis Using Latent Variable Structural Equation Models", Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 219-31.

Yukongdi, V & Benson, J. (2005), "Women in Asian Management", Asia Pacific Business Review, 11 (2): 139-48.

Syeda Shazia Bukhari is Assistant Professor, College of Management, SMVD University, Katra 182320. E-Mail: lshaziabukharia@rediffmail.com. B.C. Sharma is Professor, The Business School, University of Jammu, Jammu.
Table 1 Female Representation at Different Levels in Public &
Private Banks

Sector               Name of the
                     Organization

Private Sector       ICICI Bank
Public Sector        Jammu and Kashmir Bank
Private Sector       Aircel
Public Sector        State Bank of India
Private Sector       HDFC Bank
Public Sector        Life Insurance
                     Corporation of India
Private Sector       Airtel
Public Sector        BSNL
Total Sample Size

Sector               No. of     Level of Management         Total
                     branches   (No. of female employees)

                                Top   Middle   Lower

Private Sector             3    Nil      01      14            15
Public Sector             55    01      152      57           210
Private Sector            NA    Nil      04      10            14
Public Sector             22    Nil      36      60            86
Private Sector             3    Nil      01      10            11
Public Sector             10    15       07      50            72

Private Sector            NA    Nil      03      06            09
Public Sector             NA    01       19     113           133
Total Sample Size                                             550

Table 2 9th Statement Crosstab

Count                    Gender    (1-male,2- female)

                              1                    2     Total

9 (yes-1, No-2)  1          153                  362       515
                 2            9                   31        40
Total                       162                  393       555

Table 3 9th Statement Chi-Square Tests

                                 Value      Df    Asymp. Sig.
                                                   (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square             .933 (a)      1          .334
Continuity Correction (b)         .617       1          .432
Likelihood Ratio                  .978       1          .323
Fisher's Exact Test
Linear-by-Linear Association      .932       1          .334
N of Valid Cases                   555

                               Exact Sig.   Exact Sig.
                               (2-sided)    (1-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square
Continuity Correction (b)
Likelihood Ratio
Fisher's Exact Test                 .373         .219
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases

(a). 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 11.68.

(b). Computed only for a 2x2 table

Table 4 10th Statement Crosstab

Count             Gender (1-male,    Total
                   2-Female

                    1           2

10(yes-1,No-2)1   155           339      494
              2     7          54       61
Total             162           393      555

Table 5   10th Statement Chi-Square Tests

                                   Value    Df   Asymp. Sig.
                                                  (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square             10.404 (a)   1          .001
Continuity Correction (b)          9.463    1          .002
Likelihood Ratio                  12.170    1          .000
Fisher's Exact Test
Linear-by-Linear Association      10.385    1          .001
N of Valid Cases                     555

                               Exact Sig.   Exact Sig.
                               (2-sided)    (1-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square
Continuity Correction (b)
Likelihood Ratio
Fisher's Exact Test                         .001         .001
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases

(a). 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 17.81.

(b). Computer only for a 2X2 able

Table 6 11th Statement Crosstab

Count               Gender(1-male,2- female) Total

                         1              2
11(yes-1, No-2)1        80            194      274
               2        82            199      281
Total                  162            393      555

Table 7 11th Statement Chi-Square Tests

Value                               Df           Asymp. Sig.
                                                  (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square             .000 (a)     1          .997
Continuity Correction (b)         .000      1         1.000
Likelihood Ratio                  .000      1          .997
Fisher's Exact Test
Linear-by-Linear Association      .000      1          .997
N of Valid Cases                   555

Value                          Exact Sig.   Exact Sig.
                               (2-sided)    (1-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square
Continuity Correction (b)
Likelihood Ratio
Fisher's Exact Test                1.000         .536
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases

(a). 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 79.98.

(b). Computed only for a 2x2 table

Table 8   12th Statement Crosstab

Count               Gender(1-male,2- female)  Total
                                1      2

12(yes-1,No-2) 1               21     58        79
                 2              141    335       476
Total                         162    393       555

Table 9 12th Statement Chi-Square Tests

                                 Value    Df

Pearson Chi-Square             .303 (a)   1
Continuity Correction (b)         .174    1
Likelihood Ratio                  .308    1
Fisher's Exact Test
Linear-by-Linear Association      .302    1
N of Valid Cases                   555

                               Asymp. Sig.   Exact Sig.   Exact Sig.
                                (2-sided)    (2-sided)    (1-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square                   .582
Continuity Correction (b)            .677
Likelihood Ratio                     .579
Fisher's Exact Test                               .689         .343
Linear-by-Linear Association         .582
N of Valid Cases

(a). 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 23.06.

(b). Computed only for a 2x2 table

Table 10 13th Statement Crosstab

Count                   Gender
                            (1-male,2- female)   Total

                           1         2

13(yes-1,No-2) 1         145       326       471
                   2              17        67        84
Total                    162       393       555

Table 11  13th Statement Chi-Square Tests

                                 Value    Df   Asymp. Sig.
                                                (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square             3.837(a)   1          .050
Continuity Correction (b)        3.344    1          .067
Likelihood Ratio                 4.073    1          .044
Fisher's Exact Test
Linear-by-Linear Association     3.830    1          .050
N of Valid Cases                   555

                               Exact Sig.   Exact Sig.
                               (2-sided)    (1-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square
Continuity Correction (b)
Likelihood Ratio
Fisher's Exact Test                 .052         .031
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases

(a). 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 24.52.

(b). Computed only for a 2x2 table

Table 12 Case Processing Summary

                                                 Cases

                                Valid            Missing

                           N      Percent    N   Percent    N
4(yes-1,No-2) * Gender    555      100.0%    0      .0%    555
(1-male,2- female)
6(yes-1,No-2) * Gender    555      100.0%    0      .0%    555
(1-male,2- female)

                              Total

                              Percent
4(yes-1,No-2) * Gender         100.0%
(1-male,2- female)
6(yes-1,No-2) * Gender         100.0%
(1-male,2- female)

Table 13 4th Statement Crosstab

Count                      Gender
                         (1-male,2- female)   Total

                       1              2

4(yes-1,No-2)1        91             245   336
             2        71             148   219
Total                162             393   555

Table 14 4th Statement Chi-Square Tests

                                   Value    Df   Asymp. Sig.
                                                  (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square             1.827 (a)     1          .176
Continuity Correction (b)          1.578     1          .209
Likelihood Ratio                   1.815     1          .178
Fisher's Exact Test
Linear-by-Linear Association       1.824     1          .177
N of Valid Cases                     555

                               Exact Sig.   Exact Sig.
                               (2-sided)    (1-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square
Continuity Correction (b)
Likelihood Ratio
Fisher's Exact Test                  .182         .105
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases

(a). 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 63.92.

(b). Computed only for a 2x2 table

Table 15 6th Statement Crosstab

Count                     Gender         Total
                    (1-male, 2-female)

                      1              2

6(yes-1,No-2)   1   152              378     530
                  2    10             15      25
Total               162              393     555

Table 16 6th Statement Chi-Square Tests

                                   Value   Df   Asymp. Sig.
                                                  (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square             1.480 (a)    1          .224
Continuity Correction (b)          0.983    1          .321
Likelihood Ratio                   1.399    1          .237
Fisher's Exact Test
Linear-by-Linear Association       1.478    1          .224
N of Valid Cases                     555

                               Exact Sig.    Exact Sig.
                               (2-sided)      (1-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square
Continuity Correction (b)
Likelihood Ratio
Fisher's Exact Test                 .260           .160
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases

(a). 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 7.30.

(b). Computed only for a 2x2 table

Table 17 Descriptives OC-4(SD-1,D-2,N-3,A-4,SA-5)

             N   Mean        Std.    Std.
                        Deviation   Error

1          162   2.48       1.127    .089
2          393   2.41       1.077    .054
Total      555   2.43       1.092    .046

           95% Confidence
            Interval for
                Mean

           Lower   Upper    Minimum   Maximum
           Bound   Bound

1           2.31    2.66          1         5
2           2.30    2.52          1         5
Total       2.34    2.52          1         5

Table 18, ANOVA OC-4(SD-1,D-2,N-3,A-4,SA-5)

                 Sum of Squares    df   Mean Square      F   Sig.

Between Groups             .592     1          .592   .496   .482
Within Groups           659.488   553         1.193
Total                   660.079   554
COPYRIGHT 2014 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 2014 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:By Contribution
Author:Bukhari, Syeda Shazia; Sharma, B.C.
Publication:Indian Journal of Industrial Relations
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Jan 1, 2014
Words:4696
Previous Article:Organisational learning & work engagement: study of an IT Organization.
Next Article:Trade unions in India: changing role & perspective.
Topics:

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