CHAPTER- V
ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATION
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF NEYCER INDIA LIMITED:
The data, after collection, has to be processed and analyzed in
accordance with the outline laid down for the purpose at the time of
developing the research plan. This is essential for a scientific study for
ensuring that we have all relevant data for making contemplated
comparisons and analysis.
The term analysis refers to the consumption of certain measures
along with searching for patterns of relationship that exist among data
groups. Analysis of a data in a general way involves a number of closely
related
operations,
which
are
performed
with
the
purpose
of
summarizing the collected data and organizing these in a manner that
they answer the research question.
The following tools are used for analysis of data.
1.
Percentage method
2.
Anova
3.
t- test and
4.
Chi-Square
Table-4.1
Distribution of Respondents by their Age
Age
No. of
Respondents
Percentage
Below 35 yrs
15
15.00
36-45 yrs
57
57.00
46-50 yrs
28
28.00
Total
100
100.00
Inference:
It is inferred that 15% of the respondents belong to the age group
of below 35 years , 57% of the respondents are under the age group of
36-45 years and 28% of the respondents belong to the age group of above
46 years. So majority of the respondents are 36-45 years age groups.
Distribution of Respondents by their Age
57
60
50
Percentage
40
28
30
Below 35 yrs
36-45 yrs
46-50 yrs
20
15
10
0
Below 35 yrs
36-45 yrs
46-50 yrs
Age
Table-4.2
Distribution of the Respondents by their Gender
Gender
No. of
Respondents
Percentage
Male
78
78.00
Female
22
22.00
Total
100
100.00
Inference:
From the table it is inferred that 99% of the respondents have male
and the remaining 1% of the respondents have female. So majority of the
respondents are male respondents.
Distribution of the Respondents on the basis gender
22
78
Male
Female
Table-4.3
Distribution of the Respondents by their Qualification
No. of
Respondents
Percentage
Below SSLC
25
25.00
H.Sc
60
60.00
Degree
9.00
Diploma
6.00
100
100.00
Qualification
Total
Inference:
From the table it is inferred that 25% of the respondents are from
Below SSLC, 60% of the respondents are from H.Sc course, 9% of the
respondents are degree and the remaining 6% of the respondents are
diploma. So majority of the respondents are higher secondary level
qualification.
Chart-4.3
Distribution of Respondents by their Qualification
60
60
50
Percentage
40
Below SSLC
30
H.Sc
25
Degree
Diploma
20
9
10
0
Below SSLC
H.Sc
Degree
Qualification
Diploma
Table-4.4
Distribution of the Respondents by their Income
No. of
Respondents
Percentage
Less than 5000
10
10.00
5001-10000
41
41.00
10001-20000
35
35.00
20000 above
14
14.00
100
100.00
Income
Total
Inference:
From the table it is inferred that 10% of the respondents are from
Less than 5000 income, 41% of the respondents are from Rs.500110000, 9% of the respondents are Rs.10001-20000 and the remaining
14% of the respondents are 20000 above. So majority of the respondents
are 5001-10000 income.
Distribution of Respondents by their Income
45
41
40
35
35
Percentage
30
Less than 5000
25
5001-10000
20
15
14
10
20000 above
10
5
0
Less than
5000
10001-20000
5001-10000
10001-20000
Income
20000 above
Table-4.5
Distribution of the respondents on the basis of marital status
Marital Status
No. of
Respondents
Percentage
Married
89
89.00
Unmarried
11
11.00
Total
100
100.00
Inference:
From the above table it is inferred that 89% of the respondents are
married group and 11% of the respondents unmarried groups.
majority of the respondents are married groups.
So
Chart 4.4
Distribution of the respondents on the basis of marital status
11
Married
Unmarried
89
10
Table-4.6
Distribution of the respondents on the basis of Nature of Family
Setup
Nature of
family setup
No. of
Respondents
Percentage
Nuclear family
23
23.00
Joint family
77
77.00
Total
100
100.00
Inference:
From the above table it is inferred that 23% of the respondents are
Nature of family setup group and 77% of the respondents unmarried
groups. So majority of the respondents are married groups.
11
Distribution of the respondents on the basis of Nature of family setup
23
Nuclear family
Joint family
77
12
Table-4.7
Distribution of the Respondents by their Experience
Experience
No. of
Percentage
Respondents
Less than 7 years
30
30.00
8 years above- 15 years
52
52.00
15 years above
18
18.00
100
100.00
Total
Inference:
From the table it is inferred that 30% of the respondents are less
than 7years experience, 52% of the respondents are from 8 years above15 years and 18% of the respondents are 15 years above experience.
13
Distribution of Respondents by their Experience
60
52
50
Percentage
40
30
Less than 7 years
30
8 years above- 15 years
18
20
10
0
Less than 7 years
8 years above15 years
15 years above
Experience
14
15 years above
Table-4.8
Distribution of the respondents on the basis of Nature of Family
Setup
Living the
Place
No. of
Respondents
Percentage
Village
62
62.00
Town
38
38.00
Total
100
100.00
Inference:
From the above table it is inferred that 62% of the respondents are
living the place and 38% of the respondents are Town.
Distribution of the respondents on the basis of marital status
38
Village
Town
62
15
Table-4.1
Showing Mean, SD and ANOVA value for employee conflict on the
basis of Age
Age
Mean
SD
Below 35 yrs
15
78.93
9.00
36-45 yrs
57
82.25
9.43
46-50 yrs
28
79.64
6.73
Total
100
81.02
8.72
F- Value
P- Value
1.350
0.26 (NS)
Inference:
Hy: Employees do not differ in their opinion about employees conflict on
the basis of age.
The table shows that all the group of employees scored equal mean
values. The calculated F ratio (1.350) is not significant. So the stated
hypothesis is accepted. Therefore Employees do not differ in their opinion
about employees conflict on the basis of age.
16
Table-4.2
Showing Mean, SD and t- value for employee conflict on the basis of
gender
Gender
Mean
SD
Male
99
81.05
8.76
Female
78.00
0.00
t- Value
P- Value
0.346
0.730
(NS)
Inference:
Hy: Employees do not differ in their opinion about employees conflict on
the basis of gender.
The table shows that all the group of employees scored equal mean
values. The calculated t ratio (0.346) is not significant. So the stated
hypothesis is accepted. Therefore Employees do not differ in their opinion
about employees conflict on the basis of gender.
17
Table-4.3
Showing Mean, SD and ANOVA value for employee conflict on the
basis of qualification
Qualification
Mean
SD
Below SSLC
25
80.84
8.38
H.Sc
60
81.53
9.21
Degree
80.56
8.78
Diploma
77.33
5.05
100
81.02
8.72
Total
F- Value
P- Value
0.431
0.731
(NS)
Hy: Employees do not differ in their opinion about employees conflict on
the basis of Qualification.
The table shows that all the group of employees scored equal mean
values. The calculated F ratio (0.431) is not significant. So the stated
hypothesis is accepted. Therefore Employees do not differ in their opinion
about employees conflict on the basis of Qualification.
18
Table-4.4
Showing Mean, SD and ANOVA value for employee conflict on the
basis of Income
N
Mean
SD
Less than 5000
10
80.30
9.20
5001-10000
41
80.73
9.21
10001-20000
35
82.23
8.79
20000 above
14
79.36
7.08
100
81.02
8.72
Income
Total
F- Value
P- Value
0.423
0.737
Hy: Employees do not differ in their opinion about employees conflict on
the basis of Qualification.
The table shows that all the group of employees scored equal mean
values. The calculated F ratio (0.423) is not significant. So the stated
hypothesis is accepted. Therefore Employees do not differ in their opinion
about employees conflict on the basis of Qualification.
19
Table-4.5
Distribution of the respondents on the basis of marital status
Marital Status
Mean
SD
t- Value
P- Value
Married
89
81.16
8.73
0.446
Unmarried
11
79.91
8.98
0.670
(NS)
Hy: Employees do not differ in their opinion about employees conflict on
the basis of Marital status.
The table shows that all the group of employees scored equal mean
values. The calculated t ratio (0.446) is not significant. So the stated
hypothesis is accepted. Therefore Employees do not differ in their opinion
about employees conflict on the basis of marital status.
20
Table-4.6
Distribution of the respondents on the basis of Nature of Family
Setup
Nature of
Family Setup
Mean
SD
Nuclear
family
23
79.96
9.79
Joint family
77
81.34
8.43
t- Value
P- Value
0.612
0.508
(NS)
Hy: Employees do not differ in their opinion about employees conflict on
the basis of Family setup.
The table shows that all the group of employees scored equal mean
values. The calculated t ratio (0.612) is not significant. So the stated
hypothesis is accepted. Therefore Employees do not differ in their opinion
about employees conflict on the basis of family setup.
21
Table-4.7
Distribution of the Respondents by their Experience
Experience
Mean
SD
F- Value
P- Value
Less than 7 years
30
80.37
9.01
1.59
0.209
8 years above- 15
years
52
82.35
9.00
15 years above
18
78.28
6.91
100
81.02
8.72
Total
Hy: Employees do not differ in their opinion about employees conflict on
the basis of Experience.
The table shows that all the group of employees scored equal mean
values. The calculated F value (1.59) is not significant. So the stated
hypothesis is accepted. Therefore Employees do not differ in their opinion
about employees conflict on the basis of experience.
22
Table-4.8
Distribution of the respondents on the basis of Nature of Family
Setup
Living the
Place
Mean
Village
62
81.79 8.75
Town
38
79.76 8.66
SD
t- Value
P- Value
1.132
0.62 (NS)
Hy: Employees do not differ in their opinion about employees conflict on
the basis of Family setup.
The table shows that all the group of employees scored equal mean
values. The calculated t Value (1.132) is not significant. So the stated
hypothesis is accepted. Therefore Employees do not differ in their opinion
about employees conflict on the basis of family setup.
23
24
