chapter 3 demographic profile of respondents for...
Post on 30-Aug-2020
13 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
65
CHAPTER 3
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS FOR
OCB & EI
3.1 CHAPTER OVERVIEW
This chapter aims to analyze the role of demographic variables and its
relationship to organizational citizenship behaviour and emotional intelligence.
Demographic information for the sample under study is collected from the
respondents through the questionnaire. Some of these variables are used as control
variables for further exploration of the relationship between the variables included in
the study.
3.2 INTRODUCTION
Employee demography can be defined as “the study of the composition of a
social entity in terms of its members’ attributes” (Pfeffer 1983. p303). Demographics
include such factors as age, ethnicity, occupation, gender, tenure, income, experience,
education level, marital and family status. However, in the particular area of HRM
research most of research has overlooked employee demographics. This
inattentiveness to employee demographics in HRM research has created lacunae what
is referred to as black box (Pfeffer 1985, Lawrence 1997). Lawrence (1997, p2)
indicates that despite the critical role of demography, researchers frequently leave
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
66
demographic variables “loosely specified and unmeasured, creating a black box filled
with vague, untested theories”.
Despite the fact that workforce has always had some degree of diversity in
terms of age, ethnicity, marital status, job position and skill, this diversity has grown
strikingly over the last two to three decades. Given a diverse nature of workforce, it is
rational to assume that differences in views and attitudes could be genuine, which
therefore, justifies probing demographics. Pfeffer (1985:74) suggests that,
“sensitivity to demographic effects can help provide a context to understand
organizational behaviour”. Only some studies even touch on demographics in
organizational research, and even lesser pondered over it in a comprehensive manner.
The researcher normally includes those factors which are assumed to have
explanatory value in the research. In the present study, demographic information
collected through the questionnaire can provide some meaningful insights in
understanding the underlying nature of the constructs. In some of the studies,
demographic variables had a significant impact on the variables included in the study,
while in others their impact was either minimal or insignificant.
3.3 DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES
Age A space is provided on the questionnaire for the respondent to indicate his/her
age. The relationship between age and other variables will be tested. If the significant
relationship is found, it will be controlled for the purpose of hypothesis testing.
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
67
Table 3.1: Plant and Age Category wise Distribution of the Respondents
Age Category PSPCL
Total BATHINDA LEHRA
MOHABBAT under 26 years 3(1.20) 3(1.20) 6(2.40)
26-35 years 19(7.60) 24(9.60) 43(17.20) 36-45 years 25(10.00) 31(12.40) 56(30.40) 46-55 years 56(22.40) 53(21.20) 109(43.60) 56 years & above 22(8.80) 14(5.60) 36(14.40)
Total 125(50) 125(50) 250(100) Note: Figure in parentheses show percentages
109 respondents i.e.43.60% are in the age category of 46-55 years as per Table 3.1.
Table 3.2: Age and Gender wise Distribution of the Respondents
Age category Gender Total Male Female
under 26 years 6(2.40) 0 6(2.40) 26-35 years 40(16.00) 3(1.20) 43(17.20) 36-45 years 53(21.20) 3(1.20) 56(30.40) 46-55 years 103(41.20) 6(2.40) 109(43.60) 56 years & above 29(11.60) 7(2.80) 36(14.40)
Total 231(92.40) 19(7.60) 250(100) Note: Figure in parentheses show percentages
To better understand the sample composition and characteristics, cross tabulations
have been used to present the information about respondents. Table 3.1 lists the plant
and age wise distribution of the respondents, and Table 3.2 indicates the age and
gender wise distribution of the respondents, depicting that there are 231 males and
only 19 females in this study, with most of the respondents falling in 46-55 years of
age category.
Gender An option is provided in the questionnaire to indicate the respondent’s
gender as male / female. Male is coded as 1 and female as 2 for the purpose of data
analysis. While there are indications from previous research that females generally
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
68
have a higher level of emotional intelligence than males. Table 3.3 shows that there
are 231 (92.4%) males and only 19 (7.6%) females in this sample. As most of the
respondents are males, gender analysis has been dropped.
Table 3.3: Gender and Designation wise Distribution of the Respondents
Designation Gender Total Male Female
Clerk 329(12.80) 18(7.20) 50(20.00) JE 50(20.00) 0 (0) 50(20.00) SDO 52(20.80) 1(0.40) 53(21.20) XEN 47(18.80) 0 47(18.80) ASE/SE 50(20.00) 0 50(20.00)
Total 231(92.40) 19(7.60) 250(100) Note: Figure in parentheses show percentages
Designation A space is provided to indicate the designation as the study aims to
collect the data from technical and clerical employees of both the thermal plants. The
data are collected from Clerks, Junior Engineers, Sub-Divisional Officers, Xens,
Superintending Engineers and Additional Superintending Engineers. The clerk is
coded as 1, J.E. as 2, SDO as 3, Xen as 4 and SE/ASE as 5. Table 3.4 lists the
designation and plant wise distribution of the respondents. Designation wise there is
an almost equal distribution of the respondents in both the thermal plants.
Table 3.4: Designation and Plant wise Distribution of the Respondents
Designation PSPCL
Total Bathinda Lehra
Mohabbat Clerk 25(10) 25(10) 50(20)
JE 25(10) 25(10) 50(20) SDO 26(10.40) 27(10.80) 53(21.20) XEN 24(9.60) 23(9.20) 47(18.80) ASE/SE 25(10) 25(10) 50(20)
Total 125(50) 125(50) 250(100) Note: Figure in parentheses show percentages
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
69
Tenure The tenure is asked by providing five categories, namely, 0-5 years, 6-
10 years, 11-15 years, 16-20 years, 21 years & above. The tenure is coded as 1, 2, 3, 4
and 5 respectively for the data analysis. 156 respondents i.e. 62.40% have tenure of
16 years & above as per Table 3.5.
Table 3.5: Tenure and Plant wise Distribution of the Respondents
Tenure PSPCL Total Bathinda Lehra Mohabbat
0-5 years 14(5.60) 20(8.00) 34((13.60) 6-10 years 4(1.60) 5(2.00) 9(3.60) 11-15 years 23(9.20) 28(11.20) 51(20.40) 16-20 years 12(4.80) 14(5.60) 26(10.40) 21 years & above 72(28.80) 58(23.20) 130(52.00)
Total 125(50) 125(50) 250(100) Note: Figure in parentheses show percentages
Status of Employment The status of employment is asked by providing
options, as Regular / Contract / Adhoc employee. All the employees under the present
study are working on regular basis in both the thermal plants. Hence, it has not been
further explored in the study.
Spouse’s Status This information is asked by providing options as working/
homemaker/ not applicable. Working status of spouse is coded as 1, homemaker as 2
and not applicable in case of unmarried employees as 0. 107 respondents have their
spouse’s status as working and 135 have as homemakers as per Table 3.6
Table 3.6: Plant wise Spouse’s Status Distribution of the Respondents
Spouse's Status PSPCL Total Bathinda Lehra Mohabbat
N.A. 5(2.00) 3((1.20) 8(3.20) Working 58(23.20) 49(19.60) 107(42.80) Homemaker 62(24.80) 73((29.20) 135(54.00)
Total 125(50) 125(50) 250(100) Note: Figure in parentheses show percentages
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
70
Marital Status Information is gathered by giving options as Unmarried /
Married in the questionnaire, and the same is coded as 1 for unmarried and 2 for
married. Table 3.7 depicts that 242 respondents are married and only 8 are unmarried.
Table 3.7: Marital Status and Designation wise Distribution of the Respondents
Designation Marital Status Total Unmarried Married
Clerk 0 50(20.00) 50(20.00) JE 2(0.80) 48(19.20) 50(20.00) SDO 5(2.00) 48(19.20) 53(21.20) XEN 1(0.40) 46(18.40) 47(18.80) ASE/SE 0 50(20) 50(20.00) Total 8(3.20) 242(96.80) 250(100)
Note: Figure in parentheses show percentages
Number of Dependents A space is provided in the questionnaire to mention
about the number of dependents of the respondents. Table 3.8 lists the detail about
number of dependents. 102 respondents have 3 dependents each to support in their
family.
Table 3.8: Number of Dependents and Designation wise Distribution of the Respondents
No. of dependents
PSPCL
Total Bathinda Lehra
Mohabbat N.A. 7((2.80) 6(2.4) 13(5.20)
1 8(3.20) 14(5.60) 22(8.80) 2 48(19.20) 44(17.60) 92(36.80) 3 55(22.00) 47(18.80) 102(40.80) 4 6(2.40) 12(4.80) 18(7.20) 5 1(0.40) 2(0.80) 3(1.20)
Total 125(50) 125(50) 250(100) Note: Figure in parentheses show percentages
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
71
Education Level A space is provided in the questionnaire for the respondents to
indicate their highest level of education. It is then coded as 1 for Matric, 2 for 10+2 /
ITI, 3 for Diploma, 4 for B.Tech/ Bachelor’s degree and 5 for M.Tech / Master’s
degree. A progressive score for education level has been coded in the data sheet for
the analysis. As per Table 3.9, 136 (54.4%) respondents possessed bachelor’s degree.
Table 3.9: Education Level and Plant wise Distribution of the Respondents
Education Level PSPCL
Total Bathinda Lehra
Mohabbat Matric 7(2.80) 9(3.60) 16(6.40)
10+2/ ITI 3(1.20) 6(2.40) 9(3.60) Diploma 31(12.40) 22(8.80) 53(21.20) B.Tech/Bachelor's degree 70(28.00) 66(26.40) 136(54.40) M.Tech/ Master's Degree 14(5.60) 22(8.80) 36(14.40)
Total 125(50) 125(50) 250(100) Note: Figure in parentheses show percentages
Annual Income Four categories of annual income have been included in the
questionnaire for the subjects to indicate their respective category.
Table 3.10: Income and Plant wise Distribution of the Respondents
Income (Rs.) PSPCL
Total Bathinda Lehra
Mohabbat less than 3 lakhs 6 (2.40) 8(3.20) 14(5.60)
3-6 lakhs 67(26.80) 49(19.60) 116(46.40) 6-9 lakhs 29(11.60) 40(16.00) 69(27.60) above 9 lakhs 23(9.20) 28(11.20) 51(20.40)
Total 125(50) 125(50) 250(100) Note: Figure in parentheses show percentages
These categories are coded as 1 for less than Rs. 3 lakhs, 2 for Rs. 3-6 lakhs, 3 for Rs.
6-9 lakhs and 4 for more than Rs. 9 lakhs. As per Table 3.10, 116 (46.4%)
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
72
respondents are in the income category of Rs.3-6 lakhs and 120 (48%) respondents
are earning annually above Rs.6 lakhs.
Total experience A space is provided to collect this information from the
respondents. Afterwards data are categorized for conducting data analysis. The
sample has mean experience of 21.37 years (s.d. = 9.71), with a minimum of 1 year
and maximum of 37 years.
Number of years known to the supervisor A space is provided to gather
information about the number of years since the supervisor knows his subordinate.
This information is reported by the superior of the concerned subordinate. It has a
mean of 6.88 years (s.d. = 6.49 years), with a minimum of 1 year and maximum of 30
years.
3.3.1 Demographic variables and OCB
Demographic variables can play a major role in assessing and predicting the
OCB of the respondents. The aim of the present study is to assess the contributions of
the demographic variables in assessing the OCB of the respondents.
3.3.1.1 Age and OCB
Garg & Rastogi (2006) carried out the study to assess the significant
differences in the climate profile and OCBs of teachers working in private and public
schools of India. Female teachers exhibited higher levels of OCB as compared to
male teachers. Teachers who are above 36 years tend to exhibit higher levels of
OCBs, in comparison to teachers who are upto the age of 35 years.
Table 3.11 depicts, the means and standard deviations of OCB and its
dimensions, as per the age category of the respondent. The mean values show a
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
73
mixed trend both rising and falling for OCB and its five dimensions. Before ANOVA
can be used, homogeneity of variance assumption is tested through Levene’s test i.e.,
to examine for, whether the variation of scores for different age categories is the
same. If the significance value (p-value) of this test is less than 0.05, then variances
are significantly different and parametric tests cannot be used. Hence, in order to use
ANOVA, p-value must be greater than 0.05, which means that the assumption of
equal variances is not violated, and therefore equal variances assumed. In Table 3.12,
the level of significance for all variables in Levene’s statistics is more than the
threshold value of 0.05. Hence, ANOVA can be applied successfully to test the
hypothesized relationship.
Table 3.11: Means & Std. Deviations for Age Category, OCB and its Dimensions Age category
OCB Altruism Sportsm-anship
Conscient-iousness
Courtesy Civic Virtue
under 26 years
Mean 5.32 5.17 5.08 5.40 5.27 5.25 N 6 6 6 6 6 6 S.d. .21 .66 1.50 .36 . 78 .69
26-35 years Mean 5.63 5.69 5.81 5.69 5.53 5.33 N 43 43 43 43 43 43 S.d .29 .48 .79 .56 .54 .49
36-45 years Mean 5.53 5.49 5.68 5.57 5.48 5.25 N 56 56 56 56 56 56 S.d .43 .64 .92 .56 .53 .59
46-55 years Mean 5.57 5.55 5.68 5.70 5.50 5.35 N 109 109 109 109 109 109 S.d .40 .64 .65 .55 .56 .62
56 years & above
Mean 5.42 5.28 5.53 5.58 5.35 5.14 N 36 36 36 36 36 36 S.d .37 .59 1.06 .60 .60 .61
N = 250 In Table 3.11 for OCB, altruism, sportsmanship, conscientiousness and courtesy
mean values are lowest for under 26 years category and highest for 26-35 years
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
74
category except for civic virtue. While civic virtue has the lowest mean for 56 years
& above age category and highest mean for 46-55 years of age category.
Table 3.12: ANOVA & Homogeneity of Variance Results for Age, OCB and its Dimensions
The results in Table 3.12, show that OCB with F (4, 245) = 2.243, p < .10 and
altruism with F(4,245) = 2.841, p < .05 are statistically significant. The summated
scales of OCB and altruism have significant relationship with age. The homogeneity
of variance, tested through Levene’s statistic shows that all p-values are greater than
0.05, so ANOVA can be applied to test the relationship among the variables.
Table 3.13: Contrast Coefficients for Age and OCB Contrast Age category
under 26 years
26-35 years
36-45 years
46-55 years
56 years & above
1 0 1 -1 0 0 2 0 1 0 -.5 -.5 3 4
0 0
0 1
0 1
1 -1
-1 -1
Table 3.13 and Table 3.14 show the results of contrast analysis. As the ANOVA does
not specifically tell about the age categories, which have statistically significant
Variable Mean (Std. Deviation)
ANOVA Homogeneity of Variance
F (df) p value Levene statistic
p value
OCB 5.54 (.38) 2.243 (4, 245) .065 1.463 .166 Altruism 5.51 (.62) 2.841 (4, 245) .025 1.253 .289 Sportsmanship 5.67 (.83) 1.342 (4, 245) .255 .697 .676 Conscientiousness 5.65 (.56) 1.015 (4, 245) .400 .616 .652 Courtesy 5.48 (.56) .812 (4, 245) .518 .164 .956 Civic Virtue 5.29 (.59) .956 (4, 245) .432 .940 .441 N=250
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
75
differences, contrast analysis have been carried out alongwith the post-hoc tests. The
relationship between the OCB and altruism is further explored through post-hoc tests
given in Table 3.15. There is significant difference between OCB in the age category
of 26-35 years and 56 years & above (p < 0.10). Also for altruism, there is significant
difference between age category of 26-35 years and 56 years & above.
Table 3.14: Contrast tests for OCB and Altruism as per Age Category Contrast Value of
Contrast Std.
Error t df Sig. (2-tailed)
OCB Assume equal variances
1 .103 .077 1.344 245 .180 2 .138 .068 2.013 245 .045 3 .152 .073 2.079 245 .039
4 .172 .106 1.623 245 .101 Does not assume equal variances
1 .103 .072 1.427 96.195 .157 2 .138 .057 2.392 88.541 .019 3 .152 .071 2.120 64.246 .038 4 .172 .102 1.690 154.832 .093
Altruism Assume equal variances
1 .200 .123 1.620 245 .101 2 .278 .110 2.530 245 .012 3 .270 .117 2.301 245 .022 4 .361 .170 2.090 245 .038
Does not assume equal variances
1 .200 .112 1.777 96.989 .079 2 .278 .093 2.971 88.027 .004 3 .270 .115 2.334 65.031 .023 4 .361 .161 2.206 154.092 .029
The results of contrast analysis for OCB revealed that:
(i) There is significant difference between 46-55 years and 56 years & above age
category with t(245) = 2.079, p <.05.
(ii) There is significant difference between 26-35 years and above 46 years of age
category with t(245) = 2.013, p <.05.
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
76
(iii) There is significant difference between 26-45 years and above 46 years of age
category with t(245) = 1.623, p = .10.
Table 3.15: Post Hoc Tests for OCB and Altruism as per Age Category Dependent Variable
(I) Age Category
(J) Age Category
Mean Difference
(I-J) Std.
Error Sig.
95% Confidence
Interval
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
OCB
26-35 years
under 26 years .313 .165 .324 -.141 .769 36-45 years .103 .077 .664 -.108 .315 46-55 years .062 .068 .895 -.126 .250 56 years & above
.214* .085 .096 -.022 .450
Altruism
26-35 years
under 26 years .525 .266 .283 -.207 1.257 36-45 years .201 .123 .486 -.139 .541 46-55 years .143 .110 .688 -.158 .446 56 years & above
.414** .138 .025 .034 .793
**. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.10 level.
For altruism, the results of contrast analysis are as follows:
(i) There is significant difference between 26-35 years and 36-45 years age
category with t(245) = 1.620 , p =.10.
(ii) There is significant difference between 46-55 years and 56 years & above age
category with t(245) = 2.301 , p < .05.
(iii) There is significant difference between 26-45 years and above 46 years of age
category with t(245) = 2.530 , p < .05.
(iv) There is significant difference between 26-35 years and above 46 years of age
category with t(245) = 2.090 , p < .05.
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
77
Figure 3.1: Means Plot of Age and OCB
Figure 3.2: Means Plot of Age and Altruism
Figure 3.1 shows that OCB is highest in 26-35 years of age category and lowest for
less than 26 years of category. Figure 3.2 gives the relationship between altruism and
age. The shape of the curve for altruism is similar to that of OCB in Figure 3.1.
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
78
Inference: The results of ANOVA partially support hypothesis 1(age and OCB)
and 1a (age & altruism). It depicts that there is difference in age and OCB as well as
age and altruism among respondents. Henceforth, hypothesis 1b, 1c, 1d and 1e are
rejected for lack of statistical support.
3.3.1.2 Designation and OCB
Designation means the job position that a person holds in an organization.
Coding for designation has been done in ascending order. Rise in designation leads to
corresponding rise in responsibility and duty. Job positions at higher level demand,
that a person has to perform over and above the job contracts. Hence, it is
hypothesized that designation may have significant impact on the level of OCB of the
respondents, as a higher designation means higher duties and responsibilities of the
job.
Table 3.16: Designation wise Means and Std. Deviations for OCB and its Dimensions
Designation OCB Altruism Sportsm-anship
Conscient-iousness
Courtesy Civic Virtue
Clerk Mean 5.42 5.37 5.68 5.46 5.23 5.24 N 50 50 50 50 50 50 S.d .31 .60 1.06 .63 . 55 .57 JE Mean 5.50 5.48 5.74 5.56 5.38 5.24 N 50 50 50 50 50 50 S.d .34 .63 .64 .47 .58 .52 SDO Mean 5.60 5.64 5.66 5.71 5.61 5.27 N 53 53 53 53 53 53 S.d .40 .54 .91 .49 .52 .61 XEN Mean 5.56 5.46 5.58 5.72 5.57 5.30 N 47 47 47 47 47 47 S.d .39 .67 .76 .51 .50 .62 ASE/SE Mean 5.63 5.58 5.66 5.78 5.58 5.46 N 50 50 50 50 50 50 S.d .43 .63 .73 .61 .56 .63 N = 250
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
79
Table 3.16 indicates that for OCB, conscientiousness and civic virtue; mean
value is highest for ASE/SE and lowest for Clerk. For altruism and courtesy, mean
value is highest for SDO and lowest for Clerk. While for sportsmanship, mean value
is highest for JE and lowest for XEN with a slight difference between the mean
values.
Table 3.17 indicates the results of ANOVA and homogeneity of variance.
Moreover, Levene’s statistic for homogeneity of variance and its corresponding
significance values are all more than .05 indicating equality of variance. As per
ANOVA results for OCB with F(4,245) = 2.436, p < .05, conscientiousness with
F(4,245) = 2.931, p < .05 and courtesy with F(4,245) = 4.557, p < .01; show
statistically significant outcomes for designation. One Way ANOVA analysis reveals,
that on the basis of designation, there is statistically significant difference of scores
for OCB, conscientiousness and courtesy.
Table 3.17: Designation wise ANOVA & Homogeneity of Variance results for
OCB and its dimensions
Variable
Mean (Std. Deviation)
ANOVA Homogeneity of Variance
F (df) p value Levene statistic
p value
OCB 5.54 (.38) 2.436 (4, 245) .048 2.254 .064 Altruism 5.51 (.62) 1.560 (4, 245) .186 .751 .558 Sportsmanship 5.67 (.83) .238 (4, 245) .917 1.832 .123 Conscientiousness 5.65 (.56) 2.931 (4, 245) .022 1.530 .194 Courtesy 5.48 (.56) 4.557 (4, 245) .001 .214 .930 Civic Virtue 5.29 (.59) 1.495 (4, 245) .204 1.680 .155 N=250
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
80
Table 3.18: Designation wise Contrast Coefficients for OCB Contrast Designation
Clerk JE SDO XEN ASE/SE
1 0 1 -1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 -1 3 1 1 -1 -1 0 4 0 1 0 -1 0
Table 3.19: Designation wise Contrast Tests for OCB, conscientiousness and courtesy
Contrast Value of Contrast
Std. Error t df
Sig. (2-tailed)
OCB Assume equal variances
1 -.097 .074 -1.303 245 .194 2 -.210 .076 -2.775 245 .006 3 -.235 .107 -2.191 245 .029 4 -.056 .077 -.729 245 .467
Does not assume equal variances
1 -.097 .073 -1.330 100.243 .186 2 -.210 .076 -2.775 87.924 .007 3 -.235 .102 -2.291 187.035 .023 4 -.056 .075 -.747 91.603 .457
Conscient- Iousness
Assume equal variances
1 -.153 .108 -1.413 245 .159 2 -.320 .109 -2.914 245 .004 3 -.420 .155 -2.704 245 .007 4 -.159 .111 -1.429 245 .154
Does not assume equal variances
1 -.153 .095 -1.606 100.919 .111 2 -.320 .124 -2.565 97.803 .012 3 -.420 .151 -2.783 182.659 .006 4 -.159 .100 -1.583 93.222 .117
Courtesy Assume equal variances
1 -.231 .107 -2.149 245 .033 2 -.348 .109 -3.190 245 .002 3 -.573 .154 -3.715 245 .000 4 -.190 .110 -1.719 245 .087
Does not assume equal variances
1 -.231 .108 -2.126 98.596 .036 2 -.348 .111 -3.113 97.977 .002 3 -.573 .152 -3.750 193.490 .000 4 -.190 .109 -1.733 94.532 .086
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
81
Hence, again ANOVA values are explored with contrasts and post-hoc analysis, to
find out which category of designation is statistically significant. For testing the
relationship further contrast coefficients have been used as per Table 3.18.
Table 3.20: Designation wise Post Hoc Tests for OCB, Conscientiousness and Courtesy
Multiple Comparisons (Tukey HSD) Dependent Variable
(I) Desig (J) Desig
Mean Difference
(I-J) Std.
Error Sig.
95% Confidence
Interval Lower Bound
Upper Bound
OCB
Clerk
JE -.081 .076 .819 -.290 .127 SDO -.179 .075 .120 -.385 .026 XEN -.138 .077 .383 -.350 .074 ASE/SE -.211* .076 .047 -.419 -.002
Conscienti- ousness
Clerk
JE -.108 .109 .863 -.409 .193 SDO -.261 .108 .116 -.558 .036 XEN -.267 .111 .120 -.574 .039 ASE/SE -.320* .109 .032 -.621 -.018
Courtesy
Clerk
JE -.152 .109 .632 -.451 .147 SDO -.383* .107 .004 -.678 -.087 XEN -.342* .110 .019 -.647 -.038 ASE/SE -.348* .109 .014 -.647 -.048
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. The results of Table 3.19 and 3.20 further reveal following outcomes:
(i) For OCB and designation, statistically significant result of the contrast
analysis is, that there is significant difference between OCB mean values of
Clerk and ASE/SE with t(245) = -2.775, p = .006.
(ii) For OCB and designation, statistically significant result of the contrast
analysis shows, that there is significant difference between OCBs collective
mean values of Clerk and JE taken together viz-à-viz SDO and XEN with
t(245) = -2.191, p = .029.
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
82
(iii) For conscientiousness and designation, statistically significant result of the
contrast analysis shows, that there is significant difference between mean
values of Clerk and ASE/SE with t(245) = -2.914, p = .004.
(iv) For conscientiousness and designation, statistically significant result of the
contrast analysis shows, that there is significant difference between collective
mean values of Clerk and JE viz-à-viz SDO and XEN with t(245) = -2.704, p
= .007.
(v) For courtesy and designation, statistically significant result of the contrast
analysis is, that there is significant difference between mean values of JE and
SDO with t(245) = -2.149, p = .033.
(vi) For courtesy and designation, statistically significant result of the contrast
analysis shows, that there is significant difference between mean values of
Clerk and ASE/SE with t(245) = -3.190, p=.022.
(vii) For courtesy and designation, statistically significant result of the contrast
analysis shows, that there is significant difference between collective mean
values of Clerk and JE viz-à-viz SDO and XEN with t(245) = -3.715, p=.000.
(vii) For courtesy and designation, statistically significant result of the contrast
analyses are that there is significant difference between mean values of JE and
XEN with t (245) = -1.719, p=.087.
(viii) Additional results of post-hoc tests reveal, that for courtesy there is
statistically significant difference in mean values for Clerk and Xen (p = .019)
as well as for Clerk and SDO (p = .004).
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
83
Figure 3.3 lists the Means Plot of designation and OCB showing the rising curve with
respect to designation; it is lowest for clerk’s category and highest for ASE/SE.
Figure 3.3: Means Plot of Designation & OCB
Figure 3.4: Means Plot of Designation & Courtesy
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
84
Figure 3.5: Means Plot of Designation & Conscientiousness
Figure 3.4 depicts the relationship between designation and courtesy, mean value is
lowest for clerk’s category and highest for SDO. There is a steep rise in the curve in
the beginning till SDO and then it flattens. Figure 3.5 lists the relationship between
designation and conscientiousness, the curve is rising depicting the lowest mean for
clerk’s category and highest for ASE/SE.
Inference: The results indicate support for hypothesis 2 (designation & OCB), 2c
(designation & conscientiousness) and 2d (designation & courtesy), while hypothesis
2a, 2b and 2e are rejected due to want of statistical support
3.3.1.3 Tenure and OCB
Tenure basically denotes the length of time spent in an organization, it leads to
the development of shared understandings and experiences (Wiersema & Bird, 1993).
Studies suggest that a longer tenure in an organization is positively associated to
employee well-being and employee performance (Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1990;
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
85
Wiersema & Bantel, 1992; Pfeffer, 1993; Cheng, Jiang & Riley, 2003). It is likely
that employees with longer tenure would engage in more OCBs, as they are more
psychologically involved and have a stronger bonding at the workplace. Moreover,
their organizational experience implies, that they are quite familiar with the
organizational milieu, seniors’ expectations, peers’ requirements and are aware of
where and how to contribute. In relation to this, less tenured employees will be more
engaged in in-role activities to establish their job security. The findings have been
mixed regarding this variable. O’Reilly & Chatman (1986) as well as Morrison
(1993) found, that longer tenured employees performed more extra-role activities,
while Smith et al. (1983) did not find any relationship between the two variables.
Table 3.21 lists the means and standard deviations of the respondents, as per their
tenure in the organization.
Table 3.21: Tenure wise Means & Std. deviations for OCB and its dimensions Tenure category
OCB Altruism Sportsm-anship
Conscien-tiousness
Courtesy Civic Virtue
0-5 years
Mean 5.61 5.60 5.66 5.71 5.56 5.29 N 34 34 34 34 34 34 S.d .36 .63 1.09 .60 . 64 .50
6-10 years
Mean 5.42 5.42 5.97 5.13 5.26 5.19 N 9 9 9 9 9 9 S.d .40 .83 .84 .54 .62 .59
11-15 years
Mean 5.56 5.57 5.81 5.61 5.45 5.25 N 51 56 56 56 56 56 S.d .28 .52 .66 .46 .43 .50
16-20 years
Mean 5.54 5.51 5.70 5.53 5.55 5.19 N 26 26 26 26 26 26 S.d .45 .63 .72 .68 .58 .60
21 years Mean 5.53 5.47 5.59 5.70 5.46 5.32 & above N 130 130 130 130 130 130 S.d .40 .63 .83 .53 .57 .64 N = 250
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
86
As per the Table 3.22, the relationship between the tenure and conscientiousness is
found to be significant. Figure 3.6 shows the relationship between these constructs.
The mean value of conscientiousness is lowest for respondents with 6-10 years of
tenure and highest for 21 years & above category. As per the results of ANOVA in
Table 3.22, only conscientiousness has significant F(4, 245) = 2.705, (p <. 05) value.
Hence, only this is further explored through contrasts and post hoc analysis.
Table 3.22: Tenure wise ANOVA & Homogeneity of Variance results for OCB and its dimensions
Figure 3.6: Means Plot of Tenure & Conscientiousness
Variable Mean (Std. Deviation)
ANOVA Homogeneity of Variance
F (df) p value Levene statistic
p value
OCB 5.54 (.38) .545 (4, 245) .703 2.153 .075 Altruism 5.51 (.62) .425 (4, 245) .790 1.420 .228 Sportsmanship 5.67 (.83) .985 (4, 245) .416 .927 .449 Conscientiousness 5.65 (.56) 2.705 (4, 245) .031 1.275 .280 Courtesy 5.48 (.56) .686 (4, 245) .602 2.227 .067 Civic Virtue 5.29 (.59) .389 (4, 245) .816 1.701 .150 N=250
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
87
As per Table 3.24 and 3.25, there is a significant relationship between tenure and
conscientiousness of the respondents. This relationship is further explored through
contrast coefficients/tests in Table 3.23, Table 3.24 and post-hoc tests in Table 3.25.
Table 3.23: Tenure wise Contrast Coefficients for Conscientiousness Contrast Tenure
0-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 21 years & above
1 0 1 -1 0 0 2 0 1 1 -1 -1 3 0 1 0 -1 0 4 1 -1 0 0 0
Table 3.24: Tenure wise Contrast Tests for Conscientiousness
Contrast Value of Contrast
Std. Error t df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Conscien- tiousness
Assume equal variances
1 -.478 .198 -2.406 245 .017 2 -.494 .231 -2.139 245 .033 3 -.405 .212 -1.904 245 .058 4 .578 .206 2.805 245 .005
Does not assume equal variances
1 -.478 .193 -2.470 10.110 .033 2 -.494 .239 -2.063 21.797 .051 3 -.405 .226 -1.791 17.260 .091 4 .578 .210 2.750 13.744 .016
Table 3.25: Tenure wise Post Hoc tests for Conscientiousness (Multiple Comparisons) Tukey HSD
Dependent Variable
(I) tenure (J) tenure Mean
Difference (I-J)
Std. Error Sig.
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Conscien- tiousness
6-10 years 0-5 years -.57* .21 .043 -1.14 -.01 11-15 years -.47 .20 .117 -1.02 .06 16-20 years -.40 .21 .318 -.98 .17 21 years & above
-.56* .19 .025 -1.08 -.04
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
88
For conscientiousness, the tenure of 6-10 years is significantly related to other
categories of 0-5 years, 11-15 years as well as 21 years & above. The mean value of
conscientiousness is found to be significantly rising with the progressive tenure
categories. As per contrast no. 2 of Table 3.23, the collective mean of 6-15 years and
16 years & above showed significant difference with t(245) = -2.139, p < .05.
Moreover, when having a glance at these findings, it should also be considered that
only 9 respondents are there in 6-10 years of category, while there are 34 respondents
in 0-5 years. The conscientiousness score of 0-5 category is higher than others, as
probably newer employees fall in this category and they are more sincerely following
the rules and regulations, to acclimatize in the new environment.
Inference: Hence, only hypothesis 3c is supported for tenure and
conscientiousness and for others i.e. hypotheses 3, 3a, 3b, 3d and 3e are rejected.
3.3.1.4 Spouse’s Status and OCB
The impact of the spouse’s status on OCB has been examined. The status of
the spouse taken in the present study is working / homemaker /not applicable for
unmarried employees. This demographic variable has not been examined in previous
research studies. Working couples could be more sensitive to each other’s role at the
workplace and at home, while homemakers can also provide immense support as their
spouses can devote themselves whole-heartedly on a single front, by not worrying too
much about the household chores and other assignments. Whether spouse’s status can
have vital impact on the OCB and its five dimensions has to be explored. As per
Table 3.26 means of working couples are higher than that of their counterparts.
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
89
Table 3.26: Spouse’s Status wise Means & Std. deviations for OCB and its Dimensions
Spouse Status
OCB Altruism Sportsm -anship
Conscient-iousness
Courtesy Civic Virtue
N.A. Mean 5.42 5.37 5.84 5.37 5.20 5.09 N 8 8 8 8 8 8 S.d .48 .79 .88 .53 . 70 .26 Working Mean 5.60 5.62 5.71 5.71 5.54 5.31 N 107 107 107 107 107 107 S.d .35 .59 .82 .61 .60 .61 Homemaker Mean 5.50 5.43 5.62 5.61 5.44 5.27 N 135 135 135 135 135 135 S.d .40 .62 .84 .51 .52 .60 N = 250 As per Table 3.27, the ANOVA values are significant for OCB with F (2, 247) =
2.466, p < .10 and altruism with F (2,247) = 2.994, p < .05 only. To further explore,
for which particular category of spouse’s status the relationship is significant
contrasts are applied as per Table 3.28.
Table 3.27: Spouse’s Status wise ANOVA and Homogeneity of Variance Results for OCB and its Dimensions
Table 3.28: Spouse’s Status wise Contrast Coefficients for OCB Contrast Spouse Status
N.A. Working Homemaker 1 0 1 -1
Variable Mean (Std. Deviation)
ANOVA Homogeneity of Variance
F (df) p value Levene statistic
p value
OCB 5.54 (.38) 2.466 (2, 247) .087 .819 .442 Altruism 5.51 (.62) 2.994 (2, 247) .049 1.395 .250 Sportsmanship 5.67 (.83) .566 (2, 247) .568 .213 .808 Conscientiousness 5.65 (.56) 2.033 (2, 247) .133 1.991 .139 Courtesy 5.48 (.56) 1.960 (2, 247) .143 1.902 .152 Civic Virtue 5.29 (.59) .572 (2, 247) .565 2.606 .076 N=250
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
90
Table 3.29: Spouse’s Status wise Contrast Tests for OCB & Altruism Contrast Value of
Contrast Std.
Error t df Sig. (2-tailed)
OCB Assume equal variances
1 .099 .049 2.019 247 .045
Does not assume equal variances
1 .099 .048 2.064 236.762 .040
Altruism Assume equal variances
1 .188 .079 2.362 247 .019
Does not assume equal variances
1 .188 .078 2.400 232.681 .017
The results of Table 3.29 show significant value for OCB {t(247) = 2.019, p
<.05} and altruism {t(247) = 2.363, p < .05}. Working couples had higher means for
OCB and altruism viz-à-viz their counterparts. This relationship between mean
values of spouse’s status viz-à-viz OCB and altruism has been shown in Figure 3.7
and 3.8. The mean value is higher for working couples, as compared to the
homemakers depicting almost the same shape of the curve for both OCB and
altruism.
Figure 3.7: Means Plot of Spouse’s Status & OCB
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
91
Figure 3.8: Means Plot of Spouse’s Status & Altruism
Inference: The findings support hypothesis 4 (spouse’s status and OCB) and 4a
(spouse’s status and altruism), while other hypothesis 4b-4e are not supported.
3.3.1.5 Number of Dependents and OCB
The relationship between the number of dependents of the respondents and
their organizational citizenship behaviour has been examined here. Previous research
studies have been deficient regarding this. Table 3.30 lists the means and standard
deviations for different categories of dependents for OCB. The relationship has been
explored through ANOVA as per Table 3.31.
As per Table 3.31 ANOVA values were not significant for number of
dependents and corresponding OCB, altruism, sportsmanship, conscientiousness and
courtesy. For civic virtue F(5,244) = 2.110, p < .10 , it is further explored through
post hoc analysis, but the results are insignificant.
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
92
Table 3.30: Means and Std. Deviations for OCB and its dimensions as per Number of Dependents
No. of dependents OCB Altruism Sportsm-anship
Conscien-tiousness
Courtesy Civic Virtue
N.A. Mean 5.528 5.461 5.250 5.630 5.600 5.442 N 13 13 13 13 13 13 S.d. .383 .636 1.534 .582 .721 .605
1.00 Mean 5.495 5.409 5.784 5.663 5.381 5.079 N 22 22 22 22 22 22 S.d. .325 .688 .839 .618 .623 .502
2.00 Mean 5.585 5.554 5.682 5.676 5.515 5.353 N 92 92 92 92 92 92 S.d. .443 .629 .810 .609 .528 .601
3.00 Mean 5.519 5.497 5.671 5.615 5.441 5.286 N 102 102 102 102 102 102 S.d. .328 .620 .705 .508 .545 .590
4.00 Mean 5.502 5.500 5.763 5.588 5.466 5.041 N 18 18 18 18 18 18 S.d. .438 .542 .788 .506 .650 .557
5.00 Mean 5.818 5.750 5.500 6.133 5.800 5.833 N 3 3 3 3 3 3 S.d. .327 .433 1.802 .115 .400 .763
N = 250
Table 3.31: ANOVA and Homogeneity of Variance Results for OCB and its Dimensions as per Number of Dependents
Variable Mean (Std. Deviation)
ANOVA Homogeneity of Variances
F (df) p value Levene statistic
p value
OCB 5.54 (.38) .683 (5, 244) .637 2.495 .032 Altruism 5.51 (.62) .320 (5, 244) .901 .366 .872 Sportsmanship 5.67 (.83) .814 (5, 244) .541 5.020 .000 Conscientiousness 5.65 (.56) .611 (5, 244) .691 1.624 .154 Courtesy 5.48 (.56) .616 (5, 244) .688 1.356 .242 Civic Virtue 5.29 (.59) 2.110 (5, 244) .065 .457 .808 N=250
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
93
No significant relationship is found between the number of dependents and
the OCB alongwith its five dimensions. The relationship was examined though One
Way ANOVA as per Table 3.31 alongwith post-hoc analysis but nothing significant
was found.
Inference: Hence, hypothesis (5, 5a-5e) is not supported and null hypothesis is
accepted.
3.3.1.6 Education Level and OCB
Education level refers to the academic credentials or degrees an individual has
obtained. Although education level is a continuous variable, it is frequently measured
categorically in research studies.
Table 3.32: Education Level wise Means & Std. Deviations for OCB and its Dimensions
OCB Altruism Sportsman-ship
Conscient-iousness
Courtesy Civic Virtue
Matric Mean 5.344 5.571 5.589 5.100 5.185 5.160 N 14 14 14 14 14 14 S.d. .352 .653 1.306 .704 .557 .568
10+2/ ITI
Mean 5.378 5.277 5.388 5.733 5.244 5.111 N 9 9 9 9 9 9 S.d. .309 .666 .638 .565 .622 .801
Diploma Mean 5.522 5.512 5.750 5.556 5.365 5.329 N 41 41 41 41 41 41 S.d. .308 .622 .607 .463 .556 .412
B.Tech/ Bachelor's degree
Mean 5.554 5.486 5.681 5.684 5.518 5.266 N 150 150 150 150 150 150 S.d. .404 .629 .788 .539 .552 .633
M.Tech/ Master's Degree
Mean 5.640 5.652 5.618 5.788 5.605 5.437 N 36 36 36 36 36 36 S.d. .381 .555 1.054 .559 .539 .545
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
94
In several studies, relationship of education to OCB has been examined with the
belief, that employees with a higher education level would perceive their exchange
with the organization as more social than just evaluative. Such employees, who
generally occupy the higher ranks in the organization, would more readily
acknowledge the importance of the informal support of their co-workers and
supervisors. With more financial security, better educated employees can spend more
time on social exchange such as OCB. On the other hand, less educated employees
would focus on the economic exchange of their workplace.
Table 3.33: Education Level wise ANOVA & Homogeneity of Variance Results for OCB and its Dimensions
Table 3.34: Education Level wise Contrast Coefficients for OCB Contrast Education Level
Matric 10+2/ ITI Diploma B.Tech/Bachelor's
Degree M.Tech/
Master's Degree
1 1 0 0 0 -1 2 1 1 -1 -1 0 3 0 1 0 0 -1 4 0 1 1 -1 -1 5 0 0 1 0 -1
Research findings are not conclusive regarding the relationship between
education and OCB. Some of the researchers have found a positive relationship
Variable Mean (Std. Deviation)
ANOVA Homogeneity of Variances
F (df) p value Levene statistic
p value
OCB 5.54 (.38) 2.018 (4, 245) .092 2.173 .073 Altruism 5.51 (.62) .877 (4, 245) .478 .200 .938 Sportsmanship 5.67 (.83) .421 (4, 245) .793 3.290 .012 Conscientiousness 5.65 (.56) 4.708 (4, 245) .001 1.668 .158 Courtesy 5.48 (.56) 2.471 (4, 245) .045 .186 .946 Civic Virtue 5.29 (.59) 1.028 (4, 245) .393 2.898 .023 N=250
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
95
(Gregerson, 1993; Smith et al., 1983) and some did not find any relationship (Organ
& Konovsky, 1989). Results show that education level is positively related to
citizenship behaviours (Ng & Feldman, 2009; Cheng et al., 2003). In consonance with
the rise in the education level, the OCB of the respondents may improve. As per
Table 3.32, the mean values of OCB and courtesy are rising with the education level,
while for other variables the mean values have a mixed trend.
As per the results of ANOVA in Table 3.33, significant difference of
education level to conscientiousness and courtesy has been found. Conscientiousness
and courtesy dimensions of OCB indicate significant difference to education level
with F (4, 245) = 4.708, p < .01 and F (4, 245) = 2.471, p < .05 respectively.
Moreover, for OCB the values are significant at .10 level of significance only. For
sportsmanship and civic virtue, the homogeneity of variance condition is violated as
p-value is less than .05, so its further analysis has been dropped. Hence, the
relationship is further explored and tested through contrasts command of one way
ANOVA in Table 3.34 and 3.35.
Contrasts and post hoc analysis (Table 3.36) reveal that there is significant
difference between OCB, conscientiousness, courtesy to the education level of
employees. For courtesy, with the progress in education level, there is rise in
respective mean values depicting significant difference between Matriculates vs.
Master’s, Diploma vs. Master’s and 10+2/ITI vs. Master’s degree. For
conscientiousness, the education level is significant for Matric vs. Masters &
Diploma vs. Masters.
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
96
Table 3.35: Education Level wise Contrast Tests for OCB, Conscientiousness & Courtesy
Contrast Value of Contrast
Std. Error t df
Sig. (2-tailed)
OCB Assume equal variances
1 -.296 .120 -2.465 245 .014 2 -.353 .176 -2.008 245 .046 3 -.261 .142 -1.839 245 .067 4 -.293 .157 -1.869 245 .063 5 -.118 .087 -1.355 245 .177
Does not assume equal variances
1 -.296 .113 -2.604 25.593 .015 2 -.353 .151 -2.338 25.840 .027 3 -.261 .121 -2.158 14.772 .048 4 -.293 .134 -2.185 22.217 .040 5 -.118 .079 -1.479 67.264 .144
Conscient- iousness
Assume equal variances
1 -.688 .170 -4.038 245 .000 2 -.406 .250 -1.625 245 .105 3 -.055 .201 -.275 245 .783 4 -.183 .223 -.822 245 .412 5 -.232 .123 -1.882 245 .061
Does not assume equal variances
1 -.688 .210 -3.277 19.710 .004 2 -.406 .279 -1.454 23.940 .159 3 -.055 .210 -.264 12.224 .796 4 -.183 .226 -.809 16.441 .430 5 -.232 .118 -1.972 68.234 .053
Courtesy Assume equal variances
1 -.419 .174 -2.405 245 .017 2 -.454 .256 -1.774 245 .077 3 -.361 .206 -1.748 245 .082 4 -.513 .228 -2.249 245 .025 5 -.239 .126 -1.894 245 .059
Does not assume equal variances
1 -.419 .174 -2.413 23.077 .024 2 -.454 .273 -1.661 20.653 .112 3 -.361 .226 -1.596 11.198 .138 4 -.513 .246 -2.085 15.691 .054 5 -.239 .125 -1.916 74.239 .059
On the basis of education level, there is significant difference between the
OCB scores of the respondents among Matriculates vs. Master’s, 10+2 vs. Master’s,
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
97
Matric/10+2 vs. Diploma/Bachelor’s and 10+2/Diploma vs. Bachelor’s/Master’s
degree.
Table 3.36: Education Level wise Post Hoc Tests for OCB & Conscientiousness (Multiple Comparisons)
Dependent Variable
(I) Education Level
(J) Education Level Mean
Difference (I-J)
Std. Error Sig.
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
OCB Matric 10+2/ ITI -.034 .162 1.000 -.482 .413 Diploma -.178 .118 .558 -.502 .146 B.Tech/ Bachelor's degree
-.210 .106 .282 -.503 .082
M.Tech/ Master's degree
-.296 .120 .102 -.626 .034
Conscie- ntiousness
Matric 10+2/ ITI -.633 .231 .051 -1.269 .002 Diploma -.456 .167 .054 -.916 .004 B.Tech/Bachelor's degree
-.584* .151 .001 -1.000 -.168
M.Tech/ Master's degree
-.688* .170 .001 -1.157 -.220
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
Figure 3.9: Means Plot of Education Level and OCB
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
98
Figure 3.10: Means Plot of Education Level and Conscientiousness
Figure 3.11: Means Plot of Education Level and Courtesy
Therefore, it implies that there is significant difference between OCB,
conscientiousness, courtesy and education level of the respondents. Overall, it is
implied that there is significant difference between education level and OCB. In
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
99
Figures 3.9, 3.10 & 3.11 the relationship of education level with OCB,
conscientiousness and courtesy have been displayed respectively. In all these figures,
the curve is rising with the progress in education level of the respondents; lowest
mean is for Matric category and highest for M.Tech/ Master’s category.
Inference: The results of ANOVA analysis support hypothesis 6 (education and
OCB), 6c (education and conscientiousness) and 6d (education and courtesy),
whereas hypothesis 6a, 6b and 6d could not gather support and hence, are rejected.
3.3.1.7 Experience and OCB
The total job experience in number of completed years may have an impact on
the extra role behaviour of the employees. Over the years through job experience a
person becomes mature, understands and accepts what is expected from him on the
job. Some of the things expected are not always explicit, but implicit like OCB. Table
3.37 lists the means and standard deviations for OCB & its five dimensions.
Table 3.37: Experience wise Means and Std. Deviations for OCB and its Dimensions
Experience Category OCB Altruism
Sportsm -anship
Conscien -tiousness
Court-esy
Civic Virue
upto 5 years Mean 5.590 5.593 5.520 5.733 5.591 5.312 N 24 24 24 24 24 24 S.d. .291 .535 1.204 .402 .582 .552
6-15 years Mean 5.571 5.568 5.897 5.563 5.451 5.253 N 66 66 66 66 66 66 S.d. .348 .595 .607 .565 .517 .502
16 - 25 years
Mean 5.541 5.563 5.536 5.632 5.501 5.327 N 55 55 55 55 55 55 S.d. .448 .635 .929 .614 .579 .668
26 years & above
Mean 5.516 5.431 5.626 5.687 5.455 5.288 N 105 105 105 105 105 105 S.d. .391 .644 .783 .551 .576 .620
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
100
Table 3.38: Experience wise ANOVA & Homogeneity of Variance Results for OCB and its Dimensions
N = 250
While in an earlier study, the more experienced employees exhibited fewer
organizational citizenship behaviours, than did their less experienced colleagues
(Cohen & Vrahami, 2006); but here as per Table 3.38, no significant difference
between experience categories and OCB alongwith its dimensions has been found.
All the F-values and related p-values are statistically insignificant as they are greater
than .05. Furthermore, the condition of homogeneity of variance is violated for
sportsmanship dimension only and consequently its corresponding F-values also
become insignificant.
Inference: Hence, hypotheses 7 and 7a-7e relating to experience and OCB
alongwith its five dimensions could not be supported and hence, are rejected.
3.3.1.8 Income and OCB
The rise in level of income is dependent upon the advancement in designation
and tenure of the employees. Both these indicators of tenure and advancement in
designation imply maturity in relationships and understanding. Whether this financial
exchange can have some impact on social exchange of the employees too has to be
Variable Mean (Std. Deviation)
ANOVA Homogeneity of Variance
F (df) p value Levene statistic
p value
OCB 5.54 (.38) .416 (3, 246) .742 2.100 .101 Altruism 5.51 (.62) 1.044 (3, 246) .374 1.257 .290 Sportsmanship 5.67 (.83) 2.511(3, 246) .059 3.712 .012 Conscientiousness 5.65 (.56) .880 (3, 246) .452 1.557 .200 Courtesy 5.48 (.56) .465 (3, 246) .707 .462 .709 Civic Virtue 5.29 (.59) .164 (3, 246) .920 1.797 .148
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
101
examined here. Table 3.39 depicts, the means and standard deviations for OCB & its
five dimensions based on the income categories.
Table 3.39: Income wise Means and Std. Deviations of OCB and its Dimensions Annual Income (Rs.) OCB Altruism
Sportsm -anship
Conscien -tiousness Courtesy
Civic Virtue
less than 3 lakhs
Mean 5.353 5.178 6.125 4.928 5.042 5.142 N 14 14 14 14 14 14 S.d. .321 .768 .594 .541 .587 .467
3-6 lakhs Mean 5.509 5.507 5.577 5.624 5.426 5.285 N 100 100 100 100 100 100 S.d. .353 .561 .955 .500 .533 .572
6-9 lakhs Mean 5.551 5.472 5.784 5.693 5.516 5.216 N 81 81 81 81 81 81 S.d. .392 .660 .650 .552 .570 .589
above 9 lakhs
Mean 5.642 5.663 5.545 5.803 5.625 5.445 N 55 55 55 55 55 55 S.d. .421 .595 .844 .536 .533 .646
The Table 3.40 lists the ANOVA results, which are found to be significant for
OCB with F(3, 246) = 2.675, p < .05; altruism with F(3, 246) = 2.605, p < .05,
conscientiousness with F(3, 246) = 10.526, p < .001 and courtesy with F(3, 246) =
4.688, p < .003. Among these, conscientiousness has the highest F-value, while
altruism has the least. Sportsmanship is dropped from this analysis, as its
homogeneity of variance’s p-value is less than .05. As per Table 3.41 and 3.42, the
relationship among the significant variables is again explored through contrasts.
Results of contrast analysis of Table 3.41 and 3.42 for OCB are as follows:
(i) There is a significant difference between less than Rs.3 lakhs and above Rs.9
lakhs category with t(246) = -2.530, p < .05.
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
102
(ii) There is a significant difference between less than Rs.3 lakhs and Rs.6-9 lakhs
category with t(246) = -1.795, p < .10.
(iii) There is a significant difference between less than Rs.3-6 lakhs and above
Rs.9 lakhs category with t(246) = -2.083, p < .05.
(iv) There is a significant difference between upto Rs.6 lakhs and above Rs.6 lakhs
category with t(246) = -2.598, p < .01.
Table 3.40: Income wise ANOVA & Homogeneity of Variance Results for OCB and its Dimensions
N=250
Table 3.41: Income wise Contrast Coefficients for OCB
Contrast Annual Income (Rs.) less than 3 lakhs 3-6 lakhs 6-9 lakhs above 9 lakhs
1 1 -1 0 0 2 0 0 1 -1 3 1 0 0 -1 4 1 0 -1 0 5 0 1 0 -1 6 1 1 -1 -1
Variable Mean (Std. Deviation)
ANOVA Homogeneity of Variance
F (df) p value Levene statistic
p value
OCB 5.54 (.38) 2.675 (3, 246) .048 1.533 .207 Altruism 5.51 (.62) 2.605 (3, 246) .050 2.219 .086 Sportsmanship 5.67 (.83) 2.773 (3, 246) .042 3.245 .023 Conscientiousness 5.65 (.56) 10.526 (3, 246) .000 .254 .859 Courtesy 5.48 (.56) 4.688 (3, 246) .003 .171 .916 Civic Virtue 5.29 (.59) 1.986 (3, 246) .117 .927 .428
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
103
Table 3.42: Income wise Contrast Tests for OCB
Contrast Value of Contrast
Std. Error t df
Sig. (2-tailed)
OCB Assume equal variances
1 -.1552 .10860 -1.429 246 .154 2 -.0905 .06649 -1.361 246 .175 3 -.2883 .11392 -2.530 246 .012 4 -.1977 .11015 -1.795 246 .074 5 -.1331 .06389 -2.083 246 .038 6 -.3308 .12734 -2.598 246 .010
Does not assume equal variances
1 -.1552 .09291 -1.670 17.705 .112 2 -.0905 .07165 -1.263 110.383 .209 3 -.2883 .10304 -2.798 25.694 .010 4 -.1977 .09635 -2.052 20.334 .053 5 -.1331 .06695 -1.987 95.972 .050 6 -.3308 .11733 -2.819 42.608 .007
Altruism Assume equal variances
1 -.3289 .17535 -1.876 246 .062 2 -.1914 .10736 -1.783 246 .076 3 -.4851 .18395 -2.637 246 .009 4 -.2937 .17786 -1.651 246 .100 5 -.1561 .10316 -1.514 246 .131 6 -.4498 .20561 -2.188 246 .030
Does not assume equal variances
1 -.3289 .21293 -1.545 15.002 .143 2 -.1914 .10877 -1.760 123.625 .081 3 -.4851 .22054 -2.199 17.181 .042 4 -.2937 .21811 -1.346 16.485 .196 5 -.1561 .09797 -1.594 105.858 .114 6 -.4498 .23910 -1.881 23.658 .072
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
104
Table 3.42: Income wise Contrast Tests for OCB (Contd.)
Results of contrast analysis of Table 3.41 and 3.42 for Altruism are as follows:
(i) There is a significant difference between less than Rs.3 lakhs and Rs.3-6 lakhs
category with t(246) = -1.876, p < .10.
(ii) There is a significant difference between Rs.6-9lakhs and above Rs.9 lakhs
category with t(246) = 1.783, p < .10.
Contrast Value of Contrast
Std. Error t df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Conscient-iousness
Assume equal variances
1 -.6954 .15069 -4.615 246 .000 2 -.1098 .09226 -1.190 246 .235 3 -.8751 .15808 -5.536 246 .000 4 -.7653 .15284 -5.007 246 .000 5 -.1796 .08865 -2.026 246 .044 6 -.9449 .17669 -5.348 246 .000
Does not assume equal variances
1 -.6954 .15308 -4.543 16.271 .000 2 -.1098 .09490 -1.157 118.288 .250 3 -.8751 .16176 -5.410 20.022 .000 4 -.7653 .15714 -4.870 18.006 .000 5 -.1796 .08801 -2.041 104.946 .044 6 -.9449 .18011 -5.246 30.559 .000
Courtesy Assume equal variances
1 -.3831 .15657 -2.447 246 .015 2 -.1094 .09587 -1.141 246 .255 3 -.5826 .16425 -3.547 246 .000 4 -.4732 .15881 -2.980 246 .003 5 -.1995 .09211 -2.165 246 .031 6 -.6726 .18359 -3.664 246 .000
Does not assume equal variances
1 -.3831 .16594 -2.309 16.136 .035 2 -.1094 .09590 -1.141 121.178 .256 3 -.5826 .17282 -3.371 18.819 .003 4 -.4732 .16946 -2.792 17.505 .012 5 -.1995 .08953 -2.228 111.300 .028 6 -.6726 .19166 -3.510 28.294 .002
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
105
(iii) There is a significant difference between less than Rs.3 lakhs and above Rs.9
lakhs category with t(246) = -2.637 p < .01.
(iv) There is a significant difference between upto Rs.6 lakhs and above Rs.6 lakhs
category with t(246) = -2.188, p < .05.
Results of contrast analysis of Table 3.41 and 3.42 for Conscientiousness &
Courtesy are as follows:
(i) There is a significant difference between less than Rs.3 lakhs and Rs.3-6
lakhs for conscientiousness with t (246) = - 4.615, p < .05 and for courtesy
with t(246) = - 2.447, p < .05.
(ii) There is statistically significant difference between the contrasts 3, 4, 5 and 6
for conscientiousness as well as courtesy.
Figure 3.13 shows the means plots OCB, altruism, conscientiousness, courtesy and
income. The means plots have positive relationship with income. Moreover, the
means plots of courtesy and conscientiousness have quite similar plotted lines. In
Figure 3.13, relationship of income with OCB, altruism, courtesy and
conscientiousness have been given. With the rise in income, its corresponding
variables mean value is also rising. Overall, the results show that there is significant
difference between OCB, courtesy, conscientiousness and income categories.
Inference: Hence, hypothesis 8 (income & OCB), 8a (income & altruism), 8c
(income & conscientiousness), 8d (income & courtesy) are supported and accepted.
Hypothesis related to income and sportsmanship (8b) and income & civic virtue (8e)
is rejected.
106
Figure 3.12: Means Plot of Income, OCB, Altruism, Courtesy and Conscientiousness
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
107
3.3.2 Demographic Variables and EI
To explore the role of demographic variables in assessing emotional
intelligence, biographical profile of the respondents has been collected through
information filled at the end of EI instrument. The role of demographic variables,
which have been included in the questionnaire, i.e., age, tenure, marital status,
gender, number of dependents in the family, level of highest education, designation ,
status of spouse whether he/she is working or homemaker for exploring their
relationship with other variables, have been included in the study. Some of the
previous studies have tried to test the relationship among some of the demographic
variables and emotional intelligence.
3.3.2.1 Age and EI
In a study conducted by Tyagi (2004) on EI among teachers in relation to
gender and age in Maharashtra, the results revealed that there is no significant
difference between age, gender and EI. Pandey & Tripathi (2004) conducted a study
on development of EI- some preliminary observations; results indicated that there was
increase in EI with age. The relationship between age and EI has been mixed, in some
of the studies age is related to EI, while in others it has insignificant relationship.
Table 3.43 lists the mean values and standard deviation of EI and its four dimensions.
The mean values are generally rising with the increase in age for most of the
dimensions. The relationship between age and dimensions of EI has been examined
through ANOVA in Table 3.44; UOE dimension is not found to be significant (p
>.10).
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
108
Table 3.43: Means & Std. Deviations of EI & its dimensions as per Age Category
Age Category EI POE MOE MOtE UOE under 26 years Mean 3.58 3.44 3.45 3.61 3.91
N 6 6 6 6 6 S.d. .20 .51 .34 .30 .52
26-35 years Mean 3.82 3.57 3.88 3.87 4.08 N 43 43 43 43 43 S.d. .19 .40 .36 .29 .33
36-45 years Mean 3.86 3.64 3.98 3.83 4.05 N 56 56 56 56 56 S.d. .22 .29 .33 .32 .40
46-55 years Mean 3.81 3.64 3.90 3.81 3.93 N 109 109 109 109 109 S.d. .27 .37 .34 .33 .52
56 years & above
Mean 3.77 3.52 3.89 3.78 4.00 N 36 36 36 36 36 S.d. .33 .43 .37 .42 .43
Table 3.44: ANOVA & Homogeneity of Variance Results for Age, EI and its
Dimensions
As per the results of ANOVA in Table 3.44, only MOE dimension is
significantly related with age with F (4,245) = 3.181, p < .01. Hence, this dimension
is further explored through contrast (Table 3.45 and 3.46) and post-hoc analysis
(Table 3.47) in ANOVA. For EI, POE and MOtE variables, the condition of
Variable Mean (Std. Deviation)
ANOVA Homogeneity of Variance
F (df) p value Levene statistic
p value
EI 3.82 (.26) 1.829(4, 245) .124 5.846 .000 POE 3.61 (.38) 1.287 (4, 245) .276 3.426 .010 MOE 3.91 (.36) 3.181 (4, 245) .010 .243 .913 MOtE 3.82 (.34) .891 (4, 245) .470 2.895 .023 UOE 3.99 (.46) 1.215 (4, 245) .305 1.943 .104 N=250
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
109
homogeneity of variance does not satisfy (p > .05), so these are dropped from
ANOVA analysis.
Table 3.45: Age wise Contrast Coefficients for EI Contrast Age Category
under 26 years
26-35 years 36-45 years 46-55 years
56 years & above
1 1 0 0 0 -1
2 1 1 -1 -1 0
Table 3.46: Age wise Contrast Tests for MOE
Contrast Value of Contrast
Std. Error T df
Sig. (2-tailed)
MOE Assume equal variances
1 -.441 .154 -2.858 245 .005 2 -.544 .162 -3.340 245 .001
Does not assume equal variances
1 -.441 .152 -2.890 7.130 .023 2 -.544 .159 -3.406 8.595 .008
Table 3.47 indicates the results of post-hoc tests for MOE, which are significant for
less than 26 years of age category and all other age categories with p < .05.
Table 3.47: Age wise Post Hoc Tests for MOE (Multiple Comparisons) Tukey HSD
(I) age_cat
(J) age_cat Mean
Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Less than 26 years
26-35 years -.422* .152 .047 -.841 -.003 36-45 years -.523* .150 .005 -.936 -.110 46-55 years -.443* .146 .023 -.846 -.039 56 years & above -.440* .154 .037 -.865 -.016
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. As per the results of Table 3.45 and 3.46, MOE is statistically different for
less than 26 years vs. 56 years & above age category with t(245) = -2.858, p < .005.
MOE is also statistically different for upto 35 years and 36 years & above category,
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
110
as per contrast no.2 of Table 3.45 with t(245) = -3.340, p < .001.
Figure 3.13: Means Plot of Age & MOE
Figure 3.13 shows the relationship between MOE & age category, lowest mean value
for less than 26 years and highest for 36-45 years of age category. The MOE curve is
rising with the age and there is marked difference between those upto 35 years
compared to those above 35 years indicating that a person becomes mature enough to
handle his emotions with the progression in age.
Inference: Only hypothesis 9b related to age and MOE has found statistical
support. It shows that there is significant relationship between age and managing own
emotions. Henceforth, results imply that hypotheses 9, 9a, 9c and 9d can’t be
accepted.
3.3.2.2 Designation and EI
With the rise in designation there may be corresponding rise in EI, as the duties and
responsibilities enhance the person has to be emotionally mature to deal with different
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
111
issues that may crop up in the organizations. Nasir, Mustaffa and Ahmad (2011) in
their study on EI with skills inventory and personal development among counselling
teachers, indicated that there is significant difference between designation and EI of
the respondents.
Table 3.48 lists the means and standard deviations of the respondents as per
their designation which indicates that average scores of JE and Clerk are lower than
that of the officers. While the results of ANOVA as per Table 3.49 reveal no
significant relationship between EI, POE, MOE, MOtE and designation. UOE
dimension has to be dropped from this ANOVA analysis because homogeneity of
variance condition is violated with p < .05.
Table 3.48: Designation wise Means and Std. Deviations for EI and its dimensions
Designation EI POE MOE MOtE UOE Clerk Mean 3.822 3.562 3.927 3.802 4.093
N 50 50 50 50 50 S.d. .258 .406 .316 .390 .330
JE Mean 3.784 3.562 3.812 3.802 4.060 N 50 50 50 50 50 S.d. .272 .387 .418 .345 .374
SDO Mean 3.864 3.681 3.976 3.835 4.025 N 53 53 53 53 53 S.d. .250 .407 .344 .293 .491
XEN Mean 3.810 3.605 3.893 3.875 3.932 N 47 47 47 47 47 S.d. .244 .348 .381 .303 .427
ASE/SE Mean 3.792 3.644 3.910 3.791 3.856 N 50 50 50 50 50 S.d. .286 .337 .303 .361 .598
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
112
Table 3.49: Designation wise ANOVA & Homogeneity of Variance results for EI and its Dimensions
Still the relationship among these variables has been explored through Table 3.50 and
3.51; indicating that there is statistically significant difference between mean scores
of JE and SDO for MOE with t(245) = -2.344, p < .05. It implies that the difference in
mean values of JE (3.83) and SDO (3.98) is statistically important and that mean
value of MOE is higher for SDO as compared to JE. Figure 3.14 shows the
relationship between mean value of MOE and designation. The mean value is lowest
for JE and highest for SDO.
Table 3.50: Designation wise Contrast Coefficients of MOE Contrast Designation
Clerk JE SDO XEN ASE/SE 1 0 1 -1 0 0
Table 3.51: Designation wise Contrast Tests for MOE Contrast Value of
Contrast Std.
Error t df Sig. (2-tailed)
MOE Assume equal variances
1 -.1639 .06993 -2.344 245 .020
Does not assume equal variances
1 -.1639 .07571 -2.165 95.047 .033
Variable Mean (Std. Deviation)
ANOVA Homogeneity of Variance
F (df) p value Levene statistic
p value
EI 3.82 (.26) .748 (4, 245) .560 .632 .640 POE 3.61 (.38) .968 (4, 245) .426 1.364 .247 MOE 3.91 (.36) 1.452 (4, 245) .218 2.368 .053 MOtE 3.82 (.34) .489 (4, 245) .744 2.058 .087 UOE 3.99 (.46) 2.271 (4, 245) .062 3.422 .010 N=250
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
113
Figure 3.14: Means Plot of Designation & MOE
Inference: Overall, the results reveal that hypothesis 10b (designation & MOE) is
supported, whereas hypothesis 10, 10a, 10c and 10d are rejected for shortage of
enough statistical evidence.
3.3.2.3 Tenure and EI
The tenure of the employees may enhance their level of emotional
intelligence. The stay of the employee in the organization over a period of time,
increases their familiarity with the organization and may help them to become
emotionally mature in their dealings. Table 3.52 lists the means and standard
deviations for EI alongwith its dimensions. The relationship between EI and tenure
has been examined here.
The results of ANOVA in Table 3.53 indicate that there is no significant
relationship between the tenure categories and their respective EI score. As the
homogeneity of variance condition is not satisfied by EI, it has not been included in
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
114
further analysis. Still an attempt is made to examine the stated relationship through
contrast analysis as per Table 3.54 and 3.55.
Table 3.52: Tenure wise Means and Std. Deviations for EI and its Dimensions Tenure EI POE MOE MOtE UOE 0-5 years Mean 3.832 3.653 3.871 3.823 4.058
N 34 34 34 34 34 S.d. .228 .400 .369 .294 .430
6-10 years Mean 3.814 3.567 3.888 3.857 4.037 N 9 9 9 9 9 S.d. .234 .285 .268 .285 .388
11-15 years Mean 3.867 3.623 3.970 3.862 4.101 N 51 51 51 51 51 S.d. .210 .337 .367 .319 .314
16-20 years Mean 3.762 3.602 3.788 3.802 3.923 N 26 26 26 26 26 S.d. .277 .382 .401 .377 .455
21 years & above
Mean 3.801 3.601 3.912 3.805 3.947 N 130 130 130 130 130 S.d. .286 .397 .341 .355 .513
Table 3.53: Tenure wise ANOVA & Homogeneity of Variance results for EI and its Dimensions
Results of Table 3.55 indicate, that there is significant difference between 11-15 years
and 16-20 years of tenure category for MOE with t(245) =2.127 , p < .05. Also for
Variable Mean (Std. Deviation)
ANOVA Homogeneity of Variance
F (df) p value Levene statistic
p value
EI 3.82 (.26) .887 (4, 245) .472 3.075 .017 POE 3.61 (.38) .169 (4, 245) .954 1.044 .385 MOE 3.91 (.36) 1.229 (4, 245) .299 .381 .822 MOtE 3.82 (.34) .304 (4, 245) .875 .963 .428 UOE 3.99 (.46) 1.379 (4, 245) .242 1.906 .110 N=250
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
115
UOE, there is statistically significant difference in 11-15 years and 21 years & above
tenure category. Figure 3.15 depicts the relationship between tenure and MOE, the
mean value is lowest for 16-20 years category and highest for 11-15 years category.
Figure 3.16 depicts the relationship between tenure and UOE.
Table 3.54: Tenure wise Contrast Coefficients for MOE & UOE Contrast Tenure
0-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 21 years &
above
1 0 0 1 -1 0 2 0 0 1 0 -1
Table 3.55: Tenure wise Contrast Tests Contrast Value of
Contrast Std.
Error t df Sig. (2-tailed)
MOE
Assume equal variances
1 .182 .085 2.127 245 .034 2 .058 .058 .989 245 .323
Does not assume equal variances
1 .182 .094 1.937 46.737 .059 2 .058 .059 .975 85.732 .332
UOE Assume equal variances
1 .178 .110 1.613 245 .108 2 .153 .075 2.031 245 .043
Does not assume equal variances
1 .178 .099 1.790 37.547 .081 2 .153 .063 2.442 147.004 .016
For both MOE and UOE variables, the 11-15 years category is showing higher
mean as compared to their statistically relevant category. The underlying reasons for
it could be factors not explored here.
Inference: The results revealed that only hypotheses 11b (tenure & MOE) and
11d (tenure & UOE) have been supported and rest of the hypotheses i.e. 11, 11a and
11c are rejected.
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
116
Figure 3.15: Means Plot of Tenure & MOE
Figure 3.16: Means Plot of Tenure & UOE
3.3.2.4 Spouse’s Status and EI
The impact of the spouse’s status on EI has not been examined in previous
research studies. Whether spouse’s status can have meaningful impact on his EI and
its four dimensions has to be explored through analysis.
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
117
Table 3.56: Spouse’s Status wise Means and Std. Deviations of EI and its Dimensions
Spouse's Status EI POE MOE MOtE UOE
N.A. Mean 3.650 3.555 3.625 3.607 3.875 N 8 8 8 8 8 S.d. .274 .584 .406 .416 .568
Working Mean 3.878 3.654 3.960 3.917 4.062 N 107 107 107 107 107 S.d. .228 .335 .331 .331 .423
Homemaker Mean 3.775 3.581 3.877 3.757 3.948 N 135 135 135 135 135 S.d. .276 .397 .363 .321 .477
As per Table 3.56, mean value of EI and its dimensions, is higher for working
couples in relation to their counterparts. To examine whether the mean value among
working couples and homemakers has statistically relevant differences, ANOVA
analysis has been carried out as per Table 3.57
Table 3.57: Spouse’s Status wise ANOVA & Homogeneity of Variance results for EI and its Dimensions
The results (Table 3.57) indicate that there is significant difference for EI
with F (2,247) = 6.582, p < .01; MOE with F (2,247) = 4.268, p < .01 and MOtE with
F (2,247) = 8.767, p< .001; viz-à-viz their spouse’s status. Also the mean values are
higher for working couples in relation to their counterparts. POE dimension has been
Variable Mean (Std. Deviation)
ANOVA Homogeneity of Variance
F (df) p value Levene statistic
p value
EI 3.82 (.26) 6.582 (2, 247) .002 3.031 .066 POE 3.61 (.38) 1.178 (2, 247) .310 4.619 .011 MOE 3.91 (.36) 4.268 (2, 247) .010 .587 .557 MOtE 3.82 (.34) 8.767 (2, 247) .000 .607 .546 UOE 3.99 (.46) 2.138 (2, 247) .120 .846 .430 N=250
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
118
dropped from this analysis as its corresponding Levene’s statistic has significance
value less than .05 and thus, it is not satisfying the condition of equality of variances.
Figure 3.17: Means Plot of Spouse’s Status & EI
Figure 3.18: Means Plot of Spouse’s Status & MOE
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
119
Table 3.58: Spouse’s Status wise Contrast Coefficients Contrast Spouse's Status
N.A. Working Homemaker 1 0 1 -1
Table 3.59: Spouse’s Status wise Contrast Tests Contrast Value of
Contrast Std.
Error t df Sig. (2-tailed)
EI Assume equal variances
1 .103 .033 3.120 247 .002
Does not assume equal variances
1 .103 .032 3.196 239.572 .002
MOE Assume equal variances
1 .082 .045 1.814 247 .071
Does not assume equal variances
1 .082 .044 1.842 235.283 .067
MOtE Assume equal variances
1 .159 .042 3.747 247 .000
Does not assume equal variances
1 .159 .042 3.767 224.549 .000
UOE
Assume equal variances
1 .114 .059 1.927 247 .055
Does not assume equal variances
1 .114 .057 1.969 236.969 .050
Figure 3.16, 3.17 and 3.18 depict the relationship between mean values of EI,
MOE and MOtE respectively for spouse’s status. The mean value is higher for
working couples followed by homemakers. The results of the contrasts tests in Table
3.58 and 3.59 reveal, that for EI, MOE, MOtE and UOE have t(247) = 3.120 (p <
.01), t(247) = 1.814 (p < .10), t(247) = 3.747 (p < .01) and t(247) = 1.927(p < .05)
respectively for spouse’s status. Working couples have higher mean as compared to
their counterparts.
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
120
Figure 3.19: Means Plot of Spouse’s Status & MOtE
The reason for higher level of EI of dual working couples could be, that they
both have to be empathetic towards each other. In order to have peaceful relations
they have to break the shackles of age old traditional roles assigned to men and
women.
Inference: Hence, the hypotheses12 (spouse’s status & EI), 12b (spouse’s status
& MOE), 12c (spouse’s status & MOtE) are supported for these variables. While for
variables POE and UOE viz-à-viz status, the hypotheses (12a & 12d) are rejected, this
implies, that there is no significant difference between these variables based on the
spouse’s status.
3.3.2.5 Number of Dependents and EI
The relationship between number of dependents and EI has not been
examined so far. It has been proposed that as the number of dependents increase, the
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
121
respondent may become emotionally mature to handle different relationships in his
family and this maturity will permeate through organizational relationships too.
Table 3.60: No. of Dependents wise Means and Std. Deviations for EI and its Dimensions
No. of dependents EI POE MOE MOtE UOE N.A. Mean 3.764 3.487 3.759 3.791 4.153
N 13 13 13 13 13 S.d. .349 .554 .524 .362 .453
1.00 Mean 3.883 3.752 3.903 3.961 3.962 N 22 22 22 22 22 S.d. .254 .361 .301 .369 .534
2.00 Mean 3.814 3.608 3.941 3.819 3.949 N 92 92 92 92 92 S.d. .258 .377 .326 .357 .492
3.00 Mean 3.819 3.615 3.894 3.817 4.029 N 102 102 102 102 102 S.d. .250 .347 .369 .318 .400
4.00 Mean 3.729 3.518 3.868 3.722 3.870 N 18 18 18 18 18 S.d. .289 .367 .367 .270 .476
5.00 Mean 3.922 3.666 4.000 3.666 4.500 N 3 3 3 3 3 S.d. .309 .769 .250 .436 .440
Table 3.61: No. of Dependents wise ANOVA & Homogeneity of Variance
results for EI and its Dimensions
Variable Mean (Std. Deviation)
ANOVA Homogeneity of Variance
F (df) p value Levene statistic
p value
EI 3.82 (.26) .881 (5, 244) .494 .752 .586 POE 3.61 (.38) 1.122 (5, 244) .349 2.620 .025 MOE 3.91 (.36) .723 (5, 244) .607 .629 .678 MOtE 3.82 (.34) 1.207 (5, 244) .306 .847 .517 UOE 3.99 (.46) 1.637 (5, 244) .151 1.008 .413 N=250
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
122
Table 3.60 lists the means and standard deviations of the respondents in relation to EI
and its dimensions. As per the results of ANOVA in Table 3.61, all the variables have
significance values higher than .05, so there is no significant relationship between EI
and its dimensions viz-à-viz number of dependents.
Inference: Hence, the hypotheses 13 and 13a-13d corresponding to it can’t be
accepted.
3.3.2.6 Education Level and EI
Education's purpose is to replace an empty mind with an open one. - Malcolm S.
Forbes
Table 3.62: Means & Std. Deviations for EI as per Education Level Education Level EI POE MOE MOtE UOE Matric Mean 3.826 3.492 3.866 3.908 4.178
N 14 14 14 14 14 S.d. .247 .445 .291 .402 .152
10+2/ ITI Mean 3.644 3.518 3.736 3.587 3.777 N 9 9 9 9 9 S.d. .329 .512 .407 .374 .363
Diploma Mean 3.803 3.574 3.817 3.843 4.081 N 41 41 41 41 41 S.d. .236 .388 .386 .325 .341
B.Tech/Bachelor's degree
Mean 3.827 3.650 3.929 3.818 3.966 N 150 150 150 150 150 S.d. .253 .353 .339 .328 .505
M.Tech/ Master's Degree
Mean 3.819 3.564 3.961 3.833 3.995 N 36 36 36 36 36 S.d. .310 .410 .383 .355 .455
The ultimate purpose of education is to broaden the outlook of a person and
condition his mind to understand the emotions of the self and the others. Hence, with
the progression in education level there may be improvement in EI score too.
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
123
Education makes a person refined in his dealings, but whether it can really have some
genuine impact on EI has been tested here.
Table 3.62 indicates the means and standard deviations for EI and its four
dimensions on the basis of education level. As can be seen, the mean values of
graduates and post-graduates are higher than their other counterparts. To verify
whether these mean values are really significant, ANOVA has been applied in Table
3.63. ANOVA values in Table 3.63 show that all the variables have significance
value greater than 0.05. Even though the ANOVA values do not show statistically
relevant results, it has been further tested through contrasts in Table 3.64 & 3.65.
Table 3.63: Education Level wise ANOVA & Homogeneity of Variance results for EI and its Dimensions
Table 3.64: Education Level wise Contrast Coefficients Contrast Education Level
Matric 10+2/
ITI Diploma B.Tech/Bachelor's
degree M.Tech/ Master's
Degree
1 0 1 -1 0 0 2 0 0 1 -1 0 3 0 1 0 0 -1 4 0 1 1 -1 -1 5 0 0 1 -1 0 6 0 1 0 -1 0 7 0 0 1 0 -1
Variable Mean (Std. Deviation)
ANOVA Homogeneity of Variance
F (df) p value Levene statistic
p value
EI 3.82 (.26) 1.059 (4, 245) .377 .813 .518 POE 3.61 (.38) 1.111 (4, 245) .352 2.373 .053 MOE 3.91 (.36) 1.590 (4, 245) .177 .693 .597 MOtE 3.82 (.34) 1.366 (4, 245) .246 .770 .546 UOE 3.99 (.46) 1.578 (4, 245) .181 2.685 .032 N=250
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
124
Table 3.65: Education Level wise Contrast Tests Contrast Value of
Contrast Std.
Error t df Sig. (2-tailed)
EI Assume equal variances
3 -.175 .097 -1.789 245 .075 4 -.198 .108 -1.838 245 .067 2 -.182 .090 -2.028 245 .044
Does not assume equal variances
3 -.175 .121 -1.442 11.827 .175 4 -.198 .128 -1.548 14.838 .143 2 -.182 .111 -1.636 8.581 .138
MOE Assume equal variances
2 -.112 .062 -1.795 245 .074 3 -.225 .132 -1.709 245 .089 4 -.337 .146 -2.313 245 .022 6 -.144 .080 -1.788 245 .075
Does not assume equal variances
2 -.112 .066 -1.688 57.999 .097 3 -.225 .150 -1.504 11.811 .159 4 -.337 .164 -2.059 16.763 .055 6 -.144 .087 -1.646 73.852 .104
MOtE Assume equal variances
1 -.255 .124 -2.056 245 .041 3 -.246 .126 -1.952 245 .052 5 -.230 .116 -1.989 245 .048
Does not assume equal variances
1 -.255 .134 -1.900 10.818 .084 3 -.246 .138 -1.781 11.884 .100 5 -.230 .127 -1.809 8.758 .105
Table 3.65 lists those contrast values only which have been found to be
statistically significant, the rest have not been included here. Moreover, UOE
dimension has been dropped from this further analysis, as the Levene’s statistic’s p-
value is less than .05 and hence, basic condition of homogeneity of variance is not
satisfied. Results listed in Table 3.65 show that for EI, there is statistically significant
difference in education level of 10+2/ITI vs. M.Tech/Master’s with t(245) = -1.789, p
< .10; 10+2/ITI and Diploma vs. B.Tech/Bachelor’s and M.Tech/Master’s with t(245)
= -1.838, p<.10; and Diploma vs. B.Tech/Bachelor’s with t(245) = -2.028, p < .05.
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
125
Figure 3.20: Means Plot of Education Level & EI
Figure 3.21: Means Plot of Education Level & MOE
For MOE, there are statistically significant differences between Diploma vs.
B.Tech/ Bachelor’s , 10+2/ITI vs. M.Tech/Master’s, 10+2/ITI and Diploma vs.
B.Tech/Bachelor’s and M.Tech/Master’s, and Diploma vs. M.Tech/Master’s.
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
126
For MOtE, there are statistically relevant differences between 10+2/ITI vs.
Diploma, 10+2/ITI vs. M.Tech/Master’s and 10+2/ITI vs. B.Tech/Bachelor’s. Figure
3.19, 3.20 and 3.21 depict the relationship of education level with EI, MOE and
MOtE respectively. These results indicate that for EI, MOE and MOtE with the
progression in education level, there is significant improvement in their level of
emotional intelligence. It also implies that education level really broadens the outlook
of a person and enhances his emotional maturity.
Figure 3.22: Means Plot of Education Level & MOtE
Inference: Hence, hypothesis 14 (education & EI) is partially supported and
hypotheses 14b(education & MOE) and 14c (education & MOtE) is supported.
Hypothesis 14a (education & POE) is rejected, as the significance value is greater
than .05.
3.3.2.7 Experience and EI
The level of experience a respondent has, may have some impact on the EI
and its four dimensions. The number of years of job experience in the same
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
127
organization or different may enhance the emotional maturity of the subjects over the
years. Experience has been measured as a categorical variable in number of years.
Table 3.66 depicts the means and standard deviations for EI and its dimensions as per
experience.
Table 3.66: Means & Std. deviations of EI as per Experience Experience EI POE MOE MOtE UOE upto 5 years Mean 3.798 3.666 3.781 3.809 4.006
N 24 24 24 24 24 S.d. .243 .411 .367 .322 .435
6-15 years Mean 3.855 3.602 3.969 3.850 4.085 N 66 66 66 66 66 S.d. .201 .338 .356 .305 .331
16-25 years Mean 3.798 3.606 3.861 3.846 3.945 N 55 55 55 55 55 S.d. .266 .397 .339 .326 .486
26 years & above Mean 3.803 3.608 3.915 3.791 3.960 N 105 105 105 105 105 S.d. .297 .390 .356 .370 .515
Table 3.67: ANOVA Results of EI as per Experience
As per the results in Table 3.67, the significance values for ANOVA are all
greater than .05. Hence, there is no significant relationship between experience and EI
and its four dimensions.
Variable Mean (Std. Deviation)
ANOVA Homogeneity of Variance
F (df) p value Levene statistic
p value
EI 3.82 (.26) .682(3, 246) .564 4.492 .004 POE 3.61 (.38) .185 (3, 246) .906 .892 .446 MOE 3.91 (.36) 2.024 (3, 246) .111 .159 .924 MOtE 3.82 (.34) .539 (3, 246) .656 2.031 .110 UOE 3.99 (.46) 1.289 (3, 246) .282 2.261 .082 N=250
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
128
Inference: Thus, the hypotheses 15, 15a, 15b, 15c and 15d are not supported and
null hypothesis has to be accepted.
3.3.2.8 Income and EI
The economic exchange can have some significant influence on individual’s
EI and its four dimensions. The level of income grows with the progression in
designation and on the basis of tenure of the employees. The relationship between
these variables has not been explored in the previous studies. Table 3.68 lists the
means and standard deviations for EI and its four dimensions on the basis of income
categories. Whether these differences in the mean values are statistically significant
have been examined through one-way ANOVA.
Table 3.68: Means & Std. Deviations for EI and its Dimensions as per Income
Categories Income (Rs.) EI POE MOE MOtE UOE less than 3 lakhs Mean 3.816 3.587 3.821 3.918 4.035
N 14 14 14 14 14 S.d. .268 .330 .437 .395 .370
3-6 lakhs Mean 3.803 3.585 3.878 3.782 4.053 N 100 100 100 100 100 S.d. .244 .400 .345 .346 .360
6-9 lakhs Mean 3.832 3.599 3.935 3.866 4.008 N 81 81 81 81 81 S.d. .292 .364 .382 .332 .470
above 9 lakhs Mean 3.811 3.684 3.929 3.800 3.857 N 55 55 55 55 55 S.d. .252 .374 .312 .316 .590
The results in Table 3.69 show, that only UOE dimension of EI is statistically
different for income categories with F(3,246) = 2.266 , p < .10. For which specific
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
129
income category, this difference is statistically relevant has been examined through
contrast coefficients in Table 3.70.
Table 3.69: Income wise ANOVA and Homogeneity of Variance Results for EI & its Dimensions
Table 3.70: Income wise Contrast Coefficients of UOE
Contrast Income (Rs.) less than 3 lakhs 3-6 lakhs 6-9 lakhs above 9 lakhs
1 1 -1 0 0 2 0 1 -1 0 3 0 0 1 -1 4 1 0 0 -1 5 1 0 -1 0 6 0 1 0 -1 7 1 1 -1 -1
The results of Table 3.71 reveal for MOtE, there is statistically significant difference
between Rs. 3-6 lakhs and Rs.6-9 lakhs income categories. Also for UOE, there is
statistically significant difference between Rs. 6-9 lakhs vs. above Rs.9 lakhs income
categories and Rs.3-6 lakhs vs. above Rs.9 lakhs of category. Figure 3.22 and 3.23
depict the relationship of income with MOtE and UOE respectively.
Variable Mean (Std. Deviation)
ANOVA Homogeneity of Variance
F (df) p value Levene statistic
p value
EI 3.82 (.26) .193 (3, 246) .901 .752 .586 POE 3.61 (.38) .886 (3, 246) .449 2.620 .025 MOE 3.91 (.36) .717 (3, 246) .543 .629 .678 MOtE 3.82 (.34) 1.357 (3, 246) .257 .847 .517 UOE 3.99 (.46) 2.266 (3, 246) .081 1.008 .413 N=250
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
130
Inference: Thus, the results only partially support hypotheses 16c (income &
MOtE) and 16d (income & UOE). For hypotheses 16, 16a and 16b no support have
been found and hence, these are rejected in favour of null hypothesis.
Figure 3.23: Means Plot of Income & MOtE
Figure 3.24: Means Plot of Income & UOE
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
131
Table 3.71: Income wise Contrast Tests
Contrast Value of Contrast
Std. Error t df
Sig. (2-tailed)
MOtE Assume equal variances
1 .135 .096 1.403 246 .162 2 -.083 .050 -1.643 246 .102 3 .066 .059 1.116 246 .266 4 .118 .101 1.169 246 .244 5 .052 .097 .535 246 .593 6 -.017 .056 -.302 246 .763 7 .035 .113 .311 246 .756
Does not assume equal variances
1 .135 .111 1.219 15.929 .240 2 -.083 .050 -1.641 173.979 .103 3 .066 .056 1.169 119.756 .245 4 .118 .113 1.039 17.484 .313 5 .052 .111 .469 16.332 .646 6 -.017 .054 -.312 120.194 .756 7 .035 .124 .283 24.983 .780
UOE Assume equal variances
1 -.017 .130 -.135 246 .892 2 .045 .068 .661 246 .509 3 .150 .079 1.889 246 .060 4 .178 .136 1.304 246 .194 5 .027 .132 .208 246 .835 6 .195 .076 2.555 246 .011 7 .223 .152 1.462 246 .145
Does not assume equal variances
1 -.017 .105 -.167 16.634 .869 2 .045 .063 .710 147.307 .479 3 .150 .095 1.581 98.226 .117 4 .178 .127 1.401 32.017 .171 5 .027 .112 .245 20.980 .809 6 .195 .087 2.238 76.647 .028 7 .223 .142 1.570 49.321 .123
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
132
Table 3.72: Summary of Results
Hypothesis Result
1: There is a significant difference between the age of the respondents and their OCB.
Supported
1a: There is a significant difference between the age of the respondents and altruism.
Supported
1b: There is a significant difference between the age of the respondents and sportsmanship.
Rejected
1c: There is a significant difference between the age of the respondents and conscientiousness.
Rejected
1d: There is a significant difference between the age of the respondents and courtesy.
Rejected
1e: There is a significant difference between the age of the respondents and civic virtue.
Rejected
2: There is a significant difference between the designation of the respondents and their OCB.
Supported
2a: There is a significant difference between the designation of the respondents and altruism.
Rejected
2b: There is a significant difference between the designation of the respondents and sportsmanship.
Rejected
2c: There is a significant difference between the designation of the respondents and conscientiousness.
Supported
2d: There is a significant difference between the designation of the respondents and courtesy.
Supported
2e: There is a significant difference between the designation of the respondents and civic virtue.
Rejected
3: There is a significant difference between the tenure of the respondents and their OCB.
Rejected
3a: There is a significant difference between the tenure of the respondents and altruism.
Rejected
3b: There is a significant difference between the tenure of the respondents and sportsmanship.
Rejected
3c: There is a significant difference between the tenure of the respondents and conscientiousness.
Supported
3d: There is a significant difference between the tenure of the respondents and courtesy.
Rejected
3e: There is a significant difference between the tenure of the respondents and civic virtue.
Rejected
4: There is a significant difference between the spouse’s status and OCB.
Supported
4a: There is a significant difference between the spouse’s status and altruism.
Supported
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
133
Hypothesis Result
4b: There is a significant difference between the spouse’s status and sportsmanship.
Rejected
4c: There is a significant difference between the spouse’s status and conscientiousness.
Rejected
4d: There is a significant difference between the spouse’s status and courtesy.
Rejected
4e: There is a significant difference between the spouse’s status and civic virtue.
Rejected
5: There is a significant difference between the number of dependents and OCB.
Rejected
5a: There is a significant difference between the number of dependents and altruism.
Rejected
5b: There is a significant difference between the number of dependents and sportsmanship.
Rejected
5c: There is a significant difference between the number of dependents and conscientiousness.
Rejected
5d: There is a significant difference between the number of dependents and courtesy.
Rejected
5e: There is a significant difference between the number of dependents and civic virtue.
Rejected
6: There is a significant difference between education level and OCB.
Supported
6a: There is a significant difference between education level and altruism.
Rejected
6b: There is a significant difference between education level and sportsmanship.
Rejected
6c: There is a significant difference between education level and conscientiousness.
Supported
6d: There is a significant difference between education level and courtesy.
Supported
6e: There is a significant difference between education level and civic virtue.
Rejected
7: There is a significant difference between total job experience and OCB.
Rejected
7a: There is a significant difference between total job experience and altruism.
Rejected
7b: There is a significant difference between total job experience and sportsmanship.
Rejected
7c: There is a significant difference between total job experience and conscientiousness.
Rejected
7d: There is a significant difference between total job experience and courtesy.
Rejected
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
134
Hypothesis Result
7e: There is a significant difference between total job experience and civic virtue.
Rejected
8: There is a significant difference between income and OCB. Supported 8a: There is a significant difference between income and altruism. Supported 8b: There is a significant difference between income and sportsmanship.
Rejected
8c: There is a significant difference between income and conscientiousness.
Supported
8d: There is a significant difference between income and courtesy. Supported 8e: There is a significant difference between income and civic virtue. Rejected 9: There is a significant difference between the age of the respondents and their EI.
Rejected
9a: There is a significant difference between the age of the respondents and perception of emotions.
Rejected
9b: There is a significant difference between the age of the respondents and manage own emotions.
Supported
9c: There is a significant difference between the age of the respondents and manage others’ emotions.
Rejected
9d: There is a significant difference between the age of the respondents and utilization of emotions.
Rejected
10: There is a significant relationship between the designation of the respondents and their EI.
Rejected
10a: There is a significant difference between the designation of the respondents and perception of emotions.
Rejected
10b: There is a significant difference between the designation of the respondents and manage own emotions.
Supported
10c: There is a significant difference between the designation of the respondents and manage others’ emotions.
Rejected
10d: There is a significant difference between the designation of the respondents and utilization of emotions.
Rejected
11: There is a significant difference between the tenure of the respondents and their EI.
Rejected
11a: There is a significant difference between the tenure of the respondents and perception of emotions.
Rejected
11b: There is a significant difference between the tenure of the respondents and manage own emotions.
Supported
11c: There is a significant difference between the tenure of the respondents and manage others’ emotions.
Rejected
11d: There is a significant difference between the tenure of the respondents and utilization of emotions.
Supported
12: There is a significant difference between the spouse’s status and EI.
Supported
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
135
Hypothesis Result
12a: There is a significant difference between the spouse’s status and perception of emotion.
Rejected
12b: There is a significant difference between the spouse’s status and manage own emotions
Supported
12c: There is a significant difference between the spouse’s status and manage others’ emotions.
Supported
12d: There is a significant difference between the spouse’s status and utilization of emotions.
Rejected
13: There is a significant difference between the number of dependents and EI.
Rejected
13a: There is a significant difference between the number of dependents and perception of emotions.
Rejected
13b: There is a significant difference between the number of dependents and manage own emotions.
Rejected
13c: There is a significant difference between the number of dependents and manage others’ emotions.
Rejected
13d: There is a significant difference between the number of dependents and utilization of emotions.
Rejected
14: There is a significant difference between the education level and EI.
Supported
14a: There is a significant difference between the education level and perception of emotions.
Rejected
14b: There is a significant difference between the education level and manage own emotions.
Supported
14c: There is a significant difference between the education level and manage others’ emotions.
Supported
14d: There is a significant difference between the education level and utilization of emotions.
Dropped
15: There is a significant difference between total job experience and EI.
Rejected
15a: There is a significant difference between total job experience and perception of emotions.
Rejected
15b: There is a significant difference between total job experience and manage own emotions.
Rejected
15c: There is a significant difference between total job experience and mange others’ emotions.
Rejected
15d: There is a significant difference between total job experience and utilization of emotions.
Rejected
16: There is a significant difference between the income of the respondents and their EI.
Rejected
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
136
3.4 DISCUSSION
Demographic variables have played a mixed role in relation to OCB and EI.
While some of the variables have been significant others are completely insignificant.
Age has a significant relationship with OCB, altruism and MOE. It can be seen from
the findings, that mean value of OCB and altruism is rising till 26-35 years of age and
then slides down a little for 36-45 years of age, rises and again falls steeply at the end
forming ‘M’ shaped curve. These results are little confounding, but a careful
pondering at it reveals that younger employees are better in OCB and altruism scores
compared to their senior counterparts. Underlying rationale for it could be that
younger employees are more enthusiastic, may be they want to adjust and want to be
noticed by their seniors to fetch promotions and rewards, while the seniors have
already exhausted their share of promotions and the bodily energy is not permitting
them to help and cooperate with others. The MOE curve is moving up with the age
and there is striking difference between those upto 35 years of age and those above 35
years, indicating that a person becomes mature enough to handle his emotions with
the progression in age.
Hypothesis Result
16a: There is a significant difference between the income of the respondents and their perception of emotions.
Rejected
16b: There is a significant difference between the income of the respondents and manage own emotions.
Rejected
16c: There is a significant difference between the income of the respondents and manage others’ emotions.
Partially Supported
16d: There is a significant difference between the income of the respondents and utilization of emotion.
Partially Supported
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
137
In some of the studies age, income and education level have no significant
relationship with EI (Adeyemo, 2008), while in the same study experience has been
positively related to EI. Designation of the respondents is significant for OCB,
conscientiousness, courtesy and MOE. Position a person holds in an organization,
indeed has influence over OCB, conscientiousness and courtesy. The probable
explanation for it could be that people at higher levels are more educated and
emotionally mature due to their daily dealings with different people during work.
There are really noticeable differences between lower cadre of employees and those
working at higher cadres, implying that there is statistically significant difference in
the mean values of these variables.
Tenure has statistically significant relationship with conscientiousness, MOE
and UOE. While it is not significantly related to EI, OCB and other sub dimensions.
The mean value of conscientiousness is found to be significantly rising with the
progressive tenure categories. Moreover, when having a glance at these findings, it
should also be considered that only 9 respondents are there in 6-10 years of category,
while there are 34 respondents in 0-5 years. The conscientiousness score for 0-5 years
category is higher than others, as probably newer employees fall in this category and
they are more sincere in following the rules and regulations, so as to acclimatize
themselves in the new environment. However, the relationship of tenure with MOE &
UOE is found to be significant for categories, where shorter tenure has higher mean
compared to longer tenure having lower mean value. This finding is quite appealing,
as it implies that employees having shorter tenure have higher MOE and UOE score,
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
138
indicating that when a person is new to the organization, he is managing and utilizing
his emotions with awareness and control.
Spouse’s status is found to be quite significant for OCB, altruism, EI, MOE
and MOtE. Dual working couples have higher mean as compared to single working
couples. The underlying reason for this could be that, as dual working couples have
multiple responsibilities at home and workplace, they accommodate each other,
empathize with their spouse and peers by helping them.
Number of dependents and total experience do not have any impact in this
study. Moreover, level of education is found to be quite significant for OCB,
conscientiousness, courtesy, EI, MOE, MOtE and UOE. It implies that with the rise in
level of education, there is corresponding positive impact on OCB, EI and its
dimensions. Income also has significant impact on OCB, altruism, conscientiousness,
courtesy, MOtE and UOE implying, that with the rise in income there is
corresponding hike in the stated variables. In this study, education has foremost
impact on OCB and EI variables followed by income and spouse’s status. The results
reveal, that designation is also quite significant followed by age and tenure of the
respondents.
3.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY
Demographic profile of the respondents corresponding to OCB and EI has
been analysed in this chapter. For the analysis of data, descriptive analysis, one way
ANOVA, contrast coefficients, contrast tests and post-hoc tests have been applied to
have better insight regarding the data analysed for demographic variables. Some of
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, PhD Thesis Chapter 3
139
the demographic variables like spouse’s status and number of dependents have not
been examined earlier. Findings related to spouse’s status have been quite appealing
for OCB and EI, while number of dependents and experience variables have
negligible influence. Age is significantly related to OCB, altruism and MOE,
depicting that younger employees are better in OCB and altruism scores compared to
their senior counterparts. There is noteworthy difference in OCB, conscientiousness,
courtesy and MOE among respondents based on their designation. Tenure and level
of education also emerged as important variables in this study.
top related