15 - Chapter 4 PDF

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
OF EMPLOYEES’ PERSPECTIVES ON HIGH ATTRITION
Analysis is the key element of any research as it is the reliable way to test the hypotheses
framed by the investigator. This chapter deals with the analysis of the primary data
collected through the administration of the questionnaire. The collected data has been
codified, tabulated and analysis has been conducted using the different statistical tools
such as Reliability Analysis, Factor Analysis, Multiple Regression analysis, and Testing
of the Hypotheses focusing on Analysis of Variance (One-way ANOVA), Chi-Square
test, t-test, pie-charts, averages, percentages graphs and bar diagrams.
The five major analyses conducted in the study focusing on the employee’s perspective
are listed as:
4.1 Reliability Analysis
4.2 Factor Analysis
4.3 Analysis of personal and other factors
4.4 Data Analysis based on Objectives
4.5 Multiple Regression Analysis
The above five analyses are conducted and the results of the different statistical
procedures are discussed below:
4.1 RELIABILITY ANALYSIS

A pilot study has been conducted for a sample of 50 respondents and reliability analysis
(scale- split) is done.
Three measures of reliability are given. The scale consists of 40 items, which measures
the attitude of the respondents on a Likert type five point scale. 50 respondents were
selected for reliability analysis.
Chapter-IV 133
Table: No.4.1 Analysis of Factor Variables
Statistics for Mean S.D No. of items

Part 1 59.9400 9.9476 20
Part 2 59.5200 11.9953 20
Scale 119.4600 20.1982 40
The scale items were divided into two parts (forms) each part containing 20 items
selected randomly. The correlation between two forms was found to be 0.6919, indicating
that the items between the two parts correlates well. Spearman-Brown and Guttman
split-half reliabilities are used to find reliability coefficients of the scale by dividing the
scale items into two halves in some random manner.
Table: No.4.2 Reliability coefficients
No. of Cases 50 No. of Items 40

20 Items in part 1 20 items in part 2
Correlation between forms 0.6919 Equal-length Spearman-Brown 0.8179
Guttman Split-half 0.8095 Unequal-length Spearman-Brown 0.8179
Alpha for part 1 0.7513 Alpha for part 2 0.8676
The correlation between forms is used to find the Spearman Brown reliability and the
variances of sum scale and forms are used to find Guttman reliability. Cronbach's
coefficient alpha (α) uses variances for the k individual items (40) and the variance for
the sum of all items. If there is no true score but only error in the items then the variance
of the sum will be the same as the sum of variances of the individual items. Therefore,
coefficient alpha will be equal to zero. If all items are perfectly reliable and measure the
same thing (true score), then coefficient alpha is equal to 1.
In all, the reliability of the three statistics namely, Spearman-Brown, Guttman and
Cronbach’s alpha show that the reliability of scale constructed for the General
Assessment is between 0.70 and 0.87, which makes the constructed scale fairly reliable.
Therefore the scale reliability is good. Since it was found that the reliability of the scale
was good, factor analysis was performed on all the 400 valid responses.
Chapter-IV 134
4.2 FACTOR ANALYSIS
The set of 40 items included in the Employee Attrition Scale was used to find the
underlying factors in it.
The Factor analysis conducted in this study proceeds in four steps:
Step 1
Correlation matrix for the variables, item 1 to item 40, was analyzed initially for possible
inclusion in Factor Analysis. (The results of the correlation between item1 to item40 are
given in Appendix).
Since one of the goals of the factor analysis is to obtain 'factors' that help explain these
correlations, the variables must be related to each other for the factor model to be
appropriate. A closer examination of the correlation matrix may reveal what are the
variables which do not have any relationship. Usually a correlation value of 0.3 (absolute
value) is taken as sufficient to explain the relation between variables. All the variables
from 1 to 40 have been retained for further analysis. Further, two tests are applied to the
resultant correlation matrix to test whether the relationship among the variables is
significant or not.
Table: No 4.3 KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy .823

Approx. Chi-Square 4629.369
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity df 780
Sig. **
One test is Bartlett's test of sphericity. This is used to test whether the correlation matrix
is an identity matrix. i.e., all the diagonal terms in the matrix are 1 and the off-diagonal
terms in the matrix are 0. In short, it is used to test whether the correlations between all
the variables is 0. The test value (4629.369) and the significance level (P<.01) are given
above.
Chapter-IV 135
With the value of test statistic and the associated significance level is so small, it appears
that the correlation matrix is not an identity matrix, i.e., there exists correlations between
the variables.
Another test is Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy. This test is

based on the correlations and partial correlations of the variables. If the test value, or
KMO measure is closer to 1, then it is good to use factor analysis. If KMO is closer to 0,
then the factor analysis is not a good idea for the variables and data. The value of test
statistic is given above as 0.823 which means the factor analysis for the selected variables
is found to be appropriate to the data.
Step 2
Next step is to determine the method of factor extraction, number of initial factors and the
estimates of factors. Here Principal Components Analysis (PCA) is used to extract
factors. PCA is a method used to transform a set of correlated variables into a set of
uncorrelated variables (here factors) so that the factors are unrelated and the variables
selected for each factor are related. Next PCA is used to extract the number of factors
required to represent the data. The results from principal components analysis are given
below.
To start with, in the correlation matrix, where the variances of all variables are equal to
1.0. Therefore, the total variance in that matrix is equal to the number of variables. In this
study, there are 40 variables (items) each with a variance of 1 then the total variability
that can potentially be extracted is equal to 40 times 1.
Chapter-IV 136
The variance accounted for by successive factors would be summarized as follows:
Table: No.4.4 Total Variance Explained
Initial Eigen values Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Component % of % of Cumulative
Variance Cumulative % Variance
Variance Variance %
1 6.863 17.158 17.158 6.863 17.158 17.158
2 3.835 9.587 26.745 3.835 9.587 26.745
3 2.230 5.576 32.320 2.230 5.576 32.320
4 1.875 4.686 37.007 1.875 4.686 37.007
5 1.612 4.031 41.038 1.612 4.031 41.038
6 1.368 3.419 44.457 1.368 3.419 44.457
7 1.247 3.117 47.574 1.247 3.117 47.574
8 1.109 2.772 50.346 1.109 2.772 50.346
9 1.089 2.722 53.068 1.089 2.722 53.068
10 1.061 2.652 55.720 1.061 2.652 55.720
11 1.027 2.567 58.287 1.027 2.567 58.287
12 1.013 2.533 60.820 1.013 2.533 60.820
13 1.000 2.501 63.320 1.000 2.501 63.320
14 .895 2.238 65.558
15 .850 2.125 67.684
16 .813 2.032 69.716
17 .790 1.975 71.691
18 .745 1.862 73.553
19 .702 1.754 75.307
20 .680 1.701 77.007
21 .678 1.695 78.702
22 .646 1.616 80.318
23 .607 1.517 81.835
24 .589 1.472 83.307
25 .564 1.410 84.717
26 .559 1.398 86.115
27 .528 1.319 87.435
28 .503 1.257 88.691
29 .493 1.232 89.924
30 .471 1.176 91.100
31 .445 1.112 92.212
32 .418 1.044 93.256
33 .403 1.006 94.263
34 .401 1.002 95.265
35 .363 .908 96.173
36 .352 .881 97.054
37 .345 .863 97.917
38 .311 .778 98.695
39 .273 .682 99.377
40 .249 .623 100.000
Chapter-IV 137
In the second column (Initial Eigen values) the column titled ‘Variance, we find the
variance on the new factors that were successively extracted. In the third column, these
values are expressed as a percent of the total variance. As we can see, factor 1 account for
about 17.16 percent of the total variance, factor 2 about 9.6 percent, and so on. As
expected, the sum of the eigen values is equal to the number of variables. The third
column contains the cumulative variance extracted. The variances extracted by the factors
are called the eigen values.
From the measure of how much variance each successive factor extracts we can decide
about the number of factors to retain. Retain only factors with eigen values greater than 1.
In essence, this is like saying that, unless a factor extracts at least as much as the
equivalent of one original variable, we drop it. This criterion is probably the one most
widely used and is followed in this study also. In this study, using the above criterion, 13
factors (principal components) have been retained.
The tableNo.4.5 shown below gives the Component Matrix or Factor Matrix where PCA
extracted 13 factors. These are all coefficients used to express a standardized variable in
terms of the factors. These coefficients are called factor loadings, since they indicate how
much weight is assigned to each factor. Factors with large coefficients (in absolute value)
for a variable are closely related to that variable. For example, Factor 1 is the factor with
largest loading (0.639) for the variable, Statement 33. These are all the correlations
between the factors and the variables, Hence the correlation between Statement 33 and
Factor 1 is 0.639. Thus the factor matrix is obtained. These are the initially obtained
estimates of factors.
Chapter-IV 138
Table No.4.5 Component Matrix
Components
Statements
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
33 0.639 -0.100 -0.324 0.008 -0.003 0.095 -0.216 0.019 -0.075 0.001 -0.158 -0.017 0.295
31 0.638 0.113 -0.212 -0.041 -0.055 -0.217 0.043 -0.178 0.027 0.052 0.023 0.003 0.082
27 0.614 0.034 -0.156 0.024 -0.293 0.141 -0.007 -0.077 -0.104 0.013 0.189 -0.006 -0.173
29 0.611 0.107 -0.319 0.145 -0.016 -0.115 0.015 -0.165 -0.056 0.037 -0.062 -0.091 0.285
26 0.581 -0.008 -0.271 0.061 -0.267 0.094 0.107 0.105 0.153 0.178 0.133 -0.143 -0.201
24 0.579 0.032 -0.370 -0.163 -0.022 0.172 0.094 0.068 0.199 0.055 -0.149 -0.094 -0.122
25 0.570 -0.032 -0.321 -0.126 -0.296 0.049 -0.001 -0.004 0.168 0.100 0.072 -0.045 -0.359
19 0.569 -0.109 -0.039 0.187 -0.024 0.258 -0.263 -0.041 -0.094 -0.020 -0.287 0.028 0.112
38 0.561 -0.185 0.253 0.018 -0.001 -0.141 0.023 0.087 0.416 -0.071 0.098 0.226 0.187
32 0.543 -0.099 0.080 0.070 -0.138 0.161 0.118 0.181 0.053 -0.261 0.139 0.087 0.362
36 0.493 0.099 0.317 -0.156 0.024 -0.256 0.166 -0.057 0.339 -0.028 0.074 0.073 0.064
37 0.492 -0.207 0.241 0.108 0.086 -0.047 -0.070 -0.158 0.049 0.270 -0.186 0.379 -0.205
12 0.476 -0.061 -0.065 -0.110 -0.061 -0.158 -0.118 0.274 -0.338 0.078 -0.123 0.060 0.159
22 0.476 -0.133 -0.271 0.120 -0.157 0.062 0.058 -0.119 -0.255 -0.031 0.225 0.294 0.043
35 0.474 -0.133 0.370 -0.076 0.149 0.289 -0.183 -0.079 0.127 -0.078 0.053 -0.231 -0.195
1 0.465 0.099 0.360 0.130 -0.118 -0.121 -0.108 0.357 -0.249 0.225 0.026 -0.129 -0.024
14 0.453 -0.140 0.389 0.096 -0.067 0.344 -0.010 -0.181 0.120 0.157 -0.142 -0.085 0.055
23 0.421 -0.076 0.323 -0.144 -0.001 0.053 0.135 -0.094 -0.247 -0.256 0.268 -0.256 -0.142
20 0.419 0.246 -0.095 -0.190 0.099 -0.315 -0.143 0.105 -0.034 -0.285 -0.133 -0.179 -0.026
17 0.412 0.005 -0.036 -0.246 0.354 0.296 0.367 0.029 -0.120 0.083 0.103 0.057 0.016
34 -0.337 0.285 -0.180 -0.324 -0.257 -0.128 0.208 0.103 0.086 0.303 -0.106 0.252 -0.090
9 0.098 0.690 0.124 -0.017 0.103 0.176 -0.161 0.114 -0.039 -0.013 0.010 0.242 -0.197
4 0.020 0.664 0.002 -0.048 0.001 -0.156 0.029 -0.207 0.060 -0.059 0.056 -0.207 0.000
7 -0.026 0.622 0.035 -0.127 -0.304 0.125 -0.124 0.022 -0.026 -0.084 0.226 -0.034 0.101
21 0.021 0.599 0.155 0.004 0.237 0.238 -0.071 0.132 0.027 -0.040 -0.062 0.198 -0.034
28 0.081 0.585 0.101 -0.100 -0.129 0.122 -0.260 0.068 0.246 -0.139 -0.132 0.094 0.037
3 0.062 0.580 0.051 0.206 0.084 0.059 0.213 -0.125 -0.006 0.011 -0.191 0.080 0.172
8 0.007 0.544 0.195 0.056 0.164 -0.082 0.047 -0.171 0.072 0.355 0.117 -0.244 0.163
40 0.003 -0.511 0.098 -0.352 0.065 -0.182 0.095 0.155 0.173 -0.209 0.089 0.103 0.079
5 0.393 0.445 -0.264 -0.034 0.002 -0.125 0.239 -0.120 0.098 -0.335 -0.253 -0.043 -0.080
16 0.474 -0.106 0.541 0.219 -0.166 -0.007 0.161 -0.006 0.035 0.085 0.028 0.028 0.075
13 -0.087 0.133 -0.176 0.704 0.185 0.013 -0.091 0.092 0.058 -0.114 0.048 -0.014 -0.139
15 -0.039 0.168 -0.326 0.501 0.181 0.023 0.013 0.387 0.253 0.045 0.406 0.030 0.056
10 0.352 0.171 -0.065 -0.397 0.304 0.046 0.021 0.166 -0.152 0.030 0.061 0.233 -0.042
6 0.474 0.106 -0.004 -0.186 0.570 0.028 -0.010 0.119 -0.108 -0.033 0.074 -0.061 -0.107
30 0.289 -0.286 -0.153 0.333 0.449 -0.113 0.332 -0.022 0.041 0.037 -0.200 -0.067 -0.126
39 0.321 0.157 -0.068 -0.090 0.259 -0.366 -0.289 -0.260 -0.051 0.301 0.300 0.037 0.093
18 -0.324 -0.005 -0.176 -0.303 0.073 0.366 0.182 0.199 0.121 0.291 -0.058 -0.285 0.300
11 -0.014 0.400 0.204 0.206 -0.216 -0.004 0.539 0.004 -0.291 -0.053 0.005 0.095 -0.001
2 0.307 0.112 0.252 0.093 -0.141 -0.349 0.034 0.448 -0.024 0.114 -0.238 -0.220 -0.112
Chapter-IV 139
Table No.4.6 Communalities
Items Initial Extraction Items Initial Extraction
Statement-2 1.000 .653 Statement-27 1.000 .592
The Table No.4.6 titled ‘Communalities’ is given above. This provides communalities for
each variable calculated from the factor matrix described above. The proportion of
variance explained by the common factors is called Communality of the variable. For
example the proportion of variance explained by the 13 factors in the variable, that is the
statement-1 is 0.653. That is 65.3% of the variance in Statement 3 is explained by all the
13 factors. So the communality of the variable Item 1 is 0.653. Further, the table titled
‘Total Variance Explained’ gives the proportion of total variance explained by all the
factors. The column '% of Variance' explains how much variance is attributed to each
factor and the next column is the cumulative percent of variance. So, Factor 1 is the one
which accounts for maximum proportion of total variance. These eigen values are
calculated from the factor matrix described above. Thus for any factor, its corresponding
Chapter-IV 140
highest factor loading will contribute much to that factor. By looking at the last column it
is understood that the 13 factor model explains 63.32% of the variance in the selected
variables.
Step 3
Although the factor matrix (Table No.4.5 titled Component Matrix) obtained in the
extraction phase indicates the relationship between the factors and the individual
variables, it is usually, difficult to identify meaningful factors based on this matrix. Since
the idea of factor analysis is to identify the factors that meaningfully summarize the sets
of closely related variables, the Rotation phase of the factor analysis attempts to transfer
initial matrix into one that is easier to interpret. It is called the rotation of the factor
matrix.
The Rotated Factor Matrix (Table titled Rotated Component Matrix) using Oblique
rotation is given in Table: No 4.7 where each factor identifies itself with a few set of
variables. The variables which identify with each of the factors were sorted in the
decreasing order and are highlighted against each column and row.
Chapter-IV 141
Table No.4.7 Rotated Component Matrix
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
25 0.838 0.028 -0.035 -0.026 -0.003 -0.075 -0.125 0.027 -0.002 -0.035 -0.072 0.043 -0.064
26 0.765 -0.053 0.014 0.154 -0.031 0.087 0.018 0.131 0.047 0.019 0.020 0.000 0.012
27 0.605 0.086 0.152 -0.024 0.025 -0.178 0.124 -0.001 -0.035 0.022 0.080 -0.046 0.141
24 0.578 -0.012 -0.031 0.002 0.181 0.201 -0.110 0.000 0.036 -0.087 -0.260 0.102 0.157
28 0.004 0.707 -0.031 0.007 -0.070 0.036 -0.084 0.021 0.117 -0.011 -0.211 0.072 0.050
9 0.014 0.647 -0.025 0.134 0.305 -0.139 0.096 0.063 -0.125 0.039 -0.039 0.156 -0.110
30 0.008 -0.641 0.064 0.271 0.206 -0.002 0.080 0.044 0.015 -0.025 -0.281 0.285 0.010
7 0.114 0.617 0.016 -0.015 -0.080 0.044 0.157 -0.021 -0.030 0.150 0.030 -0.293 0.010
21 -0.171 0.542 0.012 0.166 0.328 0.035 0.108 0.010 -0.030 -0.003 -0.079 0.177 -0.039
34 0.184 0.148 -0.675 -0.190 0.027 0.127 0.116 0.026 -0.040 0.005 0.027 0.049 -0.252
35 0.175 0.125 0.642 -0.093 0.115 0.040 -0.206 0.043 0.092 -0.008 0.019 0.179 -0.093
23 0.126 -0.078 0.577 -0.211 0.181 -0.145 0.198 0.080 0.038 0.014 -0.010 -0.256 -0.141
15 0.137 0.039 -0.110 0.895 0.055 0.082 -0.045 0.013 0.146 0.057 0.148 -0.181 -0.052
13 -0.032 -0.033 0.110 0.690 -0.142 -0.185 0.030 0.010 -0.171 -0.044 -0.091 0.098 0.009
10 0.027 0.151 -0.110 -0.099 0.659 -0.043 -0.047 0.034 0.047 0.024 0.005 -0.020 0.045
6 -0.020 -0.055 0.246 0.090 0.652 -0.002 -0.143 0.100 -0.012 0.137 -0.144 0.005 0.003
17 0.129 -0.146 0.122 -0.051 0.647 0.209 0.224 -0.126 0.074 0.008 0.033 0.048 0.031
18 0.007 -0.043 -0.108 -0.050 0.123 0.790 -0.057 -0.050 -0.093 -0.012 0.127 -0.112 0.068
11 -0.045 0.006 -0.083 -0.018 0.018 -0.070 0.802 0.123 -0.035 -0.059 -0.053 -0.051 -0.114
3 -0.182 0.193 -0.086 0.087 0.029 0.088 0.421 -0.042 0.005 0.169 -0.265 0.185 0.144
2 0.061 -0.055 -0.071 0.036 -0.093 0.041 0.032 0.792 0.056 -0.050 -0.140 0.018 -0.077
1 0.060 0.070 0.131 0.035 0.055 -0.037 0.101 0.691 -0.006 0.099 0.243 0.011 0.090
38 0.034 0.046 0.016 0.100 -0.007 -0.082 -0.092 0.045 0.780 0.012 0.016 0.124 0.064
36 0.060 0.039 0.027 -0.099 0.047 -0.047 0.048 0.081 0.626 0.213 -0.172 0.080 -0.161
32 0.031 0.110 0.171 0.113 0.054 0.043 0.196 0.012 0.500 -0.195 0.053 -0.190 0.389
40 -0.126 -0.214 -0.051 -0.160 0.129 -0.022 -0.233 -0.038 0.462 -0.241 0.018 -0.194 -0.140
16 0.013 -0.046 0.244 -0.058 -0.131 -0.060 0.311 0.266 0.393 0.041 0.180 0.219 0.014
39 -0.006 -0.055 -0.054 0.000 0.162 -0.220 -0.251 -0.023 0.059 0.736 0.118 -0.015 0.095
8 -0.099 0.096 0.062 0.057 -0.017 0.274 0.149 0.094 -0.017 0.649 -0.006 0.067 -0.099
4 0.027 0.258 0.051 -0.017 -0.072 0.024 0.147 -0.023 -0.069 0.402 -0.356 -0.137 -0.129
31 0.304 -0.100 -0.069 -0.070 0.036 -0.126 0.041 0.006 0.181 0.304 -0.206 -0.009 0.263
5 0.201 0.078 -0.049 -0.025 0.063 -0.088 0.214 -0.063 0.052 -0.037 -0.707 -0.031 0.086
20 0.010 0.092 0.074 -0.076 0.127 -0.141 -0.179 0.265 0.036 0.065 -0.487 -0.221 0.131
37 0.109 -0.083 -0.058 -0.122 0.116 -0.312 -0.028 0.074 0.178 0.060 0.143 0.624 0.036
14 0.122 0.046 0.393 -0.178 -0.104 0.171 0.087 0.026 0.169 0.024 0.133 0.411 0.160
33 0.152 -0.010 0.027 -0.013 0.075 0.052 -0.162 0.037 0.045 0.030 -0.081 0.013 0.709
19 0.085 0.096 0.219 -0.033 -0.019 -0.043 -0.077 0.071 -0.054 -0.117 -0.027 0.286 0.588
29 0.173 -0.159 -0.014 0.044 -0.037 -0.002 0.091 -0.001 0.078 0.295 -0.222 -0.032 0.550
12 -0.004 -0.040 -0.141 -0.134 0.207 -0.089 -0.015 0.420 -0.022 -0.024 0.071 -0.096 0.443
22 0.296 -0.082 -0.058 0.045 0.138 -0.337 0.222 -0.188 0.045 -0.007 0.192 -0.067 0.348
Chapter-IV 142
Step 4
Normally, from the factor results arrived above, factor score coefficients can be
calculated for all variables (since each factor is a linear combination of all variables)
which are then used to calculate the factor scores for each individual. Since PCA was
used in extraction of initial factors, all methods will result in estimating same factor score
coefficients. However, for the study, original values of the variables were retained for
further analysis and factor scores were thus obtained by adding the values (ratings given
by the respondents) of the respective variables for that particular factor, for each
respondent.
Result
Thus the 40 variables considered in the primary data were reduced to 13 factors model
and each factor was given a name which associated with the corresponding variables. The
factor names and descriptions of the factors are given in the following Table No.4.8.
Table No.4.8. 13 Factors Model

Item
Statement Factor Name
No.
25 Unclear performance goals causes high attrition
Missing of personal touch in the organization leads to
26
high attrition
1. Lack of integration and
Lack of scientific goal setting process causes high
27 goal setting
attrition
Lack of integration of people in the company leads to
24
high attrition
This company’s location is good and it makes my work
28
easier
The culture of this company is such that it creates a very
09
positive work environment
Salary hike in every six months can be a better option to
30 2. Work atmosphere
reduce high attrition
I feel that I get self-respect and dignity in this
07
organization
This company’s infrastructure is good and makes my
21
work easier
Introduction of family benefit plans will reduce high
34
attrition
35 Social isolation is a major cause for high attrition 3. Work and family conflict
Family issues and influence of family members leads to
23
high attrition
Chapter-IV 143
My organization provide hygiene and timely food to the
15
employees
4. Food and relaxation
This organization conduct stress reduction programs like
13
yoga, meditation etc.
This company is not very open to ideas and suggestions
10
given by employees
5. Motivation and
This organization does not conduct effective
06 appreciation
motivational programs
17 Internal job rotation will lead to high attrition
“Work from home option” will reduce high employee
18 6. Work from home
attrition
This organization provides sufficient holidays for
11 7. Dissatisfaction with
employees
salary and perks
03 I am paid enough for the work I do in this company
02 Odd working hours causes high employee attrition 8. Maximum hours worked/
01 Lengthy working hours leads to high attrition abnormal working hours
Absence of counseling and medical health checkups
38
causes high attrition 9. Occupational health
Lack of spiritual sessions organized in the company problems
36
leads to high attrition
Eye fatigueness and vision deterioration leads to high
32
attrition
This organization has a logical, bias free promotion
40
policy
16 Sleeping disorders causes high employee attrition
This organization do not provide labour welfare
39
measures like housing schemes, health club etc.
This company has high standards of corporate
08
governance 10. Labour welfare and
I believe that the company’s leadership is doing what is corporate governance
04
required for its growth
Low perceived equity of rewards system leads to high
31
attrition
05 I am not satisfied with the kind of salary hikes I get 11. Dissatisfaction with
20 Reward systems in this organization are not transparent rewards and hikes
Lack of talent management in the organization leads to
37
high attrition 12. Miscellaneous-lack of
Lack of safe and good transportation facility leads to transportation and talent
14
high attrition
Lack of communication around total value causes high
33
attrition
19 Lack of work value and ethics causes high attrition
Absence of performance-based bonus causes high
29 13. Lack of work ethics
attrition
12 Constant pull of higher salaries leads to high attrition
Mismatching of job expectations creates the problem of
22
attrition
Chapter-IV 144
4.3 ANALYSIS OF THE PERSONAL AND OTHER FACTORS
The personal factors included in the study are gender, location, age, designation,
qualification, area of work, salary, and global position.
An analysis of the respondents based on gender, location, age, designation, qualification,
area of work, salary, and global position have been conducted and the findings are
discussed as follows:
4.3.1 Gender-wise distribution of the sample: Analysis of the respondents based on

the gender is conducted and the results are given as follows:
Table No.4.9 Gender-wise distribution of the sample

Gender No. of respondents Percentage of the total
sample
Male 236 59
Female 164 41
Total 400 100
Source: Survey Data
Table No.4.9 indicates the classification of data according to their gender as male and
female. There are 236 male respondents and 164 female respondents included in the
sample.
Chart No.4.1 Percentage distribution of the gender

Gender
59% 41%
Male
Female
0% 50% 100%
Percentage
Chapter-IV 145
The Chart No.4.1 reveals that there are 59% male respondents and 41% female
respondents in the selected sample.
Inference: From the above chart, it is inferred that approximately 60% of the respondents
selected for the study are male and nearly 40% of the respondents are female. It shows
that the selected number of male and female respondents in the study is moderate.
4.3.2 Location-wise distribution of the sample: Analysis of the respondents based on

location is conducted and the results are given as follows:
Table: No.4.10 Location wise distribution of the respondents

Location No. Percentage
Karnataka 285 71.3
Kerala 115 28.7
Total 400 100
Source: Survey Data
Table 4.10 shows the location-wise distribution of the sample. There are 285 respondents
from Karnataka state and 115 respondents from Kerala state in the sample. Also the
percentages of the two groups are tabulated along with their numbers.
Chart No.4.2 Percentage-wise distribution of the location
80% 71.3%
70%
60%
Percentage
50%
40% 28.7%
Karnataka
30% Kerala
20%
10%
0%
Karnataka Kerala
Location
Chapter-IV 146
The chart No.4.2 shows that 71.3% of the respondents in the sample belong to Karnataka
State and 28.7% of the respondents are from Kerala.
Inference: From the percentage distribution, it is inferred that approximately 70% of the
respondents are from Karnataka and approximately 30% of the respondents are from
Kerala which shows that the selection of respondents from Karnataka and Kerala are
moderate for the present study.
4.3.3 Global position-wise distribution of the sample: Analysis of the respondents

based on global position is conducted and the results are given as follows:
Table No.4.11 Distribution of the sample based on global position (national/

multinational)
Global Position Number of respondents Percentage
National 212 53
Multinational 188 47
Total 400 100
Source: Survey Data
Table No.4.11 shows the grouping of the respondents under national and multinational
BPO employees. 212 respondents belong to national BPO’s and 188 respondents belong
to multinational BPO companies.
Chart No. 4.3: Percentage wise distribution of Global position
60% 53%
47%
50%
Percentage
40%
30% National
20% Multinational
10%
0%
National Multinational
Global Position
Chapter-IV 147
Chart No.4.3 indicates the grouping of the respondents in the sample under national and
multinational BPO employees. It shows that 53% of the sample belongs to national BPO
employees and 47% of the sample belongs to multinational BPO employees.
Inference: From the chart No.4.3 , it is inferred that 53% of the respondents are selected
from national BPO’s and 47% of the respondents are selected from multinational BPO’s
which shows that there is almost equal representation from national and multinational
BPO’s.
4.3.4 Age-wise distribution of the sample: Analysis of the respondents based on age is
conducted and the results are given as follows:
Table: No.4.12 Age-wise distribution of the sample

Age No. of respondents Percentage of the total sample
< 18 yrs. 04 01.0
18 – 20 yrs. 27 06.8
21 – 25 yrs. 260 65.0
Above 25 yrs. 109 27.3
Total 400 100
Source: Survey data
Table No. 4.12 shows the grouping of the respondents under different age groups as ’less
than 18 years’ group, 18 – 20 years, 21 – 25 years and’ Above 25 years group.260
respondents belong to 21-25 years group, 109 respondents belong to above 25 years
group, 27 respondents under 18-20 years group and 4 respondents belong to less than 18
years group.
Chart No 4.4 Percentage distributions of the age groups
1% 6.80%
27.30%
< 18 yrs.
18 – 20 yrs.
21 – 25 yrs.
65%
Above 25 yrs.
Chapter-IV 148
From the chart No. 4. 4, it is found that 65% of the respondents fall in the age group of
‘21-25 years’ and 27.3% of the respondents fall in ‘above 25 years’ category. Also,
06.8% of the respondents belong to ‘18-20 years’ group and 01% of the respondents
belong to ‘less than 18 years’ category.
Inference: From the chart it is observed that among the respondents 65% of them are in
the age group of ‘21-25 years’ and 27.3% of the respondents are above 25 years. Also,
06.8% of the respondents are in 18-20 years’ group and only 01% of the respondents are
less than 18 years. It is found that majority of the respondents (65%) are in the entry level
age group of ‘21-25 years’ which accounted for the highest employee attrition in BPO
sector.
4.3.5 Experience-wise distribution of the sample: Analysis of the respondents based on

experience groups is done and the results are given as follows:
Table: No. 4.13 Distribution of Experience groups in the organization

Percentage of the total
Experience Groups No. of Respondents
sample
< 6 months 39 9.8
6 months – 1 year 80 20.0
1 – 2 years 191 47.8
3 – 5 years 78 19.5
> 5 years 12 3.0
Total 400 100
Source: Survey Data
Table No. 4.13 gives the classification of the respondents as per their experience in the
present organization. Five groups have been formed to include the experience groups
ranging from ‘less than 6 months to above 5 years’ groups.
Chart: No.4.5 Percentage distribution of Experience groups
50%
45%
40% 47.8%
Percentage
35%
30%
25%
20% 20.0% 19.5%
15%
10% 9.8%
3.0%
5%
0%
< 6 months 6 months – 1 year 1 – 2 years 3 – 5 years > 5 years
Experience
Chapter-IV 149
Chart No. 4.5 indicates that 47.8% of the respondents belong to ‘1-2 years’ group and
20% of the respondents belong to ‘6 months – 1 year’ group. Also 19.5% of the sample
belong to ‘3-5 years’ category, 09.8% of the sample belong to ‘less than 6 months’ group
and 03% of the sample fall in ‘above 5 years’ group.
Inference: It is observed that among the respondents, approximately half of them are in
the experience group of ‘1-2 years’ and an equal number of them are either in ‘6 months
– 1 year’ group, or ‘3-5 years’ experience group.
4.3.6 Salary-wise distribution of the sample: Analysis of the respondents based on

salary groups is done and the results are given as follows:
Table No. 4.14 Salary-wise distribution of the respondents

Salary groups (per month) No. of respondents Percentage
<Rs. 5,000 07 1.8
Rs. 5,000 – 10,000 82 20.5
Rs. 10,000 – 15,000 160 40.0
Rs. 15,000 – 20,000 94 23.5
Above Rs. 20,000 57 14.2
Total 400 100
Source: Survey Data
Table No. 4.14 exhibits classification of respondents as per their salary per month. There
are five salary groups included in the sample as ‘less than Rs. 5000’,’Rs.5000-10000
‘group, ’Rs.10000-15000 ‘group, ‘Rs. 15,000 – 20,000’and above Rs. 20,000 group.
Chart No. 4.6: Percentage-wise distribution of salary groups
14.2%
23.5%
Salary
40%
20.5%
1.8%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Percentage
< Rs. 5,000 Rs. 5,000 – 10,000 Rs. 10,000 – 15,000 Rs. 15,000 – 20,000 Above Rs. 20,000
Chapter-IV 150
Inference: From the chart, it is observed that among the respondents 40% of them are in
the salary group of ‘Rs.10, 000–15,000’ and 23.5% of the respondents are in ‘Rs.15, 000–
20,000’ salary group. Also 20.5% of the samples are in Rs. 5,000 – 10,000’ salary group,
14.2% of the samples are in ‘above Rs. 20,000’ group and 1.8% of the samples fall in
‘less than Rs. 5,000’ category. Thus analysis shows that majority of the respondents
salary is above Rs. 10000 which accounts to higher salary drawers group.
4.3.7 Designation-wise distribution of the sample: Analysis of the respondents based

on designation groups is done and the results are given as follows:
Table No.4.15 Designation-wise distribution of the sample

Designation No. Percentage
Process Analyst 246 61.5
Senior Process Analyst 95 23.8
Team Leader 34 8.5
Supervisor 15 3.8
Manager 10 2.5
Total 400 100
Source: Survey Data
Table: No. 4.15 gives an account of the designation groups and their numbers and
percentages in the sample. The groups included are process analyst, senior process
analyst, team leader, supervisor and manager. The process analysts group has 246
respondents, senior process analyst group has 95 respondents, team leader has 34
respondents, supervisor has 15 numbers and manager has 10 respondents.
Chart: No.4.7 Percentage distribution of Designation groups
61.50%
80%
Process Analyst
60% 23.80% Senior Process Analyst
Percentage
8.50% Team Leader

3.80%
40% 2.50% Supervisor
Manager
20%
0%
Chapter-IV 151
Inference: From the chart, it is observed that among the respondents 61.5% of them are
in the designation group of ‘process analyst’ (entry level), and from the total sample
23.8% of the sample are in ‘senior-process analyst’ group. Also, 08.5% of the sample
belongs to ‘team leader’ category, 03.8% of the sample belong to ‘supervisor’ group and
02.5% of the sample belong to ‘manager’ category. Thus it is concluded that from the
total sample, majority (61.5%) of them are from ‘process analyst’ (entry level) group,
where employee attrition is highest which further justifies the sample selection.
4.3.8 Qualification-wise distribution of the sample: Analysis of the respondents based

on qualification groups is done and the results are given as follows:
Table: No.4.16 Qualification wise distribution of the sample

Qualification No. of respondents Percentage
ITI/Diploma 15 3.8
Undergraduate 21 5.3
Graduate 217 54.3
Postgraduate 147 36.8
Total 400 100
Source: Survey Data
Table No. 4.16 gives an account of the qualification groups, the number of respondents in
each group and their percentage distribution. The four qualification groups included are
ITI/Diploma, undergraduate, graduate and postgraduate. The ‘graduate’ group has 217
respondents, ‘post graduate’ group has 147 respondents, and under graduate group have
21 respondents and ITI/Diploma group have 15 respondents.
Chart: No. 4.8 Percentage distribution of Qualification groups
36.80%
Postgraduate
54.30%
Qualification
Graduate
5.30%
Undergraduate
ITI/Diploma 3.80%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Percentage
Chapter-IV 152
Inference: From chart No. 4.8 it is observed that among the respondents 54.3 % of them
are in graduate group and from the total sample, 36.8 % of the sample is in postgraduate
group. Also, 05.3% of the sample belongs to’ under graduate group and 03.8% of the
sample belong to ‘ITI/Diploma’ group. Thus it is concluded that from the total sample
more than half of them (54.3%) are from graduate group. Also 36.8 %of the respondents
are in ‘postgraduate group. Therefore minimum qualification of majority of the
respondents is graduation which implies BPO jobs seekers must start their search after
graduation.
4.3.9 Distribution of the sample as per area of work groups: Analysis of the
respondents based on area of work groups is done and the results are given as follows:
Table: No. 4.17 Distribution of the sample as per Area of work groups
Area of work Number of respondents Percentage
Financial Accounting 126 31.5
Customer Services 125 31.3
Procurement 14 3.5
Human Resources 41 10.3
Application Process 67 16.8
Others 27 6.8
Total 400 100
Source: Survey Data
Table No. 4.17 gives the grouping of the respondents as per their area of work groups.
The six areas of work groups included in the sample are Financial Accounting, Customer
Services, and Procurement, Human Resources, Application Process and Others. The
number of respondents in each category is tabulated with their percentages.
Chart: No. 4.9 Percentage distribution of Area of work groups
Others 6.8%
16.8%
Application Process
Area of work
10.3%
Human Resource
3.5%
Procurement
31.3%
Customer Services
31.5%
Financial Accounting
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Percentage
Chapter-IV 153
Inference:
From chart No.4.9, it is observed that among the respondents31.5 % of them are in
‘financial accounting’ group and from the total sample 31.3% of the sample is in
‘customer services’ group. Also 16.8 % of the sample is from application processes
group, 10.3% of the sample is in human resource group, 06.8% belong to ‘Others ’group
and 03.5% of the respondents is in ‘procurement’ category. Thus it is concluded that from
the total sample, majority (63%) of the respondents are chosen from the two important
areas namely financial accounting and customer services groups.
4.3.10 Ranking of reasons for stress in the sample: Analysis of the reasons based on
the ranks they scored in the survey is done and the results are given as follows:
Table No.4.18 Ranking of reasons for stress

Reasons Rank
Long working hours 3.25
Working timings 3.75
Repetitive nature of work 4.06
Pressure to perform on metrics 4.80
Social isolation 6.24
Lack of quality of sleep 4.57
Lack of transportation 5.54
Stress due to verbal abuse 6.12
Travel time 6.67
Source: Survey Data
Table No.4.18 gives the list of the reasons for stress to employees in BPO sector with
their corresponding ranking.
Chart No.10: Ranking of reasons for stress to BPO employees

Long w orking hours
6.67
6.24 6.12
7 5.54 Work timings
6 4.8 4.57 Repetitive nature of w ork
5 3.75 4.06
3.25 Pressure to perf orm on metrics
Rank
4
Social isolation
3
2 Lack of quality of sleep
1 Lack of transportation
0 Stress due to verbal abuse
Reasons Travel time
Chart No.4.10 shows that the reason ‘long working hours’ holds the rank – 1, ‘work
timings’ is given rank – 2 followed by the ‘repetitive nature of work in the 3rd rank
position. The other ranks given by the respondents are 4th rank ‘pressure to perform on
Chapter-IV 154
metrics’, 5th rank – social isolation, 6th rank – lack of quality sleep, 7th rank – lack of safe
and good transportation facility, 8th rank – stress due to verbal abuse and 9th rank is travel
time of respondents.
Inference: It is inferred that ‘long working hours’ is the primary reason for stress to BPO
employees. Work timing is the second reason identified for stress to BPO employees. The
third reason for stress is ‘repetitive nature of work’ .The fourth reason identified for stress
is ‘pressure to perform on metrics’. Social isolation stands as the fifth reason. The sixth
reason identified is ‘lack of quality sleep’. Lack of safe and good transportation’ occupies
the seventh position, eighth reason has been found as ‘stress due to verbal abuse’ and
finally ‘travel time of respondents’ is identified as the ninth reason for stress to BPO
employee.
4.3.11 Distribution of the respondents’ undergone training: Analysis of the

respondents based on number of respondents undergone training and the results are given
as follows:
Table No.4.19 Distribution of respondents’ undergone training

Opinion Number of respondents Percentage
Yes 366 91.5
No 34 8.5
Total 400 100.0
Source: Survey Data
Table No.4.19 gives an account of number of respondents’ undergone training and their
percentage. It also gives the number of respondents who have not undergone training.
Chart No: 4.11 Percentage distribution of Respondents undergone training
Percentage
91.50% 8.50%
Yes
No
85% 90% 95% 100%

Opinion
Chapter-IV 155
Chart No. 4.11 indicates that 91.5% of the respondents have undergone training and
08.5% of the respondents have not undergone training.
Inference: It is found that majority of the respondents have undergone training programs.
4.3.12 Distribution of number of training programs undergone: Analysis of the

respondents based on number of trainings undergone and the results are given as follows:
Table: No.4.20 Distribution of number of training programs undergone

Training groups No. of Respondents Percentage
1-2 143 35.8
3–4 196 48.9
5 & Above 61 15.3
Total 400 100.0
Source: Survey Data
Table No.4.20 shows the distribution of number of training programs undergone by
respondents in the sample. It gives three numbers of training groups, the number of
respondents in each category and their percentage.
Chart: No.4.12 Percentage of training program undergone by respondents
15.30%
35.80%
1-2
3–4
5 & Above
48.90%
Inference:
From the chart, it is found that15.3% of the respondents have undergone more than five
training programs and 48.9% of the respondents have undergone 3-4 training programs.
Also 35.8% of the respondents have undergone 1-2 training programs. Thus it is observed
that nearly 84% of the respondents have undergone at least one training program, which
Chapter-IV 156
shows that the BPO companies have made training programs mandatory for their
employees.
4.3.13 Rating of the training programs undergone: Rating of the training programs
effectiveness has been done and the results are given as follows:
Table: No.4.21 Rating of training program effectiveness

Grade/Opinion Number of respondents Percentage
Poor 10 2.7
Average 99 27.0
Good 232 63.4
Excellent 25 6.8
Total 400 100.0
Source: Survey Data
Table No.4.21 gives an account of the rating of training programs effectiveness using the
four grades namely excellent, good, average and poor. The number of respondents in
each group has been tabulated with the percentage values.
Chart No.4.13 Percentage distribution of rating of training program effectiveness

63.40%
70%
60%
Percentage
50% 27.0%
40%
30% 6.80%
2.70%
20%
10%
0%
Poor Average Good Excellent
Opinion
Inference: From the survey it is found that 63.4% of the respondents have rated the
training program effectiveness as ‘Good’. 27% of the respondents have rated the training
program effectiveness as ‘Average’ and 02.7% of the respondents rated it as ‘Poor’.
Chapter-IV 157
Since only 63 % of the respondents are happy with the effectiveness of the training
programs, the quality of training programs is to be improved.
4.3.14 Distribution of maximum number of worked: Analysis of the respondents

based on maximum number of hours worked is done and the results are given as follows:
Table No.4.22 Distribution of maximum number of hours worked

Number of hours –
Number of respondents Percentage
groups
0 – 8 hrs. 80 20.0
8 – 12 hrs. 243 60.8
Above 12 hrs. 77 19.3
Total 400 100.0
Source: Survey Data
Table No.4.22 shows the distribution of number of hours worked by employees

(respondents) and their percentage. There are 3 ‘number of hours worked’ groups as “0 –
8 hours”, “8-12 hours “and “above 12 hours” group.
Chart: No.4.14 Percentage distribution of the maximum number of hours worked
70% 60.80%
60%
Percentage
50%
40%
0 – 8 hrs.
20.0% 19.30%
30%
8 – 12 hrs.
20% Above 12 hrs.
10%
0%
0 – 8 hrs. 8 – 12 hrs. Above 12 hrs.
No. of hours
Inference: From the chart, it is found that19.3% of the respondents have worked more
than 12 hours and 60.8% of the respondents have worked for a period of ‘8-12 hours’.
Also 20% of the respondents have worked for a period of ‘0–8 hours’.
Chapter-IV 158
Therefore it can be found that maximum number of respondents has worked for a period
of ‘8-12 hours’. Therefore on an average the maximum number of hours worked by a
BPO employee is more.
4.3.15 Distribution of opinion on level of satisfaction for strength factors: Analysis of

the respondents based on opinion on level of satisfaction for the strength factors: high
standards of corporate governance, exciting growth opportunities and company’s work
value and ethics is done and the results are given as follows:
Table No.4.23 Distribution of opinion on level of satisfaction for strength factors

Opinion
Very
Strength factors Partially
strongly Agree Disagree TOTAL
agree
agree
High standards of Number of
101 218 71 10 400
corporate respondents
governance % 25.3 54.5 17.8 2.4 100.0
Exciting growth Number of
63 153 152 32 400
opportunities respondents
% 15.8 38.3 38.0 7.9 100.0
Company’s work Number of
108 197 84 11 400
value and ethics respondents
% 27.0 49.3 21.0 2.7 100.0
Source: Survey Data
Table No. 4.23 shows the distribution of opinion on level of satisfaction for the strength
factors: high standards of corporate governance, exciting growth opportunities and
company’s work value and ethics.
Chart No.4.15: Percentage distribution of level of satisfaction for strength factors

60% 54.5%
49.3%
50%
38.3% 38.0%
Percentage
40%
27.0%
25.3%
30% 21.0%
17.8%
15.8%
20%
8.0%
10% 2.5% 2.8%
0%
High standards of Exciting growth Company’s work value and
corporate governance opportunities ethics
Strength Factors
Chapter-IV 159
Chart No.4.15 indicates the percentage distribution of opinion on the level of satisfaction
for each strength factor.
For the factor high standards of corporate governance, it indicates that 25.3% of the
respondents very strongly agree that there are high standards of corporate governance and
54.5% of the respondents agree that there are high standards of corporate governance
For the factor, exciting growth opportunities, the chart indicates that 15.8% of the
respondents very strongly agree that there are exciting growth opportunities and 38.3% of
the respondents agree that there are exciting growth opportunities. Also, 38% of the
respondents partially agree that there are exciting growth opportunities. For the factor,
company’s work value and ethics, the chart shows that 27% of the respondents very
strongly agree that there is respect for company’s work value and ethics and 49.3% of the
respondents agree that there is respect for company’s work value and ethics.
Inference:
From the opinion on ‘high standards of corporate governance’, it is found that overall
97.6% of the respondents agree that there are high standards of corporate governance in
the organizations where they were working. Again for the same factor only 2.4% of the
respondents have disagreed on there is ‘high standards of corporate governance’ in the
organization for which they are working.
From the opinion on exciting growth opportunities, it is observed that overall 92.1% of
the respondents agree that there are exciting growth opportunities in the organizations
where they are working. Again for the same factor only 7.9% of the respondents have
disagreed on ‘there are exciting growth opportunities’ in the organization for which they
are working.
From the opinion on company’s work value and ethics, it is observed that overall 97.3%
of the respondents agree that there is work value and ethics in the organizations where
they are working. Again for the same factor only 2.7% of the respondents have disagreed
on ‘there is work value and ethics’ in the organization for which they are working.
Chapter-IV 160
4.3.16 Rating of Human Resource Management Practices:
Rating of the Human Resource Management Practices has been conducted and the results
are given as follows:
Table No.4.24 Rating of Human Resource Management Practices

Percentage of the total
Grade/Opinion Number of respondents
sample
Excellent 32 8.0
Good 180 45.0
Average 129 32.2
Satisfactory 43 10.8
Poor 16 4.0
Total 400 100.0
Source: Survey Data
Table No. 4.24 gives an account of the human resource management practices rating
using the grades: Excellent, Good, Average, Satisfactory and Poor. The group ‘Excellent’
has 32 respondents, ‘Good’ has 180 respondents, ‘Average’ has 129 respondents,
’Satisfactory’ has 43 respondents and the ‘Poor’ group has 16 respondents.
Chart No. 4.16 Percentage distribution of human resource management practices

rating
45.0%
50%
40% 32.30%
Excellent
Percentage
30%
Good
Average
20%
10.80% Satisfactory
8.0%
4.0% Poor
10%
0%
Excellent Good Average Satisfactory Poor
Opinion
Chart No. 4.16 shows that 45% of the respondents belong to the grade ‘Good’, 32.3% of
the respondents belong to ‘Average’ group, 10.8% of the respondents belong to the
‘satisfactory’ group, 08% of the sample belong to the ‘Excellent’ group and 04% of the
sample belong to the ‘Poor’ group.
Chapter-IV 161
Inference: From the HRM practices rating, it is found that 08% of the respondents have
rated HRM practices of their organizations as ‘Excellent’ and 45% of the respondents has
rated HRM practices of their organizations as ‘Good’. Therefore the HRM practices of
the organizations have to improve for reducing high employee attrition.
4.4 DATA ANALYSIS BASED ON OBJECTIVES

This section includes the testing of the hypotheses that were framed based on the set
objectives and the results obtained. The analysis of the primary data obtained from
questionnaire is conducted based on the set objectives and framed hypotheses and the
results are summarized as follows:
4.4.1 Objective: Variation in factors among different BPO areas

The following hypotheses were framed to study the association between different BPO
areas and proposed attrition factors : lack of integration and goal setting, motivation and
appreciation, work atmosphere, labor welfare and corporate governance, maximum
number of hours worked, dissatisfaction with rewards and hikes, human resource
management practices, dissatisfaction with salary and perks, food and relaxation, lack of
transportation and talent, work and family conflict, work from home and lack of work
ethics. In each combination of BPO area and attrition factor, suitable hypotheses were
framed and testing (ANOVA) of the hypotheses were done and the results are discussed
as given below:
Chapter-IV 162
Hypothesis 1.1: Lack of Integration and Goal Setting Vs BPO areas
H0:1.1. There is no significant difference among the BPO areas in the average scores
of lack of integration and goal setting.
H1:1.1. There is significant difference among the BPO areas in the average scores of
lack of integration and goal setting.
Table: No. 4.25 Lack of Integration and Goal Setting Vs BPO areas
Lack of integration and goal setting

Mean S.D No.
Financial Accounting 12.52 3.22 126
Customer Services 11.75 3.03 125
Procurement 12.43 2.59 14
Area of work
Human Resource 12.24 3.01 41
Application Process 12.70 3.18 67
Others 10.56 4.10 27
Total 12.15 3.21 400
Table: No.4.26 ANOVA for Lack of integration and goal setting

Sum of Mean
df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 127.871 5 25.574 2.526 *
Within Groups 3988.427 394 10.123
Total 4116.298 399
Result: One way ANOVA was applied to find whether there is significant difference
among the area of work groups in the average lack of integration and goal setting scores.
Since the calculated F-ratio value 2.526 is higher than the table value 2.237 at 5% level of
significance, we reject the null hypothesis.
Hence, it is inferred that there is significant difference among the area of work groups in
the average lack of integration and goal setting scores.
Chapter-IV 163
Hypothesis 1.2: Motivation and Appreciation Vs BPO areas
of motivation and appreciation.
motivation and appreciation.
Table No. 4.27 Motivation and Appreciation Vs BPO areas
Motivation and appreciation

Mean S.D No.
Area of Procurement 8.64 1.69 14

work Human Resource 7.32 2.64 41
Others 8.00 3.35 27
Total 7.95 2.57 400
Table No. 4.28 ANOVA for Motivation and appreciation

Sum of
df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
Between Groups 45.426 5 9.085 1.381 NS
Within Groups 2591.574 394 6.578
Total 2637.000 399
Result
One way ANOVA was applied to find whether there is significant difference among the
area of work groups in the average motivation and appreciation scores.
Since the calculated F-ratio value 1.381 is lower than the table value 2.237 at 5% level of
significance, we accept the null hypothesis.
Hence, it is inferred that there is no significant difference among the area of work groups
in the average motivation and appreciation scores.
Chapter-IV 164
Hypothesis 1.3: Work Atmosphere Vs BPO areas
of work atmosphere.
work atmosphere.
Table No.4.29 Work Atmosphere Vs BPO areas

Work atmosphere
Mean S.D No.
Procurement 14.71 3.17 14
Area of work
Human Resource 13.27 3.66 41
Others 14.00 3.67 27
Total 14.57 3.01 400
Table No. 4.30 ANOVA for Work atmosphere

Sum of Mean
df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 99.971 5 19.994 2.246 *
Within Groups 3508.207 394 8.904
Total 3608.178 399
Result
area of work groups in the average work atmosphere scores.
the average work atmosphere scores.
Chapter-IV 165
Hypothesis 1.4: Labor welfare and corporate governance Vs BPO areas
of labor welfare and corporate governance.
labor welfare and corporate governance.
Table No. 4.31 Labor welfare and corporate governance Vs BPO areas
Labour welfare and corporate governance
Mean S.D No.

Others 11.22 3.03 27
Total 11.76 2.70 400
Table No. 4.32 ANOVA for Labor welfare and corporate governance
Mean
Sum of Squares df F Sig.
Square
Between Groups 159.727 5 31.945 4.591 **
Within Groups 2741.750 394 6.959
Total 2901.477 399
Result
area of work groups in the average labour welfare and corporate governance scores.
the average labour welfare and corporate governance scores.
Chapter-IV 166
Hypothesis 1.5: Maximum number of hours worked Vs BPO areas
of maximum number of hours worked.
maximum number of hours worked.
Table No. 4.33 Maximum number of hours worked Vs BPO areas

Maximum hours worked
Mean S.D No.

Others 6.19 2.13 27
Total 6.69 1.91 400
Table No.4.34 ANOVA for Maximum hours worked

Sum of Mean
df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 42.632 5 8.526 2.388 *
Within Groups 1406.545 394 3.570
Total 1449.178 399
Result
area of work groups in the average maximum hours worked scores.
the average maximum hours worked scores.
Chapter-IV 167
Hypothesis 1.6: Dissatisfaction with rewards and hikes Vs BPO areas
of dissatisfaction with rewards and hikes.
dissatisfaction with rewards and hikes.
Table No. 4.35 Dissatisfaction with rewards and hikes Vs BPO areas
Dissatisfaction with rewards and hikes
Mean S.D No.

Others 4.78 1.42 27
Total 6.05 1.96 400
Table No. 4.36ANOVA for Dissatisfaction with rewards and hikes

Sum of
Squares
Between Groups 89.548 5 17.910 4.885 **
Within Groups 1444.550 394 3.666
Total 1534.097 399
Result
area of work groups in the average dissatisfaction with rewards and hikes scores.
the average dissatisfaction with rewards and hikes scores.
Chapter-IV 168
Hypothesis 1.7: Human Resource Management Practices Vs BPO areas
Ho: 1.7. There is no significant difference among the BPO areas in the average scores
of human resource management practices.
H1: 1.7. There is significant difference among the BPO areas in the average scores of
human resource management practices.
Table No. 4.37 Human Resource Management Practices Vs BPO areas

Human Resource Management practice
Mean S.D No.
Financial Accounting 2.45 .81 126
Customer Services 2.52 .90 125
Procurement 2.79 .80 14
Area of work
Human Resource 2.24 .92 41
Others 2.81 .83 27
Total 2.58 .93 400
Table No.4.38 ANOVA for Human Resource Management practices
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 20.206 5 4.041 4.924 **

Within Groups 323.392 394 .821
Total 343.597 399
Result
area of work groups in the average human resource management practices scores.
Since the calculated F-ratio value, 4.924 is higher than the table value 03.064 at 1% level
of significance, we reject the null hypothesis.
Hence, it is inferred that there is significant difference among the area of workgroups in
the average human resource management practices scores.
Chapter-IV 169
Hypothesis 1.8: Dissatisfaction with salary and perks Vs BPO areas
H0: 1.8 There is no significant difference among the BPO areas in the average scores
of dissatisfaction with salary and perks.
H1:1.8 There is significant difference among the BPO areas in the average scores of
dissatisfaction with salary and perks.
Table No.4.39 Dissatisfaction with salary and perks Vs BPO areas

Dissatisfaction with Salary and perks
Mean S.D No.

Others 5.63 1.90 27
Total 6.00 1.83 400
Table No.4.40 ANOVA for Dissatisfaction with Salary and perks

Sum of Mean
df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 16.071 5 3.214 .961 Ns
Within Groups 1317.919 394 3.345
Total 1333.990 399
Result
area of work groups in the average dissatisfaction with salary and perks scores.
Since the calculated F-ratio value 0.961is lower than the table value 2.237 at 5% level of
in the average dissatisfaction with salary and perks scores.
Chapter-IV 170
Hypothesis 1.9: Food and relaxation Vs BPO areas
H0: 1.9 There is no significant difference among the BPO sectors in the average scores
of food and relaxation.
H1: 1.9 There is significant difference among the BPO sectors in the average scores of
food and relaxation.
Table No.4.41 Food and relaxation Vs BPO areas

Food and relaxation
Mean S.D No.

Others 7.78 2.34 27
Total 6.82 2.12 400
Table No. 4.42 ANOVA for Food and relaxation

Between Groups 78.712 5 15.742 3.620 **
Within Groups 1713.598 394 4.349
Total 1792.310 399
Result
area of work groups in the average food and relaxation scores.
the average food and relaxation scores.
Chapter-IV 171
Hypothesis 1.10: Lack of transportation and talent Vs BPO areas
H0: 1.10 There is no significant difference among the area of work groups in the
average lack of transportation and talent scores.
H1: 1.10 There is significant difference among the area of work groups in the average
lack of transportation and talent scores.
Table No. 4.43 Lack of transportation and talent Vs BPO areas

Miscellaneous-lack of transportation and talent
Mean S.D No.

Others 5.81 2.24 27
Total 6.45 1.83 400
Table No. 4.44 ANOVA for Miscellaneous-lack of transportation and talent

Within Groups 1319.528 394 3.349
Total 1332.790 399
Result
area of work groups in the average lack of transportation and talent scores.
in the average lack of transportation and talent scores.
Chapter-IV 172
Hypothesis 1.11: Work and family conflict Vs BPO areas
H0:1.11 There is no significant difference among the area of work groups in the
average work and family conflict scores.
H1:1.11 There is significant difference among the area of work groups in the
average work and family conflict scores.
Table No. 4.45 Work and family conflict Vs BPO areas

Work and family conflict
Mean S.D No.

Others 8.30 2.13 27
Total 8.68 1.64 400
Table No.4.46. ANOVA for Work and family conflict

Between Groups 20.167 5 4.033 1.504 Ns
Within Groups 1056.873 394 2.682
Total 1077.040 399
Result
area of work groups in the average work and family conflict scores.
in the average work and family conflict scores.
Chapter-IV 173
Hypothesis 1.12: Work from home Vs BPO areas
H0:1.12 There is no significant difference among the area of work groups in the
average work from home scores.
Table No.4.47 Work from home Vs BPO areas

Work from home
Mean S.D No.

Others 2.93 1.30 27
Total 2.57 1.13 400
Table No 4.48 ANOVA for Work from home

Within Groups 500.122 394 1.269
Total 507.898 399
Result
area of work groups in the average work from home scores.
in the average work from home scores.
Chapter-IV 174
Hypothesis 1.13: Lack of work ethics Vs BPO areas
H0 : 1.13 There is no significant difference among the area of work groups in the
average lack of work ethics scores.
Table No.4.49 Lack of work ethics Vs BPO areas

Lack of Work ethics
Mean S.D No.

Others 15.22 5.37 27
Total 15.58 3.60 400
Table No 4.50 ANOVA for Lack of Work ethics

Within Groups 5116.008 394 12.985
Total 5183.750 399
Result
area of work groups in the average lack of work ethics scores.
in the average lack of work ethics scores.
Chapter-IV 175
4.4.2 Variation in factors between the states of Karnataka and Kerala
The following hypotheses were set to study the relationship between different BPO
locations and proposed attrition factors : lack of integration and goal setting, motivation
and appreciation, work atmosphere, labor welfare and corporate governance, maximum
management practices, dissatisfaction with salary and perks, food and relaxation, lack of
transportation and talent, work and family conflict, work from home and lack of work
ethics.
In each combination of location and attrition factor, suitable hypotheses were framed and
testing (t-test) of the hypotheses were done and the results are discussed as given below:
Hypothesis 2.1: Dissatisfaction with salary and perks Vs location

H0: 2.1. There is no significant difference between the employees of Karnataka and
Kerala in the average scores of dissatisfaction with salary and perks.
H1: 2.1. There is significant difference between the employees of Karnataka and
Kerala in the average scores of dissatisfaction with salary and perks.
Table No.4.51 Dissatisfaction with salary and perks Vs location

Mean S.D No.
Karnataka 6.25 1.79 285
Location
Kerala 5.37 1.77 115
Total 6.00 1.83 400
Table No.4.52 t-test for Equality of Means
t df Sig.
4.414 398 **
Chapter-IV 176
Result
The t-test was applied to find whether there is significant difference between Karnataka
and Kerala employees in the average dissatisfaction with salary and perks scores.
The calculated value is 4.44 which is higher than the table value of 2.588 at 1% level of
Hence, it is inferred that there is significant difference between Karnataka and Kerala
employees in the average dissatisfaction with salary and perks scores.
Hypothesis 2.2: Lack of integration and goal setting Vs employee’s location

H0:2.2. There is no significant difference between the employees of Karnataka and
Kerala in the average scores of lack of integration and goal setting.
H1:2.2. There is significant difference between the employees of Karnataka and
Kerala in the average scores of lack of integration and goal setting.
Table No. 4.53 Lack of integration and goal setting Vs employee’s location

Mean S.D No.
Karnataka 12.40 3.07 285
Location
Kerala 11.53 3.48 115
Total 12.15 3.21 400
Table No.4.54 t-test for Equality of Means
t df Sig.
2.456 398 *
Result
and Kerala employees in the average lack of integration and goal setting scores.
Since the calculated t-test value 2.456 is higher than the table value 1.966 at 5% level of
Chapter-IV 177
employees in the average lack of integration and goal setting scores.
Hypothesis 2.3: Work atmosphere Vs Employee’s location

Kerala in the average scores of work atmosphere.
Kerala in the average scores of work atmosphere.
Table No. 4.55 Work atmosphere Vs Employee’s location.

Work atmosphere
Mean S.D No.
Karnataka 14.84 2.74 285
Location
Kerala 13.90 3.52 115
Total 14.57 3.01 400
Table No. 4.56 t-test for Equality of Means
t df Sig.
2.864 398 **
Result
and Kerala employees in the average work atmosphere scores.
Since the calculated t-test value 2.864 is higher than the table value 2.588 at 1% level of
employees in the average work atmosphere scores.
Chapter-IV 178
Hypothesis 2.4: Food and relaxations Vs employee’s location
Kerala in the average scores of food and relaxation.
Kerala in the average scores of food and relaxation.
Table: No. 4.57 Food and relaxations Vs employee’s location
Food and relaxation

Mean S.D No.
Karnataka 6.58 2.03 285
Location
Kerala 7.40 2.22 115
Total 6.82 2.12 400
Table: No. 4.58 t-test for Equality of Means
t df Sig.
3.557 398 **
Result
and Kerala employees in the average food and relaxation scores.
Since the calculated t-test value 3.557 is higher than the table value of 2.588 at 1% level
of significance, we reject the null hypothesis.
employees in the average food and relaxation scores.
Chapter-IV 179
Hypothesis 2.5: Dissatisfaction with rewards and hikes Vs employee’s location
Kerala in the average scores of dissatisfaction with rewards and hikes.
Kerala in the average scores of dissatisfaction with rewards and hikes.
Table: No. 4.59 Dissatisfaction with rewards and hikes Vs employee’s location

Mean S.D No.
Karnataka 6.18 1.93 285
Location
Kerala 5.73 2.01 115
Total 6.05 1.96 400
t df Sig.
2.063 398 *
Result
and Kerala employees in the average dissatisfaction with rewards and hikes scores.
Since the calculated value is 2.063, which is higher than the table value of 1.966 at 5%
level of significance, we reject the null hypothesis.
employees in the average dissatisfaction with rewards and hikes scores.
Chapter-IV 180
Hypothesis 2.6: Lack of work ethics Vs employee’s location
Kerala in the average scores of lack of work ethics.
Kerala in the average scores of lack of work ethics.
Table: No. 4.61 Lack of work ethics Vs employee’s location
Lack of Work ethics

Mean S.D No.
Karnataka 15.67 3.23 285
Location
Kerala 15.35 4.41 115
Total 15.58 3.60 400
t Df Sig.
0.800 398 Ns
Result
and Kerala employees in the average lack of work ethics scores.
Since the calculated value is 0.800, which is less than the table value of 1.966 at 5% level
of significance, we accept the null hypothesis.
Hence, it is inferred that there is no significant difference between Karnataka and Kerala
employees in the average lack of work ethics scores.
Chapter-IV 181
Hypothesis 2.7: Motivation and appreciation Vs employee’s location
H0: 2.7 There is no significant difference between the employees of Karnataka and
Kerala in the average motivation and appreciation scores.
H1: 2.7 There is significant difference between the employees of Karnataka and
Kerala in the average motivation and appreciation scores.
Table: No. 4.63 Motivation and appreciation Vs employee’s location

Mean S.D No.
Karnataka 7.82 2.62 285
Location
Kerala 8.28 2.42 115
Total 7.95 2.57 400
t df Sig.
1.626 398 Ns
Result
and Kerala employees in the average motivation and appreciation scores.
Since the calculated value 1.626 is lower than the table value of 1.966 at 5% level of
employees in the average motivation and appreciation scores.
Chapter-IV 182
Hypothesis 2.8: Work from home Vs employee’s location
Kerala in the average work from home scores.
H1:2.8 There is significant difference between the employees of Karnataka and
Kerala in the average work from home scores.
Table: No. 4.65 Work from home Vs employee’s location
Work from home

Mean S.D No.
Karnataka 2.58 1.08 285
Location
Kerala 2.55 1.24 115
Total 2.57 1.13 400
t df Sig.
0.278 398 Ns
Result
and Kerala employees in the average work from home scores.
Since the calculated value is 0.278, which is lower than the table value of 1.966 at 5%
level of significance, we accept the null hypothesis.
employees in the average work from home scores.
Chapter-IV 183
Hypothesis 2.9: Work and family conflict Vs employee’s location
Kerala in the average work and family conflict scores.
H1 : 2.9 There is significant difference between the employees of Karnataka and
Kerala in the average work and family conflict scores.
Table: No. 4.67 Work and family conflict Vs employee’s location

Mean S.D No.
Karnataka 8.80 1.51 285
Location
Kerala 8.39 1.91 115
Total 8.68 1.64 400
t df Sig.
398 *
.244
Result
and Kerala employees in the average work and family conflict scores.
Since the calculated value 2.244 is higher than the table value of 1.966 at 5% level of
employees in the average work and family conflict scores.
Chapter-IV 184
Hypothesis 2.10: Labour welfare and corporate governance Vs employee’s location
H0 : 2.10 There is no significant difference between the employees of Karnataka and

Kerala in the average labor welfare and corporate governance scores.
H1: 2.10 There is significant difference between the employees of Karnataka and Kerala
in the average labor welfare and corporate governance scores.
Table No. 4.69 Labour welfare and corporate governance Vs employee’s location.

Mean S.D No.
Karnataka 11.92 2.58 285
Location
Kerala 11.35 2.93 115
Total 11.76 2.70 400
t df Sig.
1.937 398 Ns
Result
and Kerala employees in the average labour welfare and corporate governance scores.
employees in the average labour welfare and corporate governance scores.
Chapter-IV 185
Hypothesis 2.11: Occupational health problems Vs employee’s location
H0:2.11 There is no significant difference between the employees of Karnataka and

Kerala in the average occupational health problems scores.
H1: 2.11 There is significant difference between the employees of Karnataka and
Kerala in the average occupational health problems scores.
Table: No. 4.71 Occupational health problems Vs employee’s location
Occupational health problems

Mean S.D No.
Karnataka 14.56 3.18 285
Location
Kerala 14.98 3.84 115
Total 14.69 3.38 400
t df Sig.
1.119 398 Ns
Result
and Kerala employees in the average occupational health problems scores.
employees in the average occupational health problems scores.
Chapter-IV 186
Hypothesis 2.12: Human resource management Practices Vs employee’s location
H0: 2.12 There is no significant difference between Karnataka and Kerala employees in
the average scores of human resource management practices.
H1:2.12 There is significant difference between Karnataka and Kerala employees in
the average scores of human resource management practices.
Table No. 4.73 Human resource management Practices Vs employee’s location

Mean S.D No.
Karnataka 2.55 .92 285
Location
Kerala 2.63 .96 115
Total 2.58 .93 400
t df Sig.
0.784 398 Ns
Result
and Kerala employees in the average human resource management practices scores.
Since the calculated t-test value 0.784 is lower than the table value 1.966 at 5% level of
employees in the average human resource management practices scores.
Chapter-IV 187
Hypothesis 2.13: Average strength factor scores Vs employee’s location
H0: 2.13 There is no significant difference between Karnataka and Kerala employees in
the average strength factors scores.
H1: 2.13 There is significant difference between Karnataka and Kerala employees in the
average strength factors scores.
Table: No. 4.75 Average strength factor scores Vs employee’s location
Strength Factor Score

Mean S.D No.
Karnataka 8.56 1.87 285
Location
Kerala 8.86 1.96 115
Total 8.65 1.90 400
t df Sig.
1.432 398 Ns
Result
and Kerala employees in the average strength factor scores.
Since the calculated t-test value 01.432 is less than the table value 1.966 at 5% level of
employees in the average strength factor scores.
Chapter-IV 188
4.4.3 Variation between national and multinational BPOs
The following hypotheses were set to study the relationship between two global positions
(national/ multinational) and the attrition factors: lack of integration and goal setting,
motivation and appreciation, work atmosphere, labor welfare and corporate governance,
maximum number of hours worked, dissatisfaction with rewards and hikes, human
resource management practices, dissatisfaction with salary and perks, food and
relaxation, work and family conflict, and work from home. In each combination of
global position (national/multinational) and attrition factor suitable hypotheses were
framed and testing (t-test) of the hypotheses were done and the results are discussed as
given below:
Hypothesis 3.1: Global position Vs Lack of integration and goal setting

H0: 3.1. There is no significant difference between national BPO employees and
multinational BPO employees in the average scores of lack of integration and
goal setting.
H1: 3.1. There is significant difference between national BPO employees and
multinational BPO employees in the average scores of lack of integration and
goal setting.
Table: No. 4.77 Lack of integration and Goal setting Vs Global position
Mean S.D No.
Global National 11.81 3.04 212

position Multinational 12.53 3.36 188
Total 12.15 3.21 400
t df Sig.
2.234 398 *
Chapter-IV 189
Result
The t-test was applied to find whether there is significant difference between national and
multinational BPO employees in the average lack of integration and goal setting scores.
Since the calculated value 2.234 is higher than the table value 1.966 at 5% level of
Hence, it is inferred that there is significant difference between national and multinational
BPO employees in the average lack of integration and goal setting scores.
Hypothesis 3.2 Global position Vs Dissatisfaction with salary and perks

H0:3.2. There is no significant difference between national BPO employees and
multinational BPO employees in the average scores of dissatisfaction with
salary and perks.
H1:3.2. There is significant difference between national BPO employees and
salary and perks.
Table: No. 4.79 Dissatisfaction with salary and perks Vs Global position
Mean S.D No.

Total 6.00 1.83 400
t Df Sig.
3.154 398 **
Result
The t-test was applied to find whether there is significant difference between National
and Multinational BPO employees in the average dissatisfaction with salary and perks
scores.
Chapter-IV 190
BPO employees in the average dissatisfaction with salary and perks scores.
Hypothesis 3.3: Global position Vs Dissatisfaction with rewards and hikes

H0:3.3. There is no significant difference between national BPO employees and
rewards and hikes.
rewards and hikes.
Table: No. 4.81 Dissatisfaction with rewards and hikes Vs Global position
Mean S.D No.

Total 6.05 1.96 400
t df Sig.
2.159 398 *
Result
multinational BPO employees in the average dissatisfaction with rewards and hikes
scores.
Chapter-IV 191
BPO employees in the average dissatisfaction with rewards and hikes scores.
Hypothesis 3.4: Global position Vs Human resource management practices

H0: 3.4. There is no significant difference between national and multinational BPO
employees in the average scores of human resource management practices.
H1: 3.4. There is significant difference between national and multinational BPO
employees in the average scores of human resource management practices.
Table: No. 4.83 Human Resource Management Practices Vs Global position

Mean S.D No.
National 2.57 .92 212
Global position
Multinational 2.59 .94 188
Total 2.58 .93 400
t df Sig.
0.154 398 Ns
Result
multinational employees in the average human resource management practices scores.
Since the calculated t-test value 0.154 is less than the table value 1.966 at 5% level of
Hence, it is inferred that there is no significant difference between national and
multinational employees in the average human resource management practices scores.
Chapter-IV 192
Hypothesis 3.5: Global position Vs Work atmosphere
H0: 3.5. There is no significant difference between national BPO employees and
multinational BPO employees in the average scores of work atmosphere.
multinational BPO employees in the average scores of work atmosphere.
Table: No. 4.85 Work atmosphere vs global position.
Work atmosphere
Mean S.D No.

Total 14.57 3.01 400
t df Sig.
0.810 398 Ns
Result
and Multinational BPO employees in the average work atmosphere scores.
Since the calculated value 0.810 is lower than the table value 1.966 at 5% level of
Hence, it is inferred that there is no significant difference between National and
Multinational BPO employees in the average work atmosphere scores.
Chapter-IV 193
Hypothesis 3.6: Global position Vs Work and family conflict
H0:3.6 There is no significant difference between national BPO employees and

multinational BPO employees in the average scores of work and family
conflict.
H1:3.6 There is significant difference between national BPO employees and
multinational BPO employees in the average scores of work and family
conflict.
Table: No. 4.87 Work and Family Conflict Vs Global position

Mean S.D No.

Total 8.68 1.64 400
t df Sig.
1.353 398 Ns
Result
and Multinational BPO employees in the average work and family conflict scores.
Multinational BPO employees in the average work and family conflict scores.
Chapter-IV 194
Hypothesis: 3.7 Global position Vs Food and relaxation
H0: 3.7 There is no significant difference between national BPO employees and
multinational BPO employees in the average scores of food and
relaxation.
H1: 3.7 There is significant difference between national BPO employees and
multinational BPO employees in the average scores of food and
relaxation.
Table: No. 4.89 Food and relaxation Vs Global position
Food and relaxation

Mean S.D No.

Total 6.82 2.12 400
t df Sig.
1.240 398 Ns
Result
and Multinational BPO employees in the average food and relaxation scores.
Multinational BPO employees in the average food and relaxation scores.
Chapter-IV 195
Hypothesis 3.8: Global position Vs Motivation and appreciation

multinational BPO employees in the average scores of motivation and
appreciation.
H1: 3.8 There is significant difference between national BPO employees and
multinational BPO employees in the average scores of motivation and
appreciation.
Table: No. 4.91 Motivation and appreciation Vs Global position

Mean S.D No.

Total 7.95 2.57 400
t df Sig.
0.763 398 Ns
Result
multinational BPO employees in the average motivation and appreciation scores.
multinational BPO employees in the average motivation and appreciation scores.
Chapter-IV 196
Hypothesis 3.9: Global position Vs Labor welfare and corporate governance
H0: 3.9 There is no significant difference between national BPO employees and
multinational BPO employees in the average scores of labor welfare and
corporate governance.
H1:3.9 There is significant difference between national BPO employees and
multinational BPO employees in the average scores of labor welfare and
corporate governance.
Table: No. 4.93 Labour welfare and corporate governance Vs Global position

Mean S.D No.

Total 11.76 2.70 400
t Df Sig.
0.579 398 Ns
Result
multinational BPO employees in the average labour welfare and corporate governance
scores.
multinational BPO employees in the average labour welfare and corporate governance
scores.
Chapter-IV 197
Hypothesis 3.10: Global position Vs Maximum number of hours worked
Ho: 3.10 There is no significant relationship between maximum number of hours

worked and the global position of the company.
H1:3.10 There is significant relationship between maximum number of hours worked
and the global position of the company.
Table: No. 4.95 Maximum number of hours worked Vs Global position

Global position TOTAL
National Multinational
No. %
No. % No. %
0 - 8 hrs 63 29.7 17 9.0 80 20.0
Maximum no. of hours
8 - 12 hrs 120 56.6 123 65.4 243 60.8
worked
Above 12 hrs 29 13.7 48 25.5 77 19.3
Total 212 100.0 188 100.0 400 100.0
Table: No. 4.96 Chi-Square Test
Value df Sig.
Chi-Square 29.843 2 **
Result
Chi-square test was applied to find whether there is significant relationship between
maximum number of hours worked and the global position of the company.
Since the calculated chi-square value, 29.843 is higher than the table value of 09.210 at
1% level of significance, we reject the null hypothesis.
Hence, it is inferred that there is significant relationship between maximum number of
hours worked and the global position of the company.
Chapter-IV 198
Hypothesis 3.11: Global position Vs Work from home

multinational BPO employees in the average work from home scores.
H1 :3.11 There is significant difference between national BPO employees and
Table: No. 4.97 Work from Home Vs Global position
Work from home

Mean S.D No.

Total 2.57 1.13 400
t df Sig.
1.658 398 Ns
Result
Chapter-IV 199
4.4.4 Relationship between Age groups and Attrition factors
Following hypotheses were set to study the relationship between age groups and
proposed attrition factors: lack of integration and goal setting, motivation and
appreciation, work atmosphere, labor welfare and corporate governance, maximum
management practices, dissatisfaction with salary and perks, food and relaxation, work
and family conflict, strength factor and work from home.
In each combination of age groups and attrition factors, suitable hypotheses were framed
and testing (ANOVA) of the hypothesis were done and the results are given below:
Hypothesis4.1: Lack of integration and goal setting Vs Age

H0:4.1. There is no significant difference among the respondent’s age groups in the
average scores of lack of integration and goal setting.
H1: 4.1. There is significant difference among the respondents’ age groups in the
average scores of lack of integration and goal setting
Table: No. 4.99 Lack of integration and goal setting Vs Age

Mean S.D No.
< 18 yrs 12.25 3.10 4
Age of the 18-20 yrs 14.04 3.29 27

respondent 21-25 yrs 12.13 3.16 260
Above 25 yrs 11.72 3.19 109
Total 12.15 3.21 400
Table: No. 4.100 ANOVA for Lack of integration and goal setting
Between Groups 116.847 3 38.949 3.856 **
Within Groups 3999.450 396 10.100
Total 4116.297 399
Chapter-IV 200
Result
age of the respondent groups in the average lack of integration and goal setting scores.
Hence, it is inferred that there is significant difference among the age of the respondent
groups in the average lack of integration and goal setting scores.
Hypothesis 4.2: Work and family conflict Vs Age

H0: 4.2. There is no significant difference among the respondent’s age groups in the
average scores of work and family conflict.
H1:4.2. There is significant difference among the respondent’s age groups in the
Table: No. 4.101 Work and family conflict Vs Age

Mean S.D No.
< 18 yrs 9.00 .82 4
18-20 yrs 8.74 1.16 27
Age of the respondent
21-25 yrs 8.85 1.60 260
Above 25 yrs 8.25 1.80 109
Total 8.68 1.64 400
Table: No. 4.102 ANOVA for Work and family conflict

Between Groups 28.393 3 9.464 3.574 *
Within Groups 1048.647 396 2.648
Total 1077.040 399
Result
age of the respondent groups in the average work and family conflict scores.
Chapter-IV 201
Since the calculated F-ratio value 3.574 is higher than the table 2.628 at 5% level of
groups in the average work and family conflict scores.
Hypothesis 4.3: Strength factor Vs Age

H0: 4.3. There is no significant difference among the respondent’s age groups in the
average scores of strength factor.
H1: 4.3. There is significant difference among the respondent’s age groups in the
average scores of strength factor.
Table: No. 4.103 Strength factor Vs Age

Mean S.D No.
< 18 yrs 11.00 1.41 4
18-20 yrs 8.30 2.30 27
21-25 yrs 8.53 1.78 260
Above 25 yrs 8.93 2.00 109
Total 8.65 1.90 400
Table: No. 4.104 ANOVA for Strength Factor Score

Sum of
Squares
Between Groups 37.501 3 12.500 3.546 *
Within Groups 1395.796 396 3.525
Total 1433.298 399
Result
age of the respondent groups in the average strength factor scores.
Since the calculated F-ratio value, 03.546 is higher than the table value 02.628 at 5%
Chapter-IV 202
groups in the average strength factor scores.
Hypothesis 4.4: Maximum number of hours worked Vs Age

H0: 4.4 There is no significant relationship between maximum number of hours
worked and the age group of the respondents.
H1: 4.4 There is significant relationship between maximum number of hours
worked and the age group of the respondents.
Table: No. 4.105 Maximum number of hours worked Vs Age

Maximum hours worked
Mean S.D No.
< 18 yrs 5.75 .96 4
18-20 yrs 6.63 2.00 27
21-25 yrs 6.63 1.84 260
Above 25 yrs 6.88 2.06 109
Total 6.69 1.91 400
Table: No. 4.106 ANOVA for Maximum number of hours worked.

Mean
Square
Within Groups 1440.784 396 3.638
Total 1449.178 399
Result
age of the respondent groups in the average scores of maximum hours worked.
Since the calculated F-ratio value 0.769 is lower than the table 2.628 at 5% level of
Hence, it is inferred that there is no significant difference among the age of the
respondent groups in the average scores of maximum hours worked.
Chapter-IV 203
Hypothesis 4.5: Human Resource Management Practices Vs Age
H0: 4.5 There is no significant difference among the respondents age groups in the
average human resource management practices scores.
H1: 4.5 There is significant difference among the respondent’s age groups in the
average human resource management practices scores.
Table: No. 4.107 Human Resource Management Practices Vs Age

Mean S.D No.
< 18 yrs 2.75 1.26 4
18-20 yrs 2.59 .80 27
21-25 yrs 2.62 .90 260
Above 25 yrs 2.48 1.02 109
Total 2.58 .93 400
Table: No. 4.108 ANOVA for Human Resource Management practices
Mean
Square
Between Groups 1.598 3 .533 .617 Ns
Total 343.598 399
Result
age of the respondent groups in the average human resource management practices
scores.
Since the calculated F-ratio value, 0.617 is lower than the table value 2.628 at 5% level of
respondent groups in the average human resource management practices scores.
Chapter-IV 204
Hypothesis 4.6: Lack of work ethics Vs Age
H0: 4.6 There is no significant difference among the respondents age groups in the
H1: 4.6 There is significant difference among the respondents age groups in the
Table: No. 4.109 Lack of work ethics Vs Age
Lack of Work ethics

Mean S.D No.
< 18 yrs 15.00 .00 4
Age of the 18-20 yrs 16.19 4.39 27

respondent 21-25 yrs 15.43 3.61 260
Above 25 yrs 15.79 3.45 109
Total 15.58 3.60 400
Table: No. 4.110 ANOVA for Lack of Work ethics

Within Groups 5161.975 396 13.035
Total 5183.750 399
Result
age of the respondent groups in the average lack of work ethics scores.
respondent groups in the average lack of work ethics scores.
Chapter-IV 205
Hypothesis 4.7: Dissatisfaction with rewards and hikes Vs Age
H0: 4.7 There is no significant difference among the age of the respondent groups
in the average dissatisfaction with rewards and hikes scores.
H1: 4.7 There is significant difference among the age of the respondent groups in
the average dissatisfaction with rewards and hikes scores.
Table: No. 4.111 Dissatisfaction with rewards and hikes Vs Age

Mean S.D No.
< 18 yrs 7.00 1.83 4
18-20 yrs 6.85 1.68 27
21-25 yrs 6.05 1.96 260
Above 25 yrs 5.82 2.00 109
Total 6.05 1.96 400
Table: No. 4.112 ANOVA for Dissatisfaction with rewards and hikes

Within Groups 1507.184 396 3.806
Total 1534.098 399
Result
age of the respondent groups in the average dissatisfaction with rewards and hikes scores.
respondent groups in the average dissatisfaction with rewards and hikes scores.
Chapter-IV 206
Hypothesis 4.8: Labour welfare and corporate governance Vs Age
H0:4.8 There is no significant difference among the age of the respondent groups
in the average labour welfare and corporate governance scores.
H1:4.8 There is significant difference among the age of the respondent groups in
the average labour welfare and corporate governance scores.
Table: No. 4.113 Labour welfare and corporate governance Vs Age

Mean S.D No.
< 18 yrs 11.75 .96 4
18-20 yrs 12.59 2.29 27
21-25 yrs 11.65 2.62 260
Above 25 yrs 11.82 2.99 109
Total 11.76 2.70 400
Table: No. 4.114 ANOVA for Labour welfare and corporate governance

Within Groups 2879.045 396 7.270
Total 2901.477 399
Result
age of the respondent groups in the average labor welfare and corporate governance
scores.
respondent groups in the average labor welfare and corporate governance scores.
Chapter-IV 207
Hypothesis 4.9: Dissatisfaction with salary and perks Vs Age
H0:4.9 There is no significant difference among the age of the respondent groups in the
average dissatisfaction with salary and perks scores.
H1:4.9 There is significant difference among the age of the respondent groups in the
average dissatisfaction with salary and perks scores.
Table: No. 4.115 Dissatisfaction with salary and perks Vs Age

Mean S.D No.
< 18 yrs 5.75 .50 4
18-20 yrs 5.85 1.43 27
21-25 yrs 6.10 1.94 260
Above 25 yrs 5.80 1.66 109
Total 6.00 1.83 400
Table: No. 4.116 ANOVA for Dissatisfaction with Salary and perks

Within Groups 1326.313 396 3.349
Total 1333.990 399
Result
age of the respondent groups in the average dissatisfaction with salary and perks scores.
respondent groups in the average dissatisfaction with salary and perks scores.
Chapter-IV 208
Hypothesis 4.10: Work from Home Vs Age
H0:4.10 There is no significant difference among the respondents age groups in the
H1:4.10 There is significant difference among the respondents age groups in the
Table: No. 4.117 Work from Home Vs Age
Work from home

Mean S.D No.
< 18 yrs 3.75 .96 4
18-20 yrs 2.30 .91 27
21-25 yrs 2.56 1.12 260
Above 25 yrs 2.62 1.18 109
Total 2.57 1.13 400
Table: No. 4.118 ANOVA for Work from home

Within Groups 499.973 396 1.263
Total 507.897 399
Result
age of the respondent groups in the average work from home scores.
respondent groups in the average work from home scores.
Chapter-IV 209
Hypothesis 4.11: Motivation and Appreciation Vs Age
H0:4.11 There is no significant difference among the respondents age groups in the
average motivation and appreciation scores.
H1:4.11 There is significant difference among the respondents age groups in the
average motivation and appreciation scores.
Table: No. 4.119 Motivation and Appreciation Vs Age

Mean S.D No.
< 18 yrs 8.75 2.22 4
18-20 yrs 8.74 2.58 27
21-25 yrs 7.94 2.62 260
Above 25 yrs 7.74 2.44 109
Total 7.95 2.57 400
Table: No. 4.120 ANOVA for Motivation and appreciation

Within Groups 2612.877 396 6.598
Total 2637.000 399
Result
age of the respondent groups in the average motivation and appreciation scores.
respondent groups in the average motivation and appreciation scores.
Chapter-IV 210
Hypothesis 4.12: Work Atmosphere Vs Age
H0: 4.12 There is no significant difference among the age of the respondent groups
in the average work atmosphere scores.
H1: 4.12 There is significant difference among the age of the respondent groups in
the average work atmosphere scores.
Table: No. 4.121 Work Atmosphere Vs Age
Work atmosphere
Mean S.D No.
< 18 yrs 16.00 1.41 4
18-20 yrs 15.07 2.32 27
21-25 yrs 14.59 3.11 260
Above 25 yrs 14.34 2.95 109
Total 14.57 3.01 400
Table: No. 4.122 ANOVA for Work atmosphere
Sum of
Squares
Within Groups 3587.258 396 9.059
Total 3608.178 399
Result
age of the respondent groups in the average work atmosphere scores.
respondent groups in the average work atmosphere scores.
Chapter-IV 211
4.4.5 Relationship between maximum number of hours worked and
Attrition
The following hypotheses were set to study the relationship between maximum number
of hours worked groups and proposed attrition factors namely area of work, gender,
location and monthly salary. In each combination of maximum number of hours worked
groups and attrition factors, suitable hypotheses were framed and testing (Chi-Square
Test) of the hypothesis were done and the results are given below:
Hypothesis 5.1: Maximum number of hours worked Vs Gender

Ho: 5.1. The maximum number of hours worked is independent of the employee’s
gender.
H1: 5.1. The maximum number of hours worked is dependent on the employee’s
gender.
Table No. 4.123 Maximum number of hours worked Vs Gender

Gender TOTAL
Male Female
No. %
No. % No. %
0 - 8 hrs 43 18.2 37 22.6 80 20.0
Maximum no. of hours
8 - 12 hrs 138 58.5 105 64.0 243 60.8
worked
Above 12 hrs 55 23.3 22 13.4 77 19.3
Total 236 100.0 164 100.0 400 100.0

Value df Sig.
Chi-Square 6.319 2 *
Result
Chi-square test was applied to find whether the maximum number of hours worked is
dependent on the gender.
Since the calculated chi-square value, 6.319 is higher than the table value of 5.991 at 5%
Chapter-IV 212
Hence, it is inferred that the maximum number of hours worked is dependent on the
gender.
Hypothesis 5.2: Maximum number of hours worked Vs Location
location.
H1:5.2. The maximum number of hours worked is dependent on the employee’s
location.
Table: No. 4.125 Maximum number of hours worked Vs Location

Location TOTAL
Karnataka Kerala
No. %
No. % No. %
0 - 8 hrs 36 12.6 44 38.3 80 20.0
Maximum no. of hours worked 8 - 12 hrs 189 66.3 54 47.0 243 60.8
Above 12 hrs 60 21.1 17 14.8 77 19.3
Total 285 100.0 115 100.0 400 100.0
Value df Sig.
Result
dependent on the employees location.
Hence, it is inferred that the maximum number of hours worked is dependent on the
location.
Chapter-IV 213
Hypothesis 5.3: Maximum number of hours worked Vs salary per month
salary per month.
H1:5.3. The maximum number of hours worked is dependent on the employee’s salary
per month.
Table: No. 4.127 Maximum number of hours worked Vs salary per month
Salary per month TOTAL

Rs.5000- Rs.10000- Rs.15000- Above
< Rs.5000
10000 15000 20000 Rs.20000 No. %
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
0 - 8 hrs 4 57.1 25 30.5 33 20.6 11 11.7 7 12.3 80 20.0
Maximum
no. of 8 - 12 hrs 3 42.9 50 61.0 98 61.3 57 60.6 35 61.4 243 60.8
hours
worked Above
7 8.5 29 18.1 26 27.7 15 26.3 77 19.3
12 hrs
Total 7 100.0 82 100.0 160 100.0 94 100.0 57 100.0 400 100.0
Value df Sig.
Result
Chi-square test was applied to find whether there is significant relationship between
maximum number of hours worked and salary per month.
Hence, it is inferred that there is significant relationship between maximum number of
hours worked and salary per month.
Chapter-IV 214
Hypothesis 5.4: Maximum number of hours worked Vs area of work
Ho: 5.4 The maximum number of hours worked is independent of the employee’s area
of work.
H1:5.4 The maximum number of hours worked is dependent on the employee’s area
of work.
Table: No. 4.129 Maximum number of hours worked Vs area of work

Area of work TOTAL
Financial Customer Human Application

Procurement Others
Accounting Services Resource Process No. %
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
0-8
21 16.7 29 23.2 2 14.3 10 24.4 13 19.4 5 18.5 80 20.0
hrs
Maximum
no. of 8 - 12
83 65.9 78 62.4 8 57.1 23 56.1 38 56.7 13 48.1 243 60.8
hours hrs
worked
Above
22 17.5 18 14.4 4 28.6 8 19.5 16 23.9 9 33.3 77 19.3
12 hrs
Total 126 100.0 125 100.0 14 100.0 41 100.0 67 100.0 27 100.0 400 100.0
Value df Sig.
Chi-Square 9.566 10 Ns
Result
dependent on the area of work.
Since the calculated chi-square value, 09.566 is lower than the table value of 18.307 at
5% level of significance, we accept the null hypothesis.
Hence, it is inferred that the maximum number of hours worked is independent on the
area of work.
Chapter-IV 215
4.4.6 Difference among the designation groups towards Attrition
factors
The following hypotheses were set to study the relationship between designation groups
and proposed attrition factors namely: lack of integration and goal setting, motivation and
appreciation, work atmosphere, dissatisfaction with rewards and hikes, human resource
management practices, dissatisfaction with salary and perks, work and family conflict,
and strength factor. In each combination, suitable hypothesis were framed and testing
(ANOVA) of the hypothesis were done and the results are discussed as below:
Hypothesis 6.1: Designation groups Vs strength factor scores

H0: 6.1. There is no significant difference among the designation groups in the
average strength factor scores.
H1:6.1. There is significant difference among the designation groups in the average
strength factor scores
Table: No. 4.131 Designation groups Vs strength factor scores
Mean S.D No.
Process Analyst 8.41 1.90 246
Senior Process Analyst 8.91 1.80 95
Designation Team Leader 9.15 1.73 34
Supervisor 9.27 2.09 15
Manager 9.50 2.17 10
Total 8.65 1.90 400
Table: No. 4.132 ANOVA for Strength Factor Score

Between Groups 42.102 4 10.526 2.989 *

Within Groups 1391.195 395 3.522
Total 1433.298 399
Result
designation groups in the average strength factor scores.
Chapter-IV 216
Since the calculated F-ratio value, 02.989 is higher than the table value 02.395 at 5%
Hence, it is inferred that there is significant difference among the designation groups in
the average strength factor scores.
Hypothesis 6.2: Work and Family Conflict Vs designation

H0:6.2. There is no significant difference among the designation groups in the
H1:6.2. There is significant difference among the designation groups in the average
scores of work and family conflict.
Table: No. 4.133 Work and Family Conflict Vs designation

Mean S.D No.
Manager 7.60 2.72 10
TOTAL 8.68 1.64 400
Table: No. 4.134 ANOVA for Work and family conflict

Sum of
Squares
Between Groups 45.810 4 11.453 4.387 **
Within Groups 1031.230 395 2.611
Total 1077.040 399
Result
designation groups in the average work and family conflict scores.
Chapter-IV 217
the average work and family conflict scores.
Hypothesis 6.3: Motivation and Appreciation Vs designation

H0:6.3 There is no significant difference among the designation groups in the
average scores of motivation and appreciation.
H1:6.3 There is significant difference among the designation groups in the average
scores of motivation and appreciation.
Table: No. 4.135 Motivation and Appreciation Vs designation

Mean S.D No.
Manager 6.30 2.79 10
Total 7.95 2.57 400
Table: No. 4.136 ANOVA for Motivation and appreciation

Between Groups 64.586 4 16.147 2.479 *
Within Groups 2572.414 395 6.512
Total 2637.000 399
Result
designation groups in the average motivation and appreciation scores.
the average motivation and appreciation scores.
Chapter-IV 218
Hypothesis 6.4: Lack of integration and goal setting Vs designation
H0:6.4 There is no significant difference among the designation groups in the average
scores of lack of integration and goal setting.
H1: 6.4 There is significant difference among the designation groups in the average
scores of lack of integration and goal setting.
Table: No. 4.137 Lack of integration and goal setting Vs designation

Mean S.D No.
Manager 12.90 3.54 10
Total 12.15 3.21 400
Table: No. 4.138 ANOVA for Lack of integration and goal setting
Within Groups 4040.093 395 10.228
Total 4116.297 399
Result
designation groups in the average lack of integration and goal setting scores.
Since the calculated F-ratio value 1.863 is less than the table value 2.395 at 5% level of
Hence, it is inferred that there is no significant difference among the designation groups
in the average lack of integration and goal setting scores
Chapter-IV 219
Hypothesis 6.5: Work Atmosphere Vs designation
H0: 6.5 There is no significant difference among the designation groups in the average
scores of work atmosphere.
scores of work atmosphere.
Table: No. 4.139 Work Atmosphere Vs designation
Work atmosphere
Mean S.D No.
Manager 13.20 3.16 10
Total 14.57 3.01 400
Table: No. 4.140 ANOVA for Work atmosphere

Sum of
Squares
Within Groups 3566.050 395 9.028
Total 3608.178 399
Result
designation groups in the average work atmosphere scores.
Since the calculated F-ratio value 1.167 is less than the table value 2.395 at 5% level of
in the average work atmosphere scores.
Chapter-IV 220
Hypothesis 6.6: Dissatisfaction with salary and perks Vs designation
H0: 6.6 There is no significant difference among the designation groups in the
average scores of dissatisfaction with salary and perks.
H1:6.6 There is significant difference among the designation groups in the
average scores of dissatisfaction with salary and perks.
Table: No. 4.141 Dissatisfaction with salary and perks Vs designation

Mean S.D No.
Manager 5.00 2.00 10
Total 6.00 1.83 400
Table: No. 4.142 ANOVA for Dissatisfaction with Salary and perks
Within Groups 1316.063 395 3.332
Total 1333.990 399
Result
designation groups in the average dissatisfaction with salary and perks scores.
in the average dissatisfaction with salary and perks scores.
Chapter-IV 221
Hypothesis 6.7: Dissatisfaction with rewards and hikes Vs designation
H0: 6.7 There is no significant difference among the designation groups in the
average scores of dissatisfaction with rewards and hikes.
H1: 6.7 There is significant difference among the designation groups in the
average scores of dissatisfaction with rewards and hikes.
Table: No. 4.143 Dissatisfaction with rewards and hikes Vs designation

Mean S.D No.
Manager 5.10 2.42 10
Total 6.05 1.96 400
Table: No. 4.144 ANOVA for Dissatisfaction with rewards and hikes
Within Groups 1520.973 395 3.851
Total 1534.097 399
Result
designation groups in the average dissatisfaction with rewards and hikes scores.
in the average dissatisfaction with rewards and hikes scores.
Chapter-IV 222
Hypothesis 6.8: Designation groups Vs Human Resource Management Practices
H0:6.8 There is no significant difference among the designation groups in the average
scores of human resource management practices.
scores of human resource management practices.
Table: No. 4.145 Designation groups Vs Human Resource Management Practices

Mean S.D No.
Process Analyst 2.64 .94 246
Senior Process Analyst 2.49 .85 95
Designation Team Leader 2.38 .78 34
Manager 2.30 1.34 10
Total 2.58 .93 400
Table: No. 4.146 ANOVA for Human Resource Management practice

Between Groups 3.867 4 .967 1.124 Ns

Total 343.597 399
Result
designation groups in the average human resource management practices scores.
Since the calculated F-ratio value, 01.124 is less than the table value 02.395 at 5% level
in the average human resource management practices scores.
Chapter-IV 223
4.5 MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS
Regression Analysis was applied to find the critical factors and non-critical factors or
variables which might affect the attrition of the employees. For this, overall attrition
score was considered as dependent variable. The other variables namely Gender (coded
as 1-M, 0-F), Location (coded as 1-Karnataka, 0-Kerala), Global Position (1-National, 0-
Multinational), Age of the respondent, Experience in the present organization, Salary per
month, Number of training programs attended, Maximum number of hours worked,
Strength factors and HRM Practices were selected as independent variables which might
affect the dependent variable namely Overall Attrition Score.
The result of the regression analysis is given below:

Table No. 4.147 Dependent Variable: Overall Attrition Score
Regression
Coefficients Std. Error t Sig.
(B)
(Constant) 131.540 7.074
Gender .264 1.436 .184 Ns
Location .413 1.773 .233 Ns
Global position -.147 1.594 -.092 Ns
Age of the respondent -2.766 1.343 -2.060 *
Experience in the present organization -.450 .865 -.520 Ns
Salary per month 1.761 .861 2.045 *
No. of training programs attended -1.318 .892 -1.478 Ns
Maximum no. of hours worked 1.506 1.197 1.259 Ns
Strength Factor Score -1.942 .419 -4.633 **
Human Resource Management practice -3.217 .854 -3.765 **
Table: No.4.148 R and F-Ratio values
R R Square F Sig.
.423 .179 8.500 **
Chapter-IV 224
Result
The multiple correlation co-efficient (R) value was found to be 0.423 which shows that
there is moderate level of correlation between the dependent variable and the set of
independent variables taken together.
The F ratio value (8.500) shows that there is significant relationship between the overall
attrition score and the set of independent variables. The R square value indicates that
17.9% of variation in the overall attrition score is explained by the set of independent
variables included in the model.
Individually, looking at the regression co-efficient, it is seen that age, experience, number
of training programs attended, strength factor, HRM management practice have affected
the overall attrition score negatively. That is the employee’s attitude towards attrition
decreases when these variables are on the higher side. For example, respondents in the
older age group have lesser attitude towards attrition. Also, those who have given higher
scores or ratings for strength factor or HRM management practice, the attrition scores are
lesser.
Salary and number of hours worked affect the attrition score positively. That is, those
who draw higher salary and those who work longer hours have higher level of attrition
than those who draw lesser salary or work lesser hours.
Gender-wise, males have more attrition tendency than females.
Location-wise, Karnataka respondents are found to have more attrition scores than Kerala
employees.
Global position-wise, multinational employees are having higher level of attrition scores
than national employees.
Among all these regression co-efficients, it is found that age, salary, strength factor,
HRM practice significantly affect the attrition scores either at 1% or 5% level.
Chapter-IV 225

15 - Chapter 4 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

15 - Chapter 4 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

OF EMPLOYEES’ PERSPECTIVES ON HIGH ATTRITION

4.1 RELIABILITY ANALYSIS

Statistics for Mean S.D No. of items

Table: No.4.2 Reliability coefficients

No. of Cases 50 No. of Items 40

The Factor analysis conducted in this study proceeds in four steps:

Table: No 4.3 KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy .823

Another test is Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy. This test is

Table No.4.8. 13 Factors Model

4.3.1 Gender-wise distribution of the sample: Analysis of the respondents based on

Table No.4.9 Gender-wise distribution of the sample

Chart No.4.1 Percentage distribution of the gender

4.3.2 Location-wise distribution of the sample: Analysis of the respondents based on

Table: No.4.10 Location wise distribution of the respondents

Chart No.4.2 Percentage-wise distribution of the location

4.3.3 Global position-wise distribution of the sample: Analysis of the respondents

Table No.4.11 Distribution of the sample based on global position (national/

Chart No. 4.3: Percentage wise distribution of Global position

Table: No.4.12 Age-wise distribution of the sample

4.3.5 Experience-wise distribution of the sample: Analysis of the respondents based on

Table: No. 4.13 Distribution of Experience groups in the organization

4.3.6 Salary-wise distribution of the sample: Analysis of the respondents based on

Table No. 4.14 Salary-wise distribution of the respondents

Chart No. 4.6: Percentage-wise distribution of salary groups

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

4.3.7 Designation-wise distribution of the sample: Analysis of the respondents based

Table No.4.15 Designation-wise distribution of the sample

Chart: No.4.7 Percentage distribution of Designation groups

8.50% Team Leader

4.3.8 Qualification-wise distribution of the sample: Analysis of the respondents based

Table: No.4.16 Qualification wise distribution of the sample

Chart: No. 4.8 Percentage distribution of Qualification groups

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Chart: No. 4.9 Percentage distribution of Area of work groups

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Table No.4.18 Ranking of reasons for stress

Chart No.10: Ranking of reasons for stress to BPO employees

Reasons Travel time

4.3.11 Distribution of the respondents’ undergone training: Analysis of the

Table No.4.19 Distribution of respondents’ undergone training

85% 90% 95% 100%

4.3.12 Distribution of number of training programs undergone: Analysis of the

Table: No.4.20 Distribution of number of training programs undergone

Chart: No.4.12 Percentage of training program undergone by respondents

Table: No.4.21 Rating of training program effectiveness

Chart No.4.13 Percentage distribution of rating of training program effectiveness

4.3.14 Distribution of maximum number of worked: Analysis of the respondents

Table No.4.22 Distribution of maximum number of hours worked

Table No.4.22 shows the distribution of number of hours worked by employees

Chart: No.4.14 Percentage distribution of the maximum number of hours worked

4.3.15 Distribution of opinion on level of satisfaction for strength factors: Analysis of

Table No.4.23 Distribution of opinion on level of satisfaction for strength factors

Chart No.4.15: Percentage distribution of level of satisfaction for strength factors

Table No.4.24 Rating of Human Resource Management Practices

Chart No. 4.16 Percentage distribution of human resource management practices

4.4 DATA ANALYSIS BASED ON OBJECTIVES

4.4.1 Objective: Variation in factors among different BPO areas

Lack of integration and goal setting

Table: No.4.26 ANOVA for Lack of integration and goal setting

Table No. 4.27 Motivation and Appreciation Vs BPO areas

Motivation and appreciation