Chapter 6: Data Analysis and Interpretation.

6.1 Introduction

6.2 Biographical Information

6.3 Descriptive statistics

6.3.1 Result of Labour Law Questionnaire

6.3.2 Result of Organisational Effectiveness Questionnaire

6.4 Testing of Hypothesis

6.4.1 Result of Hypothesis 1

6.4.2 Result of Hypothesis 2

6.4.3 Result of Hypothesis 3

6.1 Introduction

The previous chapter described the research design, data collection method, sample size &
techniques, source of data and statistical technique was used in this study.

This chapter focuses on the results obtained based on the empirical analyses conducted to test
the hypotheses. The descriptive statistics calculated for the sample which was collected for
this study. That is, the data pertaining to the variables included measuring instruments and
summarised by means of calculation of descriptive measures. In this manner, the properties
of the observed data clearly emerge and an overall picture thereof is obtained. The descriptive
and inferential statistics generated for the conjectured relationships between both variables
are presented and discussed.

6.2 Biographical Information

The biographical information of 400 of the employees, who completed the questionnaires in
the research, is graphically illustrated.

1. Gender of Respondents
Figure No 3

14

Male
Female

86

Figure 3 depicts the gender of respondents. The majority of the respondents (86%) are male
employees, while female employees comprised 14% of the respondents.
 2. Nature of Employment of Respondents
Figure No 4

70 62
60
Frequency

50
40 31
30
20
7
10
0
Apprentice Permanent Contractual

Nature of employment

With respect to the employment category, the majority of employees, 62 % are permanently
employed. Further, 31 % of employees are employed on a contractual basis, and only 7 % are
employed on apprentice basis.

3. Age of Respondents
Figure No 5

60
48
50
Frequency

40
30
19
20 13 11 9
10
0
20-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41 & above

Age group of Employees

The majority of the respondents 48% are in the age group 41 and above, while 19% are in the
age group 26-30 years. 13% respondents fall in the age category 20-25 years, and a further
11% of 31- 35 and 9 % of the respondents were in the age group of 36-40.
 4. Educational Qualifications of Respondents

Figure No 6

45 40
40
35
30 26
Frequency

25 19
20
15 10
10 5
5
0
8th 10th 12th Graduation Post Graduation

Educational qualification
The figure 6 indicates that 40% of the respondents were Graduates. While 26 % of employees
were 12th pass. 19 % of employees qualified with 10th. Further 10 % were post graduates and
only 5% was 8th pass.

5. Years of Experience of Respondents

Figure No 7

35 32
30
25
25
20
Frequency

20
15 12
10
10
5
0
0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25

Year of Experience
The majority of the employees 32% having 0 to 5 years experience in their jobs. The second
biggest group of respondents 25%, having 21-25 years of experience. 20% respondents
having 6- 10 years of experience. A further 12 % of employees having 16-20 years of
experience. Only 10% of the respondents having 11- 15 years of experience

6.3 Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics in the form of mean were computed for the various dimensions assessed
of labour Laws Questionnaire (LLQ) and Organisational Effectiveness Questionnaire (OEQ).
The results are presented in Tables 1 and 2.

6.3.1 Result of Labour Laws Questionnaire

The respondents of the study was a sizeable number of employees from various departments
of Greater Noida units .under this questionnaire three parameters were focused and is used
for the purpose of this investigation. They selected labour laws are mentioned in Table 1
below and the number of participants and percentage of participation presented accordingly.
The respondents were required to answer some questions that are based on various Labour
Laws in organisation. The data received by respondents from different departments and
levels.

Table No 11

Labor Laws related to Wages and Compensation Acts

S. Statements Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
No. Agree % % % Disagree
% %

1. There is a provision of timely 62 26 4 4 4

payment of wages without any
delay.
2. Any unauthorized deduction is not 62 32 1 0 5
made in your wages.

3. Are you satisfied with your wages 46 45 6 3 0

and over time, which has been
fixed according to the Minimum
Wages Rate
4. In case of any injury at work place, 44 48 6 2 0
proper compensation according to
the calculation of workman
compensation act is paid-Partial
Disablement, Total Disablement,
 Occupational Diseases, Personal
injury

5. Some part of your salary is 67 32 0 0 1

deducted monthly as contribution to
EPF
6. Do you avail the benefits of bonus 50 41 4 2 3
as per prescribed guidelines of the
act.
Average 55 37 4 2 2

Labour Laws related to Labour Welfare Provisions Acts

S. No. Statements Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly

Agree % % % Disagree
% %

7 i a. There is proper Cleanliness and 46 48 5 1 0

disposal of wastes and effluents.

7ib Ventilation & reasonable 42 50 7 1 0

temperature is maintained.

7ic Dust, fume and artificial 35 50 13 1 1

humidification is controlled at
permissible level
7id Overcrowding is avoided 37 48 13 1 1

7ie Adequate Lighting, Drinking 36 42 2 0 0

water, Latrines, Urinals &
Spittoons is Provided
7 ii a All machines are properly fenced 43 48 7 2 0
to protect workers when
machinery is in motion.
7 ii b Hoists and lifts are in good 41 45 6 5 3
condition and tested periodically.
7 ii c Floor, stairs and means of access 41 50 5 1 3
are
sound construction
7 ii d Safety appliances for eyes, 59 33 3 4 1
dangerous dusts, gas, and fumes
are provided
7 ii e In case of hazardous substances, 53 36 4 5 2
additional safety measures are
being prescribed
7 ii f Adequate fire fighting equipments 58 34 2 2 4
are available
7 ii g Safety officer is appointed 58 33 7 1 1
7 iii a Adequate facilities for washing, 55 35 7 3 0
sitting, storing clothes when not
worn during working hours
 7 iii b If you have to work in standing 38 54 2 4 2
position, sitting arrangement are
provided to take short rests
7 iii c Adequate First aid boxes and 71 28 1 0 0
ambulance are available.
7 iii d facilities of canteen , rest rooms 41 48 5 1 5
and crèches are provided
7 iii e Welfare officer is appointed 45 46 6 0 3
8 Holidays facility- once in a week 74 25 1 0 0
9 Displaying of notices regarding 58 38 3 1 0
working hours (9 Hours per
day and 48 hours per week)
10 Proper Leave Entitlement 63 32 5 0 0
11 Facilities available under ESI 60 35 5 0 0
regarding –Sickness benefit,
Medical Benefit, Dependent
Benefit, Funeral Benefit
12 Proper Maternity Benefit with 53 35 5 3 4
wages
Average 50 41 5 2 2

Labor Laws related to Industrial Dispute and Industrial Relations Acts

S. Statements Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
No. Agree % % % Disagree
% %
13 Trade Union helps in regulating the 42 46 4 7 1
relations between Labour &
management
14 Trade Unions represent its workers 38 46 6 9 1
in case of negotiation and collective
bargaining.
15 Employment conditions are duly 56 41 3 0 0
displayed by employer on notice
board.
16 The existing settlement machinery 48 41 7 2 2
works properly to handle disputes.

17 There is a freedom of handling the 37 46 9 5 3

disputes through external settlement
machinery like Conciliation,
Labour Court, Industrial and
National Tribunals etc.
Average 44 44 6 5 1

The Table No 11 shows the respondents produce required level of output allocated to them in
terms of questionnaire related to various category labour laws. The first labour laws category
related to wage and compensation, 55% of the respondents strongly agree with this assertion,
37% were agree, 4 % were neutral while 2% of the total respondents are disagree and
strongly disagree with the assertion. In other labour laws which related to social security and
welfare provisions the 50% of the respondents were strongly agree with their provision
following in organisations, 41 % respondents were agree , 5 % employees go with the neutral
statement and 2% respondents go with disagree and strongly disagree. The third category
related to Industrial relation laws followed in the organisation. From the above analysis, it is
shown that 44% of the respondents strongly agree and agree with various provisions of
industrial relations 6 % of the respondents were neutral, 5% disagree to this and 1 %
respondents were strongly disagree to this provisions

The above table shows that the respondents are of the opinion that with the proper regulations
of labour laws provide the greater effectiveness result in the organisations
6.3.2 Result of Organisational Effectiveness Questionnaire

In order to properly analyze the responses obtained from the employees related to
Organisational Effectiveness Questionnaire which is based on 4 selected factors, labour
management relations, Job satisfaction and motivation, Employees productivity and
Employees retentions. The data collected from various level of employees and tabulated in
the form of mean.

Table No 12

Labor Management Relations with Organizational Effectiveness

S. Statements Strongl Agree Neutral Disagre Strongly
No. y Agree % % e Disagree
% % %
1. There is participation in 35 55 5 2 3
decision making process with
management
2. Trade Unions raise their voice in 36 39 10 11 4
decision affecting workers
3. There is proper settlement 46 37 9 6 2
machinery to resolve disputes
4. There is transparency in terms of 49 37 7 4 3
dealing with employees
Average 41 42 8 6 3

Job Satisfaction, Motivation with Organizational Effectiveness

S. Statements Strongl Agree Neutral Disagre Strongly
No. y Agree % % e Disagree
% % %
5. There is fair pay structure and 54 37 5 2 2
promotion policy in your
organization
6. There is a freedom to perform 52 45 1 1 1
job responsibilities
7. The nature of work assigned is 49 49 2 0 0
known to you.
8. There is proper communication 55 41 4 0 0
and coordination among
employees.
Average 52 43 3 1 1

Employee Productivity with Organizational Effectiveness

S. No. Statements Strongl Agree Neutral Disagre Strongly
y Agree % % e Disagree
% % %

9. Regular training and 67 32 1 0 0

development activities are
conducted in your organization
10. Clarity of goals to be achieved 61 38 1 0 0

11. Relationship with 61 32 2 5 0

superiors/subordinate is good
12. Progressive organization 59 32 3 5 5
culture and climate

Average 62 33 2 2 1

Employee Retention with Organizational Effectiveness

S. Statements Strongl Agree Neutral Disagre Strongly
No. y Agree % % e Disagree
% % %
 13. Proper leadership and guidance 41 50 3 6 0
from your superior
14. There is a job security in your 51 39 8 1 1
organization.
15. There is a proper recognition & 44 45 9 1 1
appreciation for your
performance
16. The job gives you opportunity to 43 51 4 1 1
balance personal and
professional life
Average 45 46 6 2 1

From Table No 12 above it was observed that in labour management relations the 41% of
the total Respondents were strongly agree , 42% agree, 8% were Neutral, 6 % of the
respondents disagree while 3 % of the respondents strongly disagree. The second category
emphasizes on Job Satisfaction and Motivation when we asked the 52 % were strongly agree
, 43 % agree, 3% were Neutral, 1 % of the respondents disagree and strongly disagree. It is
quite obvious that employee productivity is most important factor for every organisation,
Thus, from the above result third category shown the response ,62 % were strongly agree ,
33 % agree, 2% were Neutral and disagree while 1 % strongly disagree. Every organisation
wants to attract and retain some of the best hands and employees ,the last category related to
Employees Retentions where the 45% of the total respondents were strongly agree , 46%
agree, 6% were Neutral, 2 % of the respondents disagree and 1 % of the respondents strongly
disagree . However, the table shows the overall result, where most of the respondents were
strongly agree and agree with organisational effectiveness factors.

6.4 Testing of Hypothesis

Having examined the sample population, the study now proceeds to test the hypothesis
formulating in this research. This is part of the measure needed to provide empirical support
for this study to identify the relation between various Labour law reforms and organisational
effectiveness factors. To test the hypothesis, the study use Pearson’s Product Moment
Correlation Co-efficient, the formula is stated below:
Key
X: X Values
Y: Y Values
Mx: Mean of X Values
My: Mean of Y Values
X - Mx & Y - My: Deviation scores
(X - Mx)2 & (Y - My)2: Deviation Squared
(X - Mx)(Y - My): Product of Deviation Scores

Hypothesis
Ho1: There is no significant relationship between Wage and Compensation Acts and
Organisational Effectiveness factors.
Ho2: There is no significant relationship between Labour Welfare Provisions Acts and
Organisational Effectiveness factors.
Ho3: There is no significant relationship between Industrial Dispute and Industrial Relation
Acts and Organisational Effectiveness factors.
6.4.1 Result of Hypothesis 1
i) Relationship between Wage and Compensation Acts and Labour
Management Relation factor

Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation Method

Table No 13

Wage and Compensation

Acts Labour Management Relation
Strongly Agree 55 41
Agree 37 42
Neutral 4 8
Disagree 2 6
Strongly Disagree 2 3

Result Details & Calculation

X Values
∑ = 100
Mean = 20
∑(X - Mx)2 = SSx = 2418
Y Values
∑ = 100
Mean = 20
∑(Y - My)2 = SSy = 1554
X and Y Combined
N=5
∑(X - Mx)(Y - My) = 1859
R Calculation
r = ∑((X - My)(Y - Mx)) / √((SSx)(SSy))
r = 1859 / √((2418)(1554)) = 0.959

WC(X) LMR(Y)
WC 1 0.959
LMR 0.959 1

Interpretation of Result: The results indicate that the strongest relationship exists between
Wage and compensation Acts and Labour Management Relation factors. The value of R is
0.959. This is a strong positive correlation, which means that high X variable scores go with
high Y variable scores (and vice versa).

ii) Relationship between Wage and Compensation Acts and Job Satisfaction
& Motivation factor

Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation Method

Table No 14

Wage and Compensation

Acts Job Satisfaction & Motivation
Strongly Agree 55 52
Agree 37 43
Neutral 4 3
Disagree 2 1
Strongly Disagree 2 1

Result Details & Calculation

X Values
∑ = 100
Mean = 20
∑(X - Mx)2 = SSx = 2418
Y Values
∑ = 100
Mean = 20
∑(Y - My)2 = SSy = 2564
X and Y Combined
N=5
∑(X - Mx)(Y - My) = 2467
R Calculation
r = ∑((X - My)(Y - Mx)) / √((SSx)(SSy))
r = 2467 / √((2418)(2564)) = 0.9908

WC(X) JSM(Y)
WC 1 0.990
LMR 0.990 1

Interpretation of Result: The results indicate that the strongest relationship exists between
Wage and compensation Acts and Job satisfaction & Motivation factors. The value of R is
0.9908. This is a strong positive correlation, which means that high X variable scores go with
high Y variable scores (and vice versa).

iii) Relationship between Wage and Compensation Acts and Employees

Productivity factor

Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation Method

Table No 15

Wage and Compensation

Acts Employees Productivity
Strongly Agree 55 62
Agree 37 33
Neutral 4 2
Disagree 2 2
Strongly Disagree 2 1
Result Details & Calculation

X Values
∑ = 100
Mean = 20
∑(X - Mx)2 = SSx = 2418
Y Values
∑ = 100
Mean = 20
∑(Y - My)2 = SSy = 2942
X and Y Combined
N=5
∑(X - Mx)(Y - My) = 2645
R Calculation
r = ∑((X - My)(Y - Mx)) / √((SSx)(SSy))
r = 2645 / √((2418)(2942)) = 0.9917

WC(X) EP (Y)
WC 1 0.991
EP 0.991 1

Interpretation of Result: The results indicate that the strongest relationship exists between
Wage and compensation Acts and Employees Productivity factors. The value of R is 0.9917.
This is a strong positive correlation, which means that high X variable scores go with high Y
variable scores (and vice versa).

iv) Relationship between Wage and Compensation Acts and Employees

Retention factor

Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation Method

Table No 16

Wage and Compensation

Acts Employees Retention
Strongly Agree 55 62
Agree 37 33
Neutral 4 2
Disagree 2 2
Strongly Disagree 2 1
Result Details & Calculation

X Values
∑ = 100
Mean = 20
∑(X - Mx)2 = SSx = 2418
Y Values
∑ = 100
Mean = 20
∑(Y - My)2 = SSy = 2182
X and Y Combined
N=5
∑(X - Mx)(Y - My) = 2207
R Calculation
r = ∑((X - My)(Y - Mx)) / √((SSx)(SSy))
r = 2207 / √((2418)(2182)) = 0.9608

WC(X) ER(Y)
LWSS 1 0.960
ER 0.960 1

Interpretation of Result: The results indicate that the strongest relationship exists between
Wage and compensation Acts and Employees Retention factors. The value of R is 0.9608.
This is a strong positive correlation, which means that high X variable scores go with high Y
variable scores (and vice versa).

6.4.2 Result of Hypothesis 2

i) Relationship between Labour Welfare Provisions Acts and Labour management

Relation factor

Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation Method

Table No 17

Labour Management
Labour Welfare Provisions Acts Relation
 Strongly Agree 50 41
Agree 41 42
Neutral 5 8
Disagree 2 6
Strongly Disagree 2 3

Result Details & Calculation

X Values
∑ = 100
Mean = 20
∑(X - Mx)2 = SSx = 2214
Y Values
∑ = 100
Mean = 20
∑(Y - My)2 = SSy = 1554
X and Y Combined
N=5
∑(X - Mx)(Y - My) = 1830
R Calculation
r = ∑((X - My)(Y - Mx)) / √((SSx)(SSy))
r = 1830 / √((2214)(1554)) = 0.9866
Meta Numerics (cross-check)
r = 0.9866

SSW(X) LMR(Y)
SSW 1 0.986
LMR 0.986 1

Interpretation of Result: The results indicate that the strongest relationship exists between
Labour Welfare Provisions Acts and Labour Management Relation factors. The value of R is
0.9866. This is a strong positive correlation, which means that high X variable scores go with
high Y variable scores (and vice versa).

ii) Relationship between Labour Welfare Provisions Acts and Job Satisfaction &
Motivation factor

Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation Method

Table No 18

Labour Welfare Provisions Acts Job Satisfaction & Motivation

 Strongly Agree 50 52
Agree 41 43
Neutral 5 3
Disagree 2 1
Strongly Disagree 2 1

Result Details & Calculation

X Values
∑ = 100
Mean = 20
∑(X - Mx)2 = SSx = 2214
Y Values
∑ = 100
Mean = 20
∑(Y - My)2 = SSy = 2564
X and Y Combined
N=5
∑(X - Mx)(Y - My) = 2382
R Calculation
r = ∑((X - My)(Y - Mx)) / √((SSx)(SSy))
r = 2382 / √((2214)(2564)) = 0.9998
Meta Numerics (cross-check)
r = 0.9998

SSW(X) LMR(Y)
SSW 1 0.999
JSM 0.999 1

Interpretation of Result: The results indicate that the strongest relationship exists between
Labour Welfare Provisions Acts and Job Satisfaction & Motivation factors. The value of R is
0.9998. This is a strong positive correlation, which means that high X variable scores go with
high Y variable scores (and vice versa).

iii) Relationship between Labour Welfare Provisions Acts and Employees

Productivity factor

Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation Method

Table No 19
 Labour Welfare Provisions Acts Employees Productivity
Strongly Agree 50 62
Agree 41 33
Neutral 5 2
Disagree 2 2
Strongly Disagree 2 1

Result Details & Calculation

X Values
∑ = 100
Mean = 20
∑(X - Mx)2 = SSx = 2214
Y Values
∑ = 100
Mean = 20
∑(Y - My)2 = SSy = 2942
X and Y Combined
N=5
∑(X - Mx)(Y - My) = 2469
R Calculation
r = ∑((X - My)(Y - Mx)) / √((SSx)(SSy))
r = 2469 / √((2214)(2942)) = 0.9674
Meta Numerics (cross-check)
r = 0.9674

SSW(X) EP(Y)
SSW 1 0.967
EP 0.967 1

Interpretation of Result: The results indicate that the strongest relationship exists between
Labour Welfare Provisions Acts and Employees Productivity factors .The value of R is
0.9674. This is a strong positive correlation, which means that high X variable scores go with
high Y variable scores (and vice versa).

iv) Relationship between Labour Welfare Provisions Acts and Employees Retention
factor
Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation Method

Table No 20

Labour Welfare Provisions Acts Employees Retention

Strongly Agree 50 45
Agree 41 46
Neutral 5 6
Disagree 2 2
Strongly Disagree 2 1

Result Details & Calculation

X Values
∑ = 100
Mean = 20
∑(X - Mx)2 = SSx = 2214
Y Values
∑ = 100
Mean = 20
∑(Y - My)2 = SSy = 2182
X and Y Combined
N=5
∑(X - Mx)(Y - My) = 2172
R Calculation
r = ∑((X - My)(Y - Mx)) / √((SSx)(SSy))
r = 2172 / √((2214)(2182)) = 0.9882
Meta Numerics (cross-check)
r = 0.9882

SSW(X) ER(Y)
SSW 1 0.988
ER 0.988 1

Interpretation of Result: The results indicate that the strongest relationship exists between
Labour Welfare Provisions Acts and Employees Retention factors. The value of R is 0.9882.
This is a strong positive correlation, which means that high X variable scores go with high Y
variable scores (and vice versa).

6.4.3 Result of Hypothesis 3

 i) Relationship between Industrial Dispute and Industrial Relation Acts and Labour
Management Relation factor

Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation Method

Table No 21

Industrial Dispute and Industrial

Relation Acts Labour Management Relation
Strongly Agree 44 41
Agree 44 42
Neutral 6 8
Disagree 5 6
Strongly Disagree 1 3

Result Details & Calculation

X Values
∑ = 100
Mean = 20
∑(X - Mx)2 = SSx = 1934
Y Values
∑ = 100
Mean = 20
∑(Y - My)2 = SSy = 1554
X and Y Combined
N=5
∑(X - Mx)(Y - My) = 1733
R Calculation
r = ∑((X - My)(Y - Mx)) / √((SSx)(SSy))
r = 1733 / √((1934)(1554)) = 0.9996
Meta Numerics (cross-check)
r = 0.9996

IR(X) LMR(Y)
IR 1 0.999
LMR 0.999 1

Interpretation of Result: The results indicate that the strongest relationship exists between
Industrial Dispute and Industrial Relation Acts and Labour Management Relation factors.
The value of R is 0.9996. This is a strong positive correlation, which means that high X
variable scores go with high Y variable scores (and vice versa).
 ii) Relationship between Industrial Dispute and Industrial Relation Acts and Job
Satisfaction & Motivation factor

Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation Method

Table No 22

Industrial Dispute and Industrial

Relation Acts Job Satisfaction & Motivation
Strongly Agree 44 52
Agree 44 43
Neutral 6 3
Disagree 5 1
Strongly Disagree 1 1

Result Details & Calculation

X Values
∑ = 100
Mean = 20
∑(X - Mx)2 = SSx = 1934
Y Values
∑ = 100
Mean = 20
∑(Y - My)2 = SSy = 2564
X and Y Combined
N=5
∑(X - Mx)(Y - My) = 2204
R Calculation
r = ∑((X - My)(Y - Mx)) / √((SSx)(SSy))
r = 2204 / √((1934)(2564)) = 0.9897
Meta Numerics (cross-check)
r = 0.9897

IR(X) JSM(Y)
IR 1 0.989
JSM 0.989 1

Interpretation of Result: The results indicate that the strongest relationship exists between
Industrial Dispute and Industrial Relation Acts and Job Satisfaction & Motivation factors.
The value of R is 0.9897. This is a strong positive correlation, which means that high X
variable scores go with high Y variable scores (and vice versa).
 iii) Relationship between Industrial Dispute and Industrial Relation Acts and
Employees Productivity factor

Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation Method

Table No 23

Industrial Dispute and Industrial

Relation Acts Employees Productivity
Strongly Agree 44 62
Agree 44 33
Neutral 6 2
Disagree 5 2
Strongly Disagree 1 1

Result Details & Calculation

X Values
∑ = 100
Mean = 20
∑(X - Mx)2 = SSx = 1934
Y Values
∑ = 100
Mean = 20
∑(Y - My)2 = SSy = 2942
X and Y Combined
N=5
∑(X - Mx)(Y - My) = 2203
R Calculation
r = ∑((X - My)(Y - Mx)) / √((SSx)(SSy))
r = 2203 / √((1934)(2942)) = 0.9236
Meta Numerics (cross-check)
r = 0.9236
IR(X) EP(Y)
IR 1 0.923
EP 0.923 1

Interpretation of Result: The results indicate that the strongest relationship exists between
Industrial Dispute and Industrial Relation Acts and Employees Productivity factors. The
value of R is 0.9236. This is a strong positive correlation, which means that high X variable
scores go with high Y variable scores (and vice versa).
 iv) Relationship between Industrial Dispute and Industrial Relation Acts and
Employees Retention factor

Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation Method

Table No 24

Industrial Dispute and Industrial

Relation Acts Employees Retention
Strongly Agree 44 45
Agree 44 46
Neutral 6 6
Disagree 5 2
Strongly Disagree 1 1

Result Details & Calculation

X Values
∑ = 100
Mean = 20
∑(X - Mx)2 = SSx = 1934
Y Values
∑ = 100
Mean = 20
∑(Y - My)2 = SSy = 2182
X and Y Combined
N=5
∑(X - Mx)(Y - My) = 2051
R Calculation
r = ∑((X - My)(Y - Mx)) / √((SSx)(SSy))
r = 2051 / √((1934)(2182)) = 0.9984
Meta Numerics (cross-check)
r = 0.9984

IR(X) ER(Y)
IR 1 0.998
ER 0.998 1

Interpretation of Result: The results indicate that the strongest relationship exists between
Industrial Dispute and Industrial Relation Acts and Employees Productivity factors. The
value of R is 0.9984. This is a strong positive correlation, which means that high X variable
scores go with high Y variable scores (and vice versa).