IN A GOVERm1ENT CORPORATION
by
in the Department
of
-~
iCi Sonya Odilia Martin
\..,.- '
May 1977
----~-------~-----------
of the Simon Fraser Univers ity Library, and to make partial or single
copies only for such users or in response to a request from the library
of any other univers ity, or other educatio nal institut ion, on its own
behalf or for one of its users. I further agree that permissi on for
or publicat ion of this thesis for financia l gain shall not be allowed
Author:
(signatu re)
Sonya o. Martin
(name)
(date)
ABSTRACT
attitud es.
A questio nnaire consis ting of twenty-one questions relatin g to
fi~e major variab les was used. These variab les were: job satisfa ction,
peer group intera ction, supervisory style, task repetit ivenes s and company
policy and salary . In addition three short written answers were
solicit ed in order to capture any possib le employee attitud es which
may have been overlooked or not properly obtained with the previous
questio ns. The questio nnaire was sent to one hundred and eighty -six
people (including some who had already left the company). Sixty-two
com-
questionnaires were returned of which five were not completed (a
pletio n rate of sligh tly over 30%).
The resul ts did not show any signi fican t differ ence in attitu de
the
level s or in perceived absenteeism between the two secti ons. Thus
vational
resul ts failed to confirm the hypotheses generated from the obser
phase of the study. However (for the techn ical/c leric al personnel
only) , corre lation al tests revealed a strong negative corre lation
four
between the five varia bles and absenteeism. For all personnel,
(the
of the five varia bles were negatively corre lated to absenteeism
exception was peer group inter actio n
11 11
Of these four, all but
).
supervisory style has been consi stent ly confirmed in the litera ture.
(iv)
CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT
CHAPTER I: Introduction 1
CHAPTER V: Discussion 52
Conclusion 58
Sample Questionnaire 64
( v)
FOREWORD
Dr. G.C. Hoyt for giving me confidence and moral support. I also
{vi)
1.
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
ing situation without the loss of employment" (Porter & Steers, 1973) ~
Most companies today carry some type of sick leave plan which entitles
persists and the employee is no longer able to cope with it, he or she
will then make the more drastic decision to leave for a more rewarding
attract, engage, and retain new staff and in the training of the new
employee. Costs may also appear in the form of salaries paid to two
and interruption of the work flow and the decline in the quantity and
quality of production.
toward the new employee for a certain period of time. This "neutral"
in the quantity and quality of work until the group arrives at the
This situation is almost ideal for this type of research because the
ory style have not changed for several years, and advancement is
one to four weeks. At the end of thid period the tasks are repeated.
These tasks are defined and guided not by any written methods or
from employee to employee. From observation it does not appear that the
jobs have been changed or modified in any way for a long period of time.
even by the employees themselves, which regulates the work flow, breaks
the monotony of the day, minimizes the responsibilities for the work
detected that most of the employees seem to have a low level of job
satisfact ion and low morale. It is also apparent that the employees
do not seem to have any esteem or considera tion for their superviso rs,
nor do they appear attached to the job or to the company in any way.
in the attitude and behavior between the two sections. The employees
later.
CHAPTER II
HYPOTHESES
in his work, his attitude will be one of satisfactio n and he will pursue
individual does not perceive any "reward," his behavior will lead to
a negative attitude towards the work, he will not pursue gratificati on,
contribute to turnover.
corporation under study. This does not mean that other elements may
results obtained. Some discrepancies were found for each of the five
possibility is that the two types of withdrawal may not have the same
roots, as suggested. Let us now turn to the literature survey for the
abilities and finding the work itself interesting. When these needs
are satisfied by the job, the person is motivated to achieve an
responsibility
recognition
achievement
advancement
work itself
e,'b
o.-v.c;
~~ 0
satisfaction of personal
When personal needs are not satisfied by the job, the person will
with the job, and he or she will not use the job next time to satisfy
needs (Figure 2.2). When this situation persists, the lack of fulfillment
Most of the literature has been concerned with the concept that
9.
no responsibility
no recognition
no achievement
no advancement
no work satisfaction
Inext
no use . of the job,
tllne, to satisfy
needs
of Rotter (1955), Davidson, Suppes and Siegel (1957) and Vroom (1964).
to be ego motives.
growth opportunities and the work itself account for the variance in
job satisfaction and turnover. Waters and Roach (1971) found an inverse
Porter & Steers (1973) have reviewed many of the studies done in the
are not consistently met, his propensity for withdrawal will increase.
absenteeism and turnover. The ego needs tested were classified into
-
self-confidence, achievement and independence. The second level was
one's work. He found that the latter needs constitute job aspiration
ll.
needs.
people who live and work in that environment which are assumed to
and salary.
Supervisory Style
.
consJ.'d eratJ.on, 4 . .
and f or open comrnunJ.catJ.on ch annels 5 between the
quality_ and good morale" (Beach, 1970) The employee who does not
(1950) and Stogdill & Coones (1957). Fleishman & Harris (1962) and
whose foremen were rated low in consideration. Ross & Zander (1957)
decision to participate.
his peer" (Porter & Steers, 1973). Such interaction provides the
for combating frustration and for obtaining the support and comfort
positive peer group interaction will meet the employee's basic needs
reduced tension. When these needs are not fulfilled, the employee
cannot cope with the job. Morale becomes low, thus lowering the
that there are no opportunities in the outside world for job advancement,
of support frcm the group. If the outside world does have opportunities
Evans (1963) and Hulin (1968) found in their research that co-
the propensity to leave. Taylor & Weiss (1969a, 1969b) and Waters &
Roach (1971) found that peer interaction was significantly and inversely
Task Repetitiveness
by making jobs repetitive. Although the new routine has decreased the
company. The employee will use any possible excuse to remain absent
from work. He or she will find a way to satisfy only basic needs 7 in
the job, and look for opportun ities for growth outside the company.
When the condition s render the situation unbearab le, the employee will
turnover. Further studies were performed by Walker & Guest (1952) and
to remain in the system. The reward system can be in the form of pay
7 Basic needs refer to physiolog ical and safety needs (Maslow, 1954).
16.
needs.
and turnover.
to remain. They also found that one reason given by the factory workers
under study for leaving the company was the failure to obtain the
"expected wages."
paper.
//
-------
affecting turnover. Job satisfaction is defined as the extent to which
but unrelated to turnover. However, one study (Waters & Roach, 1971)
who found that task repetitiven ess was significant ly and negatively
this element. The fairness of pay and promotion, rather than their
Porter & Steers (1973) stated that "it is not sufficient, for our
situation."
Casual Observation
measuring from (1) excellent, to (5) very poor. Observations were made
19.
randomly three times each day. Daily results were accumulated and
consistent with the first hypothesis drawn in this study which stated
selected for this study for their possible effects on the absenteeism
Hence the results will show that the level of job satisfaction is lower
peer group interaction element is the third most important element with
respect to absenteeism and again that this element will be viewed more
20.
employees indeed are bored on the job, and are using absenteeism as an
escape route to break the monotony and to be able to cope with the daily
competitive with the outside market. The results will show that
themselves as more mobile people and thus not terribly concerned with
In the next chapter the research method, its application and the
describe the results obtained from the research and propose an explanation
21.
CHAPTER III
METHOD OF RESEARCH
over rates will also be different in the two sections. The second
needs, and the level of job satisfaction, the level of met expectations,
and the level of interaction of the employees in the two sections under
Questionnaire Tool*
* See appendix B
23.
who had already left. Each of the first 21 questions could be scored
Three more common-type questions were added at the end of the questionnaire
to inquire further into the 21 questions and to give the employees the
that section A will show a more negative attitude toward the' work by
proposed that section A again will demonstrate that it does not perceive
that its expectations are met, nor does it obtain recognition and
15, appendix B, related to the supportive nature of the group and the
ing greater satisfaction with the present peer group interaction level.
repetitiveness of the job and the inability to make good use of one's
explained the subject of the thesis, the reason for choosing this
(appendix C).
Comments
between the two sections, and to search for causes of absenteeism and
possible turnover in the corporation . The next chapter will present the
CHAPTER IV
General Description
were sent to the employees in both sections, including ones who had
remarks such as "I do not want to get involved." Table D.l, appendix
3. Supervisors, A vs. B.
27.
Clerks Superv
Section .. ..
A
1. 2.
4.
3.
4 . indicates
experimental
---- - - - -- I
relationship
Section
B 5.
4
Clerks Superv.
The test gave the value for the mean, the standard deviation, the t-
M
1
= ,u2 or the fact that the scoring in section A was equal to section B.
28.
If the data does not support H , then H will be accepted and this would
0 1
support the research conclusion and the underlying theory.
When the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis were defined,
~
a level of significance (a) was selected to be the value of -.05. What
these significant differences in means from table E.l. All other results
shown in the table supported the null hypothesis that the mean scoring
results from seven questions (1, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 18) supported the
alternative hypothesis that the mean of the responses was not equal for
T- 2-tail
Sections X value prob Of
T- 2-tail
Sections X t1 value prob Df
1 - Opportunity T/C A 3.845 0.834 3.46 0.001 40
T/C B 2.875 0.957
Table E.3 appendix E represents the statistical test used for the
third combination, that is, for all supervisors in section A vs. all
prediction that section B would score better than section A. Table IV. 3
T- 2-tail
Relevant data Sections X q value Prob. Df.
8- Performance Superv. A 4.125 0.991 4.92 c.ooo 13
discussion Superv. B 1.428 1.134
19- Thoughts
about Superv. A 1.875 0.835 -2.60 0.022 13
leaving Superv. B 3.286 1.264
20- Absences Superv. A 1.125 0.354 -2.32 0.037 13
Superv. B 2.000 1.000
21- Satisfaction Superv. A 2.375 0.518 -2.16 0.050 13
with job Superv. B 3.428 1.272
results show that only two data are significant ly different. This
T- 2-tail
Sections X value prob. Df
the answers to question 20 and 21. Table IV. 5 shows the significant
results.
---------.........
32.
T- 2-tail
Sections X a value Erob. Df.
20- Absences Clk. B 1.375 0.500 -2.02 0.056 21
Sup. B 2.000 1.000
21- Satisfactio n Clk. B 2.312 1.078 -2.17 0.042 21
on the job Sup. B 3.429 1.272
In both of the latter two cases the supervisors seem less satisfied
stated in chapter III along with the predicted scoring for each element
and 21).
situation continues.
r
!f 33.
No. 5- Company policy and salary (questions 1, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 20).
2. Supervisors, A vs B
3. Technical/clerical, A vs B
34.
Clerks Superv.
Section
A
Section
B
clerks Superv.
Table IV.6 presents the results obtained for the first element,
means. The hypothesis used was the same as that used for the individual
this element.
35.
-
Table IV.6- Results from t-test - Job satisfaction and motivation
(Ques. 1, 2, 3, 10, 16, 21)
Standard T- 2-tail
Mean deviation value prob. Df.
A 2.91
Mean of means B 2.65
Standard T- 2-tail
Mean deviation value pro b. Df.
Group A 16.000 2.449
-0.29 0. 777 13
Group B 16.571 4.962
A 2.67
Mean of means B 2.76
Standard T- 2-tail
Mean deviation value prob. Df.
Group A 17.923 4.166
1.82 0.077 40
Group B 15.625 3.649
A 2.99
Mean of means
B 2.60
Legend:
Standard T- 2-tail
Mean deviation value prob. Df
Group A 18.088 5.053
2.50 0.016* 55
Group B 14.740 4.845
Standard T- 2-tail
Mean deviation value prob. Df
Group A 17.500 3.117
0.95 0.358 13
Group B 15.429 5.192
A 2.917
Mean of means B 2.571
Standard T- 2-tail
Mean deviation value pro b. Df
Group A 18.269 5.554
2.28 0.028* 40
Group B 14.437 4.830
A 3.044
Mean of means B 2.406
Legend:
A, B are sections
Mean of means = ~
N
Df = Degree of freedom
37.
The results obtained for all the staff rejected the hypothesis
that the two sections would have equal scores, as the level of
probability was less than .OS. Looking at the mean of means, section
are the group creating this difference, not the supervisors; in other
The next table (IV.8) shows the results obtained for the third
Standard T- 2-tail
Mean deviation value prob. Df
A 2.794
Mean of means 2.391
B
Standard T- 2-tail
Mean deviation value prob. Df
Standard T- 2-tail
Mean deviation value prob. Df
Legend:
A, B are sections
Df = degree of freedom
Mean of means = ~ X
N
39.
section B). No difference was noticed between the supervisors and the
technical/clerical staff.
corporation was tested using the same combinations of staff (Table IV.9).
combinations of employees.
40.
Standa rd T- 2-tail
Mean deviati on value prob. Df
A 2.676
Mean of means B 2.435
Standa rd T- 2-tail
Mean deviati on value prob. Df
A 2.042
Mean of means B 2.095
Standa rd T- 2-tail
Mean deviati on value prob. Df
A 2.872
Mean of means B 2.325
Legend :
A, B are section s
Df = degree of freedom
The last element tested was concerned with company policy and
salary, again tested with the same combinations of employees (Table IV.lO).
42.
Standard T- 2-tail
Mean deviation value prob. df
A 3.088
Mean of means
B 2.667
Standard T- 2-tail
Mean
deviation value prob. Df
A 2.917
Mean of meansB
2.833
Standard T- 2-tail
Mean deviation value prob. Df
A 3.141
Mean of means
B 2.594
Element 3 -
Peer group
interaction
(Questions 14
and 15)
Element 4 -
Task
repetitiveness (18) (19) (18)
(Questions 17, 2.923 1.875 2.923
18,19) 2.000 3.286 2.000
(11) (11) (20) (20)
Element 5 - 3.853 4.000 1.125 1.375
Company policy 3.174 3.120 2.000 2.000
and salary (12) (12)
(Questions 1,10 4.176 4.192
11,12,13,20) 3.522 3.375
Legend:
ing
In analy zing the signi fican t data in table IV .11 the follow
nts listed
a - only half of the quest ions used for most of the eleme
revea l signi fican t diffe rence s betwe en the two sectio ns;
signi fican t
b - none of the peer group inter actio n facto rs show any
signi fican t
For the job satis facti on eleme nt the quest ions havin g
diffe rence s are: oppo rtuni ties on the job, oppo rtuni ties to make
itsel f. For
major decis ions affec ting the job, and job satis facti on
excha nge of
super visor y style the signi fican t quest ions relate d to
expla natio n
ideas and/o r sugge stion s, discu ssion of perfo rmanc e, and
ent of a new
of dutie s and respo nsibi lities receiv ed at the commencem
shown
job. For task repet itiven ess the signi fican t diffe rence s are
ideas about
on quest ions conce rning likin g or dislik ing the job and
leavin g the job. Final ly, for the company polic y and salar y eleme nt,
e to inform ation
the quest ions prese nting signi fican t diffe rence s relat
otion al system s
recei ved about what is happe ning in the company, prom
techn ical/c leric al emplo yees. The super visor s in sectio n B, howev er,
A. The resul ts
are more dissa tisfie d than the super visor s in sectio n
for the super visor s is, howev er, an excep tion. It is impor tant to
only on certa in
remember that the signi fican t diffe rence s are occur ring
style and company policy and salary. These differences are produced
removed.
46.
Table IV .12- Mean of means obtained on the t-test for each of the
elements stated - Hypothesis 2
Legend:
Empl = Employees
Superv. = Supervisors
Tech/Clk = technical/clerical
47.
5. Supervisors A and B
Section . . .I
Tech/Clk
..,_... '.2.
I
Supv.
~8
! ~--
A
1. 4.:. - - - - - - - _J._ -
,, g,
Section ____... I .,_.
B '3.
... I
Tech/Clk Supv.
The results are summarized in table IV .13 and its details are in
Beginning with column (a) for the results obtained for all
correlation for four out of the five elements related to the absenteeism
interaction.
Table IV.l3- Significance of Pearsons' correlations of survey results of each variable to absenteeism.
Extract from table F.l and F.2, appendix F.
Legend:
A,B are sections Yes* means a correlation value that is significant at p ~.osa
All, means all employees, supervisors and technical/clerical No* indicates p >.05
Tech/Clr., are technical/clerical
Df is degrees of freedom
Note: Due to the particular measuring range used in the questionnaire, the correlation results appendix F, should read as
negatives not positives. The negatives swing in Table F.2 of same appendix should read as positives not negatives.
..,.
"'
49.
Column (b) , all the employees in section A, shows the same four
with the tasks performed, the higher the level of perceived absenteeism .
Column (d), all the technical/c lerical employees in both sections, shows
style and task repetitiven ess more strongly correlated than the other
is obvious that the results of (f) and (g) concerning the technical/
column (d) for all technical/c lerical employees. Also the results for
employees in that section. The results for all staff in section A (b)
and those for all the technical/c lerical staff in both sections (d)
Figure 4.4 - A comprehensive diagram of correlation results for all the employees/combinations
OVERALL (a}
1 2 4 5
- -- - --
-- - - - -
-- -- --
I
I
I
All A (b) ,- I All B (c)
I
I
1 2 4 5 Tech/Cler. (d) Supervisors
A+ B A+ B
2 (e)
1
-3 4
-
5
are producing the results shown in (a). Thus the overall result in
survey.
52.
CHAPTER V
Two hypotheses were drawn. The first was concerned with identifying
and detailed method. This second tool was used to search for difference
was stated that if these elements or motivators are not fulfilled the
individual will have the tendency to remain absent from work and search
permanently.
These results suggest that if the questions used for each of the five
differences in attitude between the two sections for only two elements,
that is supervisory style and company policy. The results show that
predicted results.
comments. Two people who had left the company two weeks prior to
people out of the 23 had written comments, and out of the 13 two had
-Working conditions,
The comments that were received from 28 out of the 57 people who
are still working for the company), also support the second attitude
No promotion system,
lation between four of the five elements tested and the perceived
absenteeism for all the employees. It appears then that, for the technical/
by group to search for differences between the two sections and between
the technical/c lerical and the supervisors . Table V.l shows these results.
Legend:
nor dissatisfied with their jobs, each of the five variables are
leave permanently. Thus it was said that the cost of absenteeism could
high, then it is assumed that the rate of turnover also would be high.
58.
From the data gathered during the research period it appears that
the company faces high absenteeism and turnover. It also appears that
least 15% of all employees are absent from work at least one day.
among postal employees, is about the same, while the rate of absenteeism
8
among the gas and electrical employees is about 11.2%.
the same period, 9 employees out of 80 have left the company, for an
government corporations, such as the Post Office we see that the rate of
turnover ranges from 5 to 6.7% a year, while for the gas and electrical
employees the rate is about 7.3% per year. The percentage in turnover
is not high if compared with the national average, but may be considered
The above data indicate that the turnover rate is higher in section
CONCLUSION
the average absenteeism rate between the two sections. This means that
the correlation test showed that all the variables tested are correlated
and in some degrees the first hypothesis which stated that there would
is only evident in the type of attitude but not in the level. In other
the findings of the correlation test, that all the variables contribute
means and the results of the correlation test. Although the employees
in both sections are at the same attitude level, the satisfaction level
has a bearing on the absenteeism rate and possibly the turnover rate.
of satisfaction does not match with the solicited responses at the end
saying on the questionnaire that they are happy with the present
most appropriate and the more extreme responses. Further, the type of
questions asked may have caused a certain amount of suspicion among the
was certain the survey was not an independent survey, but being done
people are influenced in the same way by the five elements used to assess
for each element may have not been appropriate, thus distorting the
results.
(Waters & Roach, 1971); other studies done on this element revealed
From what has been said in this research and from previous results it
can be assumed that the same elements would also be affecting turnover.
section B.
Appendix A
Table A.l - Results of the 16 items used in the casual observati on.
2) SUPERVISORY STYLE:
- Job given with
explanati ons 4.2 4.0 4.6 2.2 2.2
- Interest in
employee 's work 5.0* 4.6 4.8 3.6 3.4
3) PEER INTERACTION:
- Behavior of person
under observati on 4.0 4.8 3.6 3.2 3.2
Cooperati on in
group 3.4 3.6 4.4 2.8 2.8
- Behavior of
group 3.8 4.0 4.4 3.2 3.0
4) WORK HABITS:
- Work steady 2.6 3.2 3.0 2.4 2.8
- Conversa tion
about work 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.4 2.4
5) ORGANIZATION CLH1ATE:
- Information given
to employees
about company 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6
- Overall
efficiency 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.8 2.4
LEGEND:
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
1) As you see it, how many opportuniti es do you feel that you hav~
in your job, to do your job more effectively .
(Please circle one number only).
1 Unlimited 4 Few
3 Quite a few
2) Think about the specific duties of your job. How often have yw
felt unable to use your skill and competence in performing your
job.
2 Seldom 5 Always
3 Often
3) How frequently does your job allow you to make major decisions
to change the way you do your work.
1 Always 4 Rarely
3 Few times
4) How well does your supervisor know how you do your job.
1 Always 4 Seldom
3 Often
65.
Appendix B (Cont'd)
3 Neither comfortable
nor uncomfortable
7) When you were hired, how clearly did your supervisor explain
the responsibilitie s and duties related to your job.
3 Sufficiently clearly
8) How often does your supervisor discuss with you your performance
on the job or tell you how well you are doing.
3 Sometimes
10) How often has your company offered you an opportunity for
advancement. ( 1)
1 3 times a year 4 Not every year
3 Once a year
11) Are you satisfied with the information the company gives you
about what is happening in the company.
3 Fair
14) How often does your work group encourage the people in it to
work as a team.
1 Always 4 Seldom
3 Often
15) How often are the people in your group friendly and easy to
approach.
1 Always 4 Seldom
3 Often
67.
Appendi x B (Cont'd)
16) How well does your job meet the expecta tions you had of it
when you were hired.
3 Partly as expected
19) Within the past year, how frequen tly have you thought of
leaving the company.
3 Occasio nally
20) Not conside ring vacation s and holiday s, how often would you
estimat e you are absent from your work, during the year.
3 10 - 15 days a year
68.
Appendix B (Cont'd)
22) Would you explain why you are still working in this company.
(Please write down your own reasons as you see fit).
23) Would you explain why you did resign. (Please write down
your own personal reasons as you see fit).
24) Comments:
(Please write in this space any comments that you wish to make
or any explanation or continuation of previous questions. Feel
free to add as many pages as you like, or as many comments as
you wish).
69.
Appendix C
Sonya 0. MARTIN
Apt. 314, 9444 Cameron St.
Burnaby, V3J lMl
Dear Friend,
We all are working for particular reasons, beside money, which may
vary according to our needs and opportunities.
Please mark only one answer for each question. Select the answer
that is closest to your definition. Do not mark the survey
questionnaire with your name, unless you wish to do so.
I would like to emphasize that the survey and the thesis are to be
used strictly for my study at S.F.U. and are not related, in any
way, to our company. In other words, they have nothing to do with
the company.
I would like to thank you for your help and time spent in
completing the survey questionnaire, and to let you know that it is
very much appreciated.
Sincerely,
S.O. Martin
71.
Appendix D
Section A Section B
Superv. Tech/ Superv. Tech/
Clerl. Clerl.
Legend:
Superv. = Supervisors
Tech/Clerl. = Technical/Cler ical
(*) = 3 employees did not want to complete it
(**) = 2 did not want to complete it.
72.
Appendix E
2-ta il
prob abi-
Ques tions x --=- 'I-va lue lity Df
2-tail
Qlestions probabi-
x T-value Htr DF
No.l5- People in work group are easy to approach All Section A 2.176 1.029 l.OO 0.324 55
All Section B J..913 0.900
No.l6- Does your job meet your expectatio ns All Section A 3.088 1.111 1.51 :>.137 55
All Section B 2.609 1.270
No.l7- How would you rate your job All Section A 2.823 1.193 1.66 0.103 55
All Section B 2.304 1.105
~~at would you say of your job All Secti-on A 2.706 1.060 1. 76 1.086 55
No.l8-
All Secti-on B 2.217 0.998
No.l9-How many times have you thought of leaving All Section A 2.500 1.308 -0.78 ).437 55
the company All Section B 2.783 1.380
No.20- How often are you absent All Secti-on A 1.618 0.853 0.24 0.810 55
All Section B 1.565 0.728
No.21- Are you satisfi~d with your job All Section A 2.735 1.136 0.26 0.794 55
All Section B 2.652 1.229
Legend:
Technical /clerical & Supervisor s in Section A & X"' mean
Technical /clerical & Supervisor s in Section B C""' Standard deviation
..~.
Appendix E
Table E.2 - Questionnaire response to each question. Section A versus Section B -All
Technical/clerical ~plorees
probabi-
Questions T-value lity Df
No.2 -Ability to use skill and competence on job Tech/ Section A 2.346 1.129
-0.65 0.519 40
cler Section B 2.562 0.892
No.3 - Opportunities on job to make major decisions Tech/ Section A 3.92 o. 977 1.11 0.273 40
cler Section B 3.56 1.094
No.4 - Does supervisor know your job Tech/ Section A 2.731 1.282
1. 05 0.299 40
cler Section B 2.312 1.195
No.5 - Encouragement from supervisor, exchange Techi Section A 3.731 1.282 2.22 0.032* 40
of ideas and suggestions cler Section B 2.812 1.328
,
No.6 - Would yoL be comfortable criticising Tech/ Section A 3.269 1.511 0.18 0.858 40
your supervisor if necessary cler Section B 3.187 1.276
No.7- Did supervisor explain job at time of hiring Tech/ Section A 3.346 1.231 0.033* 40
2.21
cler Section B 2.562 0.892
No.8 - How often supervisor discusses performance Tech/ Section A 3.538 1.964 o. 011* 40
2.66
cler Section B 1. 937 1. 769
No.9 - How often have you thought not to come to Tech/ Section A 1. 654 1.129 0.939
0.08 40
work because of supervisor cler Section B 1.625 1.258
No.lO- Does company offer opportunity advancement Tech/ Section A 1.808 0.402 0.387 40
0.87
cler Section B 1.687 0.479
No.ll- Satisfaction with information received Tech/ Section A 4.000 0.980 0.012* 40
2.63
about co::1pany cler Section B 3.125 1.147
No.l2- Is the orga:1ization successful ~o:ith its Tech/ Section A 4.192 0.895 2.72 0.010* 40
promotion sys:cm cler Section B 3.~75 1. 025
75.
Table E. 2 Continu es
2-tail
probabi -
Question s
x \- T-value Hrx D(
Legend:
B
Technic al/cleri cal in section A and Technic al/cleric al in section
Df = Degree of freedom (26 in section A; 16 in section B)
X= mean
\ = standard deviatio n
Tech/cl er = Technic al/cleri cal
the ;>robab ility that
The scores marked with an asterisk s denote the signific ance of
the event is not equal for both sections .
76.
Appendix F.
Table E.3 - Questionnaire response to each question. Section A versus Section B. All supervisors
2-tail
Questions probabi-
1'-value litv Df
No.2 - Ability to use skill and competence on jar. Supv. Section A 2.375 0.744 0.20 0.842 13
Supv. Section B 2.286 0.951
No.3 - Opportunities on job to make major decisions Supv. Section A 3.000 o. 756 -0.96 0.356 13
Supv. Section B 3.428 0.976
No.4 - Does supervisor know your job Supv. Section A 2.375 0.744 -1.14 0.276 13
Supv. Section B 2.857 0.900
No.5 - Encouragement from supervisor, exchange Supv. Section A 3.250 1.035 1.38 0.191 13
of ideas and suggestions Supv. Section B 2.429 1.272
No.6 - Would you be comfortable criticising Supv. Section A 2.875 1.356 -0.78 0.451 13
your supervisor if necessary Supv. Section B 3.428 1.397
No.7- Did supervisor explain job at time of hiring Supv. Section A 3.250 0. 707 1.04 0.318 13
Supv. Section B 2.714 1.254
No.8 - How often supervisor discusses performance Supv. Section A 4.125 0.991 4.92 0.000* 13
Supv. Section B 1.428 1.134
No.9 - How often have you thought not to come to Supv. Section A 1.625 0.916 -1.42 0.179 13
work because of supervisor Supv. Section B 2.571 1.618
No.lO- Does company offer opportunity advancement Supv. Section A 1.875 0.354 0.09 0.926 13
Supv. Section B 1.857 0.378
No.ll- Satisfaction with information received Supv. Section A 3.375 1.188 0.13 0.899 13
about company Supv. Section B 3.286 1.496
No.l2- Is the organization successful with Supv. Section A 4.125 0.641 0.97 0.352 13
its promotion system Supv. Section B 3.857 0.378
77.
'~---
Table E.3 Continues
2-tail
Questions probabi-
x T-value litv Df
No.l4- Encouragem ent from work group to work Supv. Section A 3.250 0.463 1.56 0.143 13
as team Supv. Section Jl 2.571 1.134
No.l5- People in work group are easy to approach Supv. Section A 2.375 1.061 1.10 0.291 13
Supv. Section B 1.857 0.690
No.l6- Does your job meet your expectatio ns Supv. Section A 2.875 0.641 0.60 0.561 13
Supv. Section B 2.571 1.272
No.l7- Row would you rate your job Supv. Section A 2.250 1.165 -0.06 0.950 13
Supv. Section B 2.287 0.951
No.l8- What would you say of your job Supv. Section A 2.000 o. 7,56 -1.47 0.165 13
Supv. Section B 2.714 1.. 113
No.20- How often are you absent Supv. Section A 1.125 0.354 -2.32 0.037* 13
Supv. Section B 2.000 1.000
No.21- Are you satisfied with your job Supv. Section A 2.375 0.518 -2.16 0.050* 13
Supv. Section B 3.428 1. 272
Legend:
Appendix E
Table E.4 - Questionnaire response to each question. Section A only - Supervisors versus Technical/cler ical
2-tail
Questions probabi-
T-value litx__ __.::;D'""f-
No.2 - Ability to use skill and competence Tech/elk Section A 2.346 1.129 -0.07 0.947 32
on job Supervisor Section A 2.375 0.744
No.3 - Opportunities on job to make Tech/elk Section A 3.923 0.977 2.45 0.020* 32
major decisions Supervisor Section A 3.000 0.756
No.4 - Does supervisor know your job Tech/elk Section A 2.731 1.282 o. 74 0.563 32
Supervisor Section A 2.375 0.744
No.5 - Encouragement from supervisor, Tech/elk Section A 3.731 1.282 0.96 0.342 32
exchange of ideas and suggestions Supervisor Section A 3.250 1.035
No.6 - Would you be comfortable criticising Tech/elk Section A 3.269 1.511 0.66 0.514 32
your supervisor if necessary Supervisor Section A 2.875 1.356
No.7- Did supervisor explain job at time Tech/elk Section A 3.346 1.321 0.21 0.836 32
of hiring Supervisor Section A 3.250 0.707
-----------~~-----~
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No.8 - How often supervisor discusses Tech/elk Section A 3.539 1.964 -0.81 0.425 32
performance Supervisor Section A 4.126 0.991
No.9 -How often have you thought not to Tech/elk Section A 1.654 1.129 0.948 32
0.07
come to work because of supervisor Supervisor Section A 1.625 0.916
No.lD- Does company offer opportunity Tech/elk Section A 1.808 0.402 -0.42 0.674 32
advancement Supervisor Section A 1.875 0.125
No.ll- Satisfaction with information received Tech/elk Section A 4.000 0.980 1.50 0.143 32
about company Supervisor Section A 3.375 1.188
No.l2- Is the organization successful with Tech/elk Section A 4.192 0.895 0.20 0.845 32
its promotion system Supervisor Section A 4.125 0.641
79.
2-t.ail
Questions probabi-
x .....:::..._ '1'-value lity Df
No.13- How fair is the company regarding Tech/elk Section A 3.231 1.107 -0.62 0.538 32
salary administration Supervisor Section A 3.500 0.926
No.l4- Encouragement from \l'ork group to work Tech/elk Section A 3.462 1.272 0.46 0.65] 32
as team Supervisor Section A 3.250 0.563
No.l5- People in work group are easy to Tech/elk Section A 2.115 1.033 -0.62 0.541 32
approach Supervisor Section A 2.375 1.061
No.l6- Does your job meet your expectations Tech/elk Section A 3.154 1.223 0.61 0.543 32
Supervisor Section A 2.875 0.641
No.17- Ho\1' would you rate your job Tech/elk Section A 3.000 1.166 1.59 0.121 32
Supervisor Section A 2.250 1.165
No.l8- What \l'ould you say of your job Tech/elk Section A 2.923 1.055 2.29 0.029* 32
Supervisor Section A 2.000 0.756
No.l9- How many times have you thought of Tech/elk Section A 2.692 1.379 1.58 0.124 32
leaving the company Supervisor Section A 1.875 0.835
No. 20- How often are you absent Tech/elk Section A 1. 769 0.908 1.94 0.061 32
Supervisor Section A 1.125 0.354
No.2!- Are you satisfied \l'ith your job Tech/elk Section A 2.846 1.255 1.03 0.312 32
Supervisor Section A 2.375 0.518
Legend:
Appendix E
Table E.S - Questionnaire response to each question. Section B only. Supervisors versus Technical/clerical
2-tail
_________Q_u_e_s_t_i_on_s______________ ___________,X::_'--------~-----!:--~~lue_____:~~~~i~----~-f__
No.2 -Ability to use skill and co~petence Tech/elk Section B 2.563 0.892
0.67 0.509 21
on job Supervisor Section B 2.286 0.951
No.3 - Opportunities on job to make Tech/elk Section B 3.563 1. 094 0.28 0.783 21
major decisions Supervisor Section B 3.429 0.976
No.4 - Does supervisor know your job Tech/elk Section B 2.313 1.195 -1.07 0.295 21
Supervisor Section B 2.857 0.900
No.5 - Encouragement from supervisor; Tech/elk Section B 2.813 1.328 0.65 0.525 21
exchange of ideas and suggestions Supervisor Section B 2.429 1.272
No.7- Did supervisor explain job at time Tech/elk Section B 2.563 0.892
-0.33 0.743 21
of hiring Supervisor Section B 2.714 1.254
No.9 - How often have you thought not to Tech/elk Section B 1. 625 1.258 0.143
-1.52 21
come to work because of supervisor Supervisor Section B 2.571 1.618
No.ll- Satisfaction with information Tech/elk Section B 3.125 1.147 -0.28 0.781 21
received about company Supervisor Section f 3.286 1.496
2-tail
...... , __ ,,_- .............. -
Questions probabi-
x tf T-value J_i_ty~~--....ll-
No.13- How fair is the company regarding Tech/Clk Section B 3.125 1.204 0.24 0.813 21
salary administrati on Supervisor Section B 3.000 1.000
--------~-----
No.l4- Encourageme nt from "'ork group to Tech/elk Section B 3.000 1.205 0.450 21
0.77
work as teaill Supervisor Section B 2.571 1.134
--------<- ---...-------
No.l5- People in work group are easy to Tech/elk Section B 1. 938 0.998 0.19 0.849 21
approach Supervisor Section B 1.857 0.690
No.l6- Does your job meet your expectations Tech/elk Section B 2.625 1.310 0.09 0.928 21
Supervisor Section B 2.571 1.272
--~--~.........-.----,--~---
No.l7- How would you rate your job Tech/elk Section B 2.313 1.195 0.05 0.959 21
Supervisor Section B 2.286 0.951
~~- ... -~~~-~.
No.l8- What would you say of your job Tech/elk Section B 2.000 0.894 -1.64 0.116 21
Supervisor Section B 2.714 1.113
~~- ... ~~-~
No.19- How many times have you thought Tech/elk Section B 2.563 1.413 -1.17 o. 257 21
of leaving the company Supervisor Section B 3.286 1.254
No.20- How often are you absent Tech/elk Section B 1.375 0.500 -'l.02 0.0567 21
Supervisor Section B 2.000 1.000
No.21- Are you satisfied with your job Tech/elk Section B 2.312 1.078 -2.17 0.042* 21
Supervisor Section B 3.429 1.272
Legend:
Appendix F
2 - Supervisory style -0.1762 0.265 0.3520 0.039 0.4342 0.046 0.4019 0.162 0.1589 0. 361
3 - Peer group interaction -0.2613 0.173 0.1860 0.181 0.5138 0.021 -0.4664 0.122 0.1193 0. 395
0.2277 0.207 0.5345 0.002 0.1309 0.315 -0.4382 0.139 0.0810 0. 43<
4 - Task repetitiveness
0.000 0.500 0.3506 0.040 -0.0140 0.480 0.0372 0.465 0.3457 0. 22l
5 - Company policy and salary*
Section A Section B
82 , 33 47
TOTAL Questionna ires sent . 24 .., v
I
106 80
Section A Section B
BIBLIOGRAPHY
DUNNETTE, M.D., ARVEY, R., & BANAS, P., "Why Do they Leave?"
Unpublished manuscript, 1969.
KATZ, Daniel & KHAN, Robert I., The Social PsychologY in Organizatio n,
Wiley, New York, 1966.
PORTER, Lyman & LAWLER, Edward E., "Organizati onal behavior and
human performance ," Journal of Applied Psychology, 1968,
Vol. 3 (4) pp. 417-426.
PORTER, Lyman & STEERS, Richard M., "Organizati onal work, and
personal factors in employees turnover and absenteeism ,"
Psychologic al Bulletin, 1973 (Aug.), Vol. 8, pp. 151-176.
ROSS, I.e., & ZANDER, A., "Need satisfactio n and employee turnover,"
Personnel Psychology, 1957, Vol. 10, pp. 327-338.