Professional Documents
Culture Documents
OF COMPANIES
(With Special Reference to Madurai)
Submitted By,
MURALIDHARAN.G
(9909115070)
MR.M.SHANMUGASUNDRAM MBA
KALASALINGAM UNIVERSITY
ANAND NAGAR,
MAY 2011
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The history of the automobile begins as early as 1769, with the creation of
steam-powered automobiles capable of human transport. In 1806, the first cars powered
by internal combustion engines running on fuel gas appeared, which led to the
introduction in 1885 of the ubiquitous modern gasoline- or petrol-fueled internal
combustion engine. Cars powered by electricity briefly appeared at the turn of the 20th
century but largely disappeared from commonality until the turn of the 21st century,
when interest in low- and zero-emissions transportation was reignited. As such, the early
history of the automobile can be divided into a number of eras based on the prevalent
method of automotive propulsion during that time. Later periods were defined by trends
in exterior styling and size and utility preferences.
Eras of Invention
Pioneer inventors
Steam automobiles
Ferdinand Verbiest, a member of a Jesuit mission in China, built the first steam-
powered vehicle around 1672, designed as a toy for the Chinese Emperor, it being of
small scale and unable to carry a driver or passenger but, quite possibly, the first working
steam-powered vehicle ('auto-mobile').
Electric automobiles
In 1828, Ányos Jedlik, a Hungarian who invented an early type of electric motor,
created a tiny model car powered by his new motor. In 1834, Vermont blacksmith
Thomas Davenport, the inventor of the first American DC electrical motor, installed his
motor in a small model car.
Veteran era
The first production of automobiles was by Karl Benz in 1888 in Germany and,
under license from Benz, in France by Emile Roger.
Named for the widespread use of brass in the United States, the Brass (or
Edwardian) Era lasted from roughly 1905 through to the beginning of World War I in
1914. 1905 was a signal year in the development of the automobile, marking the point
when the majority of sales shifted from the hobbyist and enthusiast to the average user.
Vintage era
The vintage era lasted from the end of World War I (1919), through the Wall
Street Crash at the end of 1929. Three years later, Hermann Rieseler of Vulcan Motor
invented the first automatic transmission, which had two-speed planetary gearbox, torque
converter, and lockup clutch it never entered production.
Pre-WWII era
The pre-war part of the classic era began with the Great Depression in 1930,
commonly placed at 1948. It was in this period that integrated fenders and fully-closed
bodies began to dominate sales.
Modern era
The modern era is normally defined as the 25 years proceeding the current year.
However, there are some technical and design aspects that differentiate modern cars from
antiques.
• About hundred years ago the first motorcar was imported. Import duty on
vehicle was introduced. Indian great royal road was conceived.
• First car brought in India by a princely ruler in 1898.
• Simpson and company established in 1840.
• They were the first to build a stem car and stem bus to attempt motorcar
manufacture, to build and operate petrol driver passenger service and to
import American chassis in India.
In 1980’s
Information Technology
Tech Mahindra and Mahindra Satyam
Tech Mahindra specializes in solutions for communications industry is telecom-focused
system integration and IT Solutions Company from India.Mahindra Satyam is a leading
global business and information technology services company
Bristlecone. It provides a range of services focused on the entire supply chain spectrum,
including strategy and process consulting, systems implementation and business process
outsourcing, to leading companies globally. Mahindra is generally a low base company it
gets his roots from the Asian companies
Mahindra Navistar
Mahindra Navistar Automotives Ltd is a joint-venture between Navistar International (49%) of
the United States and Mahindra & Mahindra (51%).Mahindra Navistar has started its full-fledged
manufacturing activities for the entire spectrum of commercial vehicles ranging from 3.5 – 49
tons GVW/GCW. Huge investments are being made in product development and in setting up of
a Greenfield manufacturing facility at Chakan near Pune, India. The products of MNAL are
currently sold under the trademark of Cabking, Loading and Tourister.
About Navistar
Navistar International Corporation is a U.S. holding company which owns the
manufacturer of International brand commercial trucks, MaxxForce brand diesel engines,
IC Bus School and commercial buses, Workhorse brand chassis for motor homes and step
vans, and are a private label designer and manufacturer of diesel engines for the pickup
truck, van and SUV markets. The company is also a provider of truck and diesel engine
parts and service.
The company's products, parts, and services are sold through a network of nearly 1,000
dealer outlets in the United States, Canada, Brazil, and Mexico and more than 60 dealers
in 90 countries throughout the world. The company also provides financing for its
customers and distributors principally through its wholly owned subsidiary, Navistar
Financial Corporation.
Susee automobiles Pvt Ltd., is an automobile retailer and their vision is that they
will be in the service of customers always. Their motto is service the customer always.
“To provide the best quality of service at affordable prices, in a timely manner
using a sustainable and profitable way”
The mission of Susee automobiles is to provide the service to the customer at
reasonable price. In the automobiles industry the service after sales is very important. So
Susee automobiles are concentrating on service keenly. Thus they kept their mission as to
provide the sales at affordable price so that the entire customer can take the service with
reasonable cost in the timely manner and profitable way.
2.5 HISTORY
As early as in the 1930's, the founding parents of the group were involved in the
trade of Pulses and Grains in Thirumangalam, Madurai and Tuticorin. From humble
beginnings, the group has come a long way with the Automotive Business covering
almost every spectrum of transport. The IT business is a BPO unit. The Finance business
has a strong and healthy portfolio. The group has its roots spread across the state of
Tamilnadu with aggressive growth plans. The third generation entrepreneurs are now at
the helm of affairs and are poised to be assisted by the fourth generation family members
in making strong strides towards expansion and growth opportunities. The group is
currently focused on growth engines to drive the business to multiply manifold.
Mr. Rajiv is an aggressive leader with a vision to grow the business manifold. He
has spread the roots of the business to include interests in Information Technology and
Retail. He has strong global exposure and is widely traveled. He has been instrumental in
growing the business more than fivefold in the past decade.
Mr. Thenappan is the Chief Operations Officer and has been in the Automotive
Industry for well over a decade holding various responsibilities varying from OEM
suppliers to Automotive Dealerships across several verticals. He has an Electronics
Engineering Degree from National Institute of Technology [Formerly Known as REC
Surat]. He is a dynamic leader with hands on approach towards business. He holds
operational responsibility for the Group's Automotive Business.
MILESTONES
2.7 AUTOMOBILES
SPARES
They are the authorized genuine spare parts sellers for the following leading two
wheeler brands
They are the authorized genuine spare parts sellers for the Mahindra brands
They have the exclusive dealer for AMW having good population of vehicle. We
have all frequent genuine parts availability and we got good relationship with
vendor products like Fleet guard, Hyvafilters, Volvo line oil etc... We got all spares
readily available.
Susee Finance & Leasing Company private ltd, is an NBFC incorporated in the
year 1991, is part of the Susee Group of Companies. The company caters to the
financial needs of middle income/lower income group in respect of automotive hire
purchase finance. The company has its operations at several locations in Tamilnadu
and is based in Madurai. The salient features of our Non-Banking Finance
Company are:
Susee iSys has been involved in service delivery for domestic and international
clients for a variety of services with one common underlying building block.”
Providing Efficient, Cost effective and sustainable Business Process Outsourcing
and Information Technology Enabled Services". Our range of services focuses on
finding value in Archiving Data for our clients and we focus on releasing the full
value of archived Data. We are involved in Data Archiving, Conversion and E-
Publishing. We are based in Madurai with satellite offices across the state of
Tamilnadu.
The Susee Group provides support to the M.S.Chellamuthu Trust and Research
Foundation in various methods including providing employment opportunities for the
differently abled, procuring of products created by the differently abled and providing
resources to the various institutes of the Chellamuthu Group. The M.S.Chellamuthu
Trust and Research Foundation were established with "Srishti", a half-way home for
people with psychiatric disabilities, in September 1992. It now houses 60 residents.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Introduction
However, over time there have been a number of factors that appear to be
consistently linked to turnover. An early review article of studies on turnover by Mobley
et al (1979) revealed that age, tenure, overall satisfaction, job content, intentions to
remain on the job, and commitment were all negatively related to turnover (i.e. the higher
the variable, the lower the turnover). In 1995, a meta-analysis of some 800 turnover
studies was conducted by Hom and Griffeth, which was recently updated (Griffeth et al,
2000). Their analysis confirmed some well-established findings on the causes of
turnover. These include: job satisfaction, organizational commitment, comparison of
alternatives and intention to quit. These variables are examined in more detail below, as
are a number of other factors where the evidence on the link to turnover is less
conclusive.
Comparison of alternatives
Intentions to quit
Organizational commitment
Job satisfaction
Elangovan (2001) noted that the notion of job satisfaction and organizational
commitment being causally related has not been incorporated in most turnover models.
His study indicated there were strong causal links between stress and satisfaction (higher
stress leads to lower satisfaction) and between satisfaction and commitment (lower
satisfaction leads to lower commitment). He further noted a reciprocal relationship
between commitment and turnover intentions (lower commitment leads to greater
intentions to quit, which in turn further lowers commitment). In summary, only
commitment directly affected turnover intentions.
Characteristics of employees
The research conducted on the link between dissatisfaction with pay and
voluntary turnover appears to be inconclusive. Mobley et al (1979) concluded that results
from studies on the role of pay in turnover were mixed but that often there was no
relationship between pay and turnover. Other studies found no significant relationship.
On the other hand Campion (1991) cited in Tang suggests that the most important reason
for voluntary turnover is higher wages/career opportunity. Martin (2003) investigates the
determinants of labour turnover using establishment-level survey data for the UK. Martin
indicated that there is an inverse relationship between relative wages and turnover (i.e.
establishments with higher relative pay had lower turnover).
Griffeth et al (2000) noted pay and pay-related variables have a modest effect
on turnover. Their analysis also included studies that examined the relationship between
pay, a person’s performance and turnover. They concluded that when high performers are
insufficiently rewarded, they leave. They cite findings from Milkovich and Newman
(1999) that where collective reward programs replace individual incentives, their
introduction may lead to higher turnover among high performers.
Taplin et al (2003) conducted a large-scale turnover study in the British clothing industry.
Two factors emerged as the most significant reasons for employees leaving the industry.
One was the low level of wage rates in the clothing industry relative to other
manufacturing sectors. The other reason referred to industry image with staff leaving
because of fears relating to the long-term future of clothing manufacture in the UK. In
this study, turnover rates were highest among the most skilled workers.
The study also examined the role of payment systems in turnover. The researchers found
that where there were flat-rate payment systems alone, average turnover exhibited a
statistically significant difference from the industry mean (i.e. they were 4.5 per cent
lower). However, most firms in the clothing industry adhered to piece rate payment
systems finding it to be the most effective way of regulating the effort-bargain. This is, in
the authors’ view, despite anecdotal evidence that many skilled workers dislike its
unpredictability and new entrants to the workforce lack the skills to maximize their
earnings potential.
Attitudes to money
For some individuals pay will not be the sole criterion when people decide to
continue within an existing job. In their study of mental health professionals, Tang et al
(2000), Examined the relationship between attitudes towards money, intrinsic job
satisfaction and voluntary turnover. One of the main findings of this study is that
voluntary turnover is high among employees who value money (high money ethic
endorsement), regardless of their intrinsic job satisfaction. However, those who do not
value money highly but who have also have low intrinsic job satisfaction tended to have
the lowest actual turnover. Furthermore, employees with high intrinsic job satisfaction
and who put a low value on money also had significantly higher turnover than this second
group. The researchers also found that placing a high value of money predicted actual
turnover but that withdrawal cognitions (i.e. thinking about leaving) did not.
Shah and Burke (2003) reviewed some of the literature on the relationship
between turnover and training. In a British study examining the impact of training on
mobility, Green et al (2000) concluded that, in aggregate, training has on average no
impact on mobility. However, training that is wholly sponsored by the individual (or their
families) is on balance likely to be a prelude to job search. In contrast, when employers
pay for training the downward effect on mobility is more likely.
Lynch (1991, 1992) concluded that both on-the-job and off-the-job training have a
significant effect on job mobility. While formal on-the-job training reduces the likelihood
of mobility, particularly for young women, off-the-job training increases the likelihood of
mobility. In a study of six local labour markets in Britain, Elias (1994) found that women
who received employer-provided and job-related training had a lower probability of
changing employer or making the transition to non-employment, but for men training
made no significant difference to this type of turnover.
Career commitment
The findings regarding lifestyle factors appear to be mixed. On the one hand,
‘rural lifestyle’ was ranked as the third most important factor for staying in rural and
remote practice and, similarly, ‘sense of belonging to the community’ was ranked fifth.
However, when respondents were asked to identify the most important factors that
influenced them to leave rural and remote health services, just fewer than 40 per cent of
respondents cited issues related to the isolation caused by distance from basic amenities
as one inducement for them to resign. These issues included traveling long distances to
basic social and commercial activities, distance from family, friends and medical
specialists, the comparatively high cost of living and a lack of communication facilities
such as the Internet, which would mitigate personnel and professional isolation.
The employment difficulties of non-metropolitan life were also a contributing reason for
nurses’ decisions to leave practice. For example, unavailability of suitable employment or
career development opportunities for their spouse was cited by 21 per cent of
respondents. Some respondents with children (16 per cent) also identified access to
suitable education, childcare facilities and specialist medical expertise, which are not
usually available outside densely populated areas, as factors influencing leaving
decisions.
Unionisation
Martin (2003) looked at the effect of unions on labour turnover and found
clear evidence that unionism is associated with lower turnover. He suggested that lower
turnover is a result of the ability of unions to secure better working conditions thus
increasing the attractiveness for workers of staying in their current job. According to
Martin, the relationship between lower turnover and unionizations has been well
established by researchers using both industry-level and individual data.
Influence of co-workers
Supervision/management
IDS (2004) suggest that where there is a general turnover problem within the
organization, companies often takes a holistic approach aimed at fully engaging with
staff. This may encompass a wide range of measures such as:
• supporting new recruits during the critical first few weeks in the job
• providing clear career paths, interesting work and support for personal development
Examples of such measures are illustrated in more detail in the industry and
organizational studies below.
Industry studies
Clothing industry
A recent study (Davies et al, 2001) examined the effect of three human
resource strategies (performance appraisal, salary and benefit strategies), and training and
development initiatives in the Western Australian accommodation industry. The authors
concluded that only training and development indicated a reduced turnover of employees.
Mining
The first two examples are academic studies while the following table summarizes the
main features of the retention strategies adopted by a range of UK organizations to
successfully improve retention.
Hospital
A Canadian study by Lum et al (1998) assessed the impact of certain pay policies upon
the turnover intentions of pediatrics nurses. Two types of salary supplements were
introduced – bonuses to intensive care nurses only and a 5 per cent salary differential for
all staff nurses – to reduce turnover. The supplements were structured in such a way as to
have the most favorable influence on the senior staff nurses who were presumed to be the
most experienced and those most valuable employees. Satisfaction with pay had both
direct and indirect effects on turnover intent. They found that although pay satisfaction
(unlike job satisfaction) was significantly associated with reducing intended turnover, its
indirect effect upon turnover intent, mediated through job satisfaction and organizational
commitment was weaker. In particular, nurses with greater experience were more
satisfied with their pay and were less likely to leave, which was the anticipated effect of
the salary supplements. The anecdotal evidence showed that the senior nurses perceived
the pay supplements to be an important recognition of their contribution to the
organization.
Department store
In a study of retail salespeople (Firth et al, 2003) found that job stressors (e.g. work
overload, job ambiguity) are the factors that trigger the chain of psychological states that
lead to intention to quit. They suggested that supervisor support can reduce the impact of
stressors on psychological states and intentions to quit. Monitoring workloads and
supervisor-subordinate relationships by management may not only reduce stress but
increase job satisfaction and commitment to the organization.
CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
5) To bring out proper framework between employees and organization to improve the
company’s image.
4.2 METHODOLOGY
4.2.1 COVERAGE
The data are collected via survey. In these surveys, the respondents respond to a
series of question based around a number of key
The process of data collection and the sampling technique used in the study are given.
The data obtained from the respondents need to be analyzed to understand the underlying
structure of inter-relationships among variables. The software used is SPSS.
4.2.4 SPSS
SPSS is short for Statistical Product and Service Solutions. In the current study the
statistical tools used are:
Frequency analysis
Cross tabulation
Chi square
Correlation
One way annova
Reliability analysis.
CHAPTER 5
RESEARCH DESIGN
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2.1POPULATION
The population for this study is the employees of SUSEE GROUP, [MADURAI-kappalur
& kalavasal]
The population and sample size for this study is 300 employees of Susee group of
companies.
Data were collected through both primary and secondary data sources. Primary data was
collected through questionnaires. The research was done in the form of direct personal
interviews.
A primary data is a data, which is collected afresh and for the first time, and thus
happen to be original in character. The primary data with the help of questionnaire were
collected from various clients.
Secondary data consist of information that already exists somewhere, have been
collected. Secondary data is collected from company websites, other websites, company
fact sheets, magazines and brochures.
Proper care has been taken to ensure that the information needed match the
objectives, which in turn match the data collected through the questionnaire. The basic
cardinal rules of Questionnaire design like using simple and clear words, the logical and
sequential arrangement of questions has been taken care of.
5.4 STATISTICAL TOOLS
Percentages are calculated and in certain cases percentages along with cross tabulation
has been calculated.
Cross tabulation:
The Cross tabs procedure forms two-way and multi way tables and provides a variety of
tests and measures of association for two-way tables. The structure of the table and
categories are ordered determine what test or measure to use.
Correlation Analysis
Reliability Test
Scale reliability is the ratio of true score variance to observed score variance. If
there is less error inherent within the scale, then the scale will yield consistent results
across observations and research settings. In other words, reliability of an instrument is
the degree to which it yields a true score of the variable under consideration. Reliability is
also defined as the extent to which any measuring instruments yields the same results on
repeated trials (Carmines and Zeller, 1990).
ANOVA
chi-square
The chi-square distribution is used in the common chi-square tests for goodness of
fit of an observed distribution to a theoretical one, the independence of two criteria of
classification of qualitative data, and in confidence interval estimation for a population
standard deviation of a normal distribution from a sample standard deviation. Many other
statistical tests also use this distribution, like Friedman's analysis of variance by ranks.
• The sample study at the study is estimated as 300 not the entire employees of the
organization.
• This study is only applicable for Susee group of companies at Madurai locality.
CHAPTER 6
Analysis and interpretation plays the most important role in research process. It
helps to extract findings from the collected data by applying the statistical techniques in
discovering the additional findings. It converts raw data into meaningful data by bridging
the gap between primary and secondary data. Analysis is done with an attempt to
organize and summarize data in order to enhance the effect of results in such a way that
enables to relate critical points with study’s objectives. The analysis and interpretation is
based on the option chosen by the employees.
Table 1
INTERPRETATION
From table-1 It is clear that 27.7% of the respondents are from service department
followed by 22.3% of the respondents are from sales department and 15.3% of the
respondents are from IT department.
Chart 1
Table 2
Age of the respondent
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 20 - 30 226 75.3 75.3 75.3
31 - 40 46 15.3 15.3 90.7
41 – 50 22 7.3 7.3 98.0
51 & above 6 2.0 2.0 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
INTERPRETATION
From table-2 we can conclude that 75.3% of the respondents are in the age group of 20-
30 followed by 15.3% of the respondents belongs to the age group 31-40 and 7.3% of the
respondents belongs to the age group 41-50
Chart 2
Table 3
Gender of the respondent
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Male 165 55.0 55.0 55.0
Female 135 45.0 45.0 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
INTERPRETATION
From table-3 It is clear that 55% of the respondents are male and the remaining 45% of
the respondents are female.
Chart 3
Table 4
Years of work in Susee
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 - 1 yr 152 50.7 50.7 50.7
2 - 3 yr 91 30.3 30.3 81.0
4 - 5 yr 36 12.0 12.0 93.0
6 yrs & above 21 7.0 7.0 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
INTERPRETATION
From table-4 we can conclude that 50.7% of the respondents are at work from 0-1 years
followed by 30.3% of the respondents are at work in susee from 2-3 years and 12% of the
respondents are at susee from 4-5 years.
Chart 4
Table 5
Worked anywhere before joining Susee
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Yes 138 46.0 46.0 46.0
No 162 54.0 54.0 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
INTERPRETATION
From table-5 we confirm that about 46% of the respondents worked in some other
organization before joining Susee followed by 54% of the respondents did not worked
anywhere before joining Susee.
Chart 5
Table 6
Number of years worked for the company
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 - 1 yr 54 18.0 40.0 40.0
2 - 3 yr 60 20.0 44.4 84.4
4 - 5 yr 8 2.7 5.9 90.4
6 yrs & above 13 4.3 9.6 100.0
Total 135 45.0 100.0
Missing System 165 55.0
Total 300 100.0
INTERPRETATION
From table –6 we came to know that 44.4% of the respondents worked for 2-3 years in
the previous company followed by 40% of the respondents worked from 0-1year.
Chart 6
Table 7
Sort of job doing in Susee
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Target oriented 88 29.3 29.3 29.3
Service oriented 72 24.0 24.0 53.3
Administration oriented 46 15.3 15.3 68.7
System oriented 64 21.3 21.3 90.0
Maintenance oriented 22 7.3 7.3 97.3
Others 8 2.7 2.7 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
INTERPRETATION
From table–7 we can determine that about 29.3% of the respondents job are target
oriented followed by 24% of them are service oriented and 21.3% of the respondent’s job
are system oriented.
Chart 7
Table 8
Perception about the job
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Interesting 134 44.7 44.7 44.7
Challenging 87 29.0 29.0 73.7
Confusing 22 7.3 7.3 81.0
Boring 31 10.3 10.3 91.3
Stressful 26 8.7 8.7 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
INTERPRETATION
From table-8 we came to know that about 44.7% respondents rated their job as interesting
followed by 29% of the respondents rated their job as challenging and 10.3% rated their
job as boring.
Chart 8
Table 9
Satisfaction about the pay scale
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly disagree 15 5.0 5.0 5.0
Disagree 97 32.3 32.3 37.3
Neutral 110 36.7 36.7 74.0
Agree 54 18.0 18.0 92.0
Strongly agree 24 8.0 8.0 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
INTERPRETATION
From table-9 we can determine that about 36.7% respondents are neutral regarding the
satisfaction about their pay scale followed by 32.3% respondents are not satisfied with
their pay scale and 18% of them are satisfied with their pay scale.
Chart 9
Table 10
Rate of job security in Susee
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly disagree 2 .7 .7 .7
Disagree 12 4.0 4.0 4.7
Neutral 105 35.0 35.0 39.7
Agree 132 44.0 44.0 83.7
Strongly agree 49 16.3 16.3 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
INTERPRETATION
From table-10 we can determine that about 44% respondents are agreeing their job as a
secure one followed by 35% of the respondents said their job security as neutral.
Chart 10
Table 11
Career growth opportunities in Susee
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly disagree 4 1.3 1.3 1.3
Disagree 42 14.0 14.0 15.3
Neutral 71 23.7 23.7 39.0
Agree 146 48.7 48.7 87.7
Strongly agree 37 12.3 12.3 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
INTERPRETATION
From table –11 we can confirm that 48.7% of the respondents agree that they have career
growth opportunities followed by 23.7% said neutral about the career growth
opportunities and 14% disagree that they does not have career growth opportunities.
Chart 11
Table 12
I feel I am a valued part of this organization
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly disagree 2 .7 .7 .7
Disagree 13 4.3 4.3 5.0
Neutral 79 26.3 26.3 31.3
Agree 153 51.0 51.0 82.3
Strongly agree 53 17.7 17.7 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
INTERPRETATION
From table -12 we can confirm that 51% the respondents agree that they feel valued part
of this organization followed by 26.3% feel neutral and 17.7% of the respondents
strongly agree that they feel valued part of this organization.
Chart 12
Table 13
Communication, cooperation among staff members
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly disagree 7 2.3 2.3 2.3
Disagree 21 7.0 7.0 9.3
Neutral 87 29.0 29.0 38.3
Agree 114 38.0 38.0 76.3
Strongly agree 71 23.7 23.7 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
INTERPRETATION
From table -13 we came to know that 38% of the respondents agree that communication,
cooperation among staff is good followed by 29% of the respondents said neutral about
the communication, cooperation among staff members and 23.7% strongly agree.
Chart 13
Table 14
Susee's office has a friendly atmosphere
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly disagree 5 1.7 1.7 1.7
Disagree 16 5.3 5.3 7.0
Neutral 54 18.0 18.0 25.0
Agree 145 48.3 48.3 73.3
Strongly agree 80 26.7 26.7 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
INTERPRETATION
From table -14 It is inferred that 48.3% the respondents agree that there is a friendly
atmosphere at Susee followed by 26.7% of the respondents strongly agree there is a
friendly relationship exist in the organization.
Chart 14
Table 15
Susee's policies are supportive to its staff
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly disagree 2 .7 .7 .7
Disagree 34 11.3 11.3 12.0
Neutral 116 38.7 38.7 50.7
Agree 117 39.0 39.0 89.7
Strongly agree 31 10.3 10.3 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
INTERPRETATION
From table -15 we can confirm that 39% of the respondents agree that Susee policies are
supportive to the staff followed by 38.7% said neutral and 11.3% of the respondents
disagree that Susee policies are not supportive to the staff.
Chart 15
Table 16
My workload and deadlines are reasonable
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly disagree 4 1.3 1.3 1.3
Disagree 18 6.0 6.0 7.3
Neutral 109 36.3 36.3 43.7
Agree 140 46.7 46.7 90.3
Strongly agree 29 9.7 9.7 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
INTERPRETATION
From table -16 we can determine that 46.7% the respondents agree that my workload and
deadlines are reasonable followed by 36.3% of the respondents said neutral and 9.7% of
the respondents strongly agree that their workload and deadlines are reasonable..
Chart 16
Table 17
Employee welfare activities are carried out effectively in Susee
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly disagree 4 1.3 1.3 1.3
Disagree 27 9.0 9.0 10.3
Neutral 83 27.7 27.7 38.0
Agree 151 50.3 50.3 88.3
Strongly agree 35 11.7 11.7 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
INTERPRETATION
From table -17 it is inferred that 50.3% of the respondents agree that employee welfare
activities are carried out effectively followed by 27.7% of the respondents rated their
views as neutral and 11.7% of the respondents strongly agree that employee welfare
activities are carried out effectively
Chart 17
Table 18
I have an idea of seeking job
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly disagree 48 16.0 16.0 16.0
Disagree 36 12.0 12.0 28.0
Neutral 108 36.0 36.0 64.0
Agree 78 26.0 26.0 90.0
Strongly agree 30 10.0 10.0 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
INTERPRETATION
From table -18 we can confirm that 36% of the respondents rated neutral for having an
idea for seeking job followed by 26% of the respondents agree they have an idea of
seeking job and 16% of the respondents strongly disagree for having an idea for seeking
job.
Chart 18
Table 19
I like my job
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly disagree 11 3.7 3.7 3.7
Disagree 13 4.3 4.3 8.0
Neutral 76 25.3 25.3 33.3
Agree 129 43.0 43.0 76.3
Strongly agree 71 23.7 23.7 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
INTERPRETATION
From table -19 we can inferred that 43% of the respondents agree that they like their job
followed by 25.3% of the respondents rated neutral and 23.7% of the respondents
strongly agree that they like their job
Chart 19
Table 20
Overall satisfaction with our company
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly disagree 4 1.3 1.3 1.3
Disagree 9 3.0 3.0 4.3
Neutral 79 26.3 26.3 30.7
Agree 166 55.3 55.3 86.0
Strongly agree 42 14.0 14.0 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
INTERPRETATION
From table -20 we can determine that 55.3% of the respondents agree that they are
satisfied with Susee followed by 26.3% rated as neutral and 14% of the respondents
strongly agree that they are satisfied overall with Susee.
Chart 20
Table 21
Will you recommend working for this company to your family friends
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Yes 182 60.7 60.7 60.7
No 118 39.3 39.3 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
INTERPRETATION
From table -21 we can confirm that 60.7% of the respondents will recommend working
for Susee to their family members, friends and the remaining 39.3% of the respondents
will not recommend Susee to anyone.
Chart 21
Table 22
Will you return back to Susee once you dispel
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Yes 108 36.0 36.0 36.0
No 192 64.0 64.0 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
INTERPRETATION
From table -22 we can confirm that 64% of the respondents will not return back to Susee
even if they dispel and the remaining 36% of the respondents will return back to Susee
even they dispel
Chart 22
CROSSTABULATION/CHISQUARE
Table
YEARS OF WORK AT SUSEE AND OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE
RESPONDENTS
Ho: There is no significant difference between the years of work at Susee and
department of the respondents.
H1: There is a significant difference between the years of work at Susee and department
of the respondents.
INTERPRETATION:
From the above table it is inferred that the calculated p value .001 is not greater than 0.5.
Hence there is no significant difference between the years of work at Susee and
department of the respondents.
Table
H1: There is a significant difference between the years of work at Susee and perception
about the job.
INTERPRETATION:
From the above table it is inferred that the calculated p value .000 is not greater than 0.5.
Hence there is no significant difference between the years of work at Susee and
perception about the job.
Table
YEARS OF WORK AT SUSEE AND THE SATISFACTION ABOUT THE PAY
SCALE
Ho: There is no significant difference between the years of work at Susee and
H1: There is a significant difference between the years of work at Susee and
Years of work in Susee * Satisfaction about the pay scale Cross tabulation
Count
Satisfaction about the pay scale
Strongly Strongly
disagree Disagree Neutral Agree agree Total
Years of work in 0 - 1 yr 5 37 57 38 15 152
Susee 2 - 3 yr 2 40 35 10 4 91
4 - 5 yr 2 16 14 4 0 36
6 yrs &6 4 4 2 5 21
above
Total 15 97 110 54 24 300
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2-
Value Df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 57.187a 12 .000
Likelihood Ratio 46.788 12 .000
Linear-by-Linear 10.117 1 .001
Association
N of Valid Cases 300
a. 6 cells (30.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 1.05.
INTERPRETATION:
From the above table it is inferred that the calculated p value .000 is not greater than 0.5.
Hence there is no significant difference between the years of work at Susee and
satisfaction about the pay scale.
Table
Ho: There is no significant difference between the years of work at Susee and the career
growth opportunities at Susee.
H1: There is a significant difference between the years of work at Susee and the career
growth opportunities at Susee.
INTERPRETATION:
From the above table it is inferred that the calculated p value .000 is not greater than 0.5.
Hence there is no significant difference between the years of work at Susee and career
growth opportunities at Susee.
Table
Ho: There is no significant difference between the years of work at Susee and
communication, cooperation among staff members.
H1: There is a significant difference between the years of work at Susee and
communication, cooperation among staff members.
INTERPRETATION:
From the above table it is inferred that the calculated p value .000 is not greater than 0.5.
Hence there is no significant difference between the years of work at Susee and
communication, cooperation among staff members in Susee.
Table
YEARS OF WORK AT SUSEE AND MY WORKLOAD AND DEADLINES IN
SUSEE
Ho: There is no significant difference between the years of work at Susee and my
workload and deadlines in Susee.
H1: There is a significant difference between the years of work at Susee and my
workload and deadlines in Susee.
Years of work in Susee * My workload and deadlines are reasonable Cross tabulation
Count
My workload and deadlines are reasonable
Strongly Strongly
disagree Disagree Neutral Agree agree Total
Years of work in 0 - 1 yr 2 10 59 68 13 152
Susee 2 - 3 yr 2 4 44 37 4 91
4 - 5 yr 0 2 4 20 10 36
6 yrs &0 2 2 15 2 21
above
Total 4 18 109 140 29 300
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 35.746a 12 .000
Likelihood Ratio 36.318 12 .000
Linear-by-Linear 7.297 1 .007
Association
N of Valid Cases 300
a. 8 cells (40.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .28.
INTERPRETATION:
From the above table it is inferred that the calculated p value .000 is not greater than 0.5.
Hence there is no significant difference between the years of work at Susee and my
workload and deadlines in Susee.
Table
YEARS OF WORK AT SUSEE AND THE EMPLOYEE WELFARE ACTIVITIES IN
SUSEE
Ho: There is no significant difference between the years of work at Susee and employee
welfare activities in Susee.
H1: There is a significant difference between the years of work at Susee and employee
welfare activities in Susee.
Years of work in Susee * Employee welfare activities are carried out effectively in Susee
Cross tabulation
Count
Employee welfare activities are carried out effectively
in Susee
Strongly Strongly
disagree Disagree Neutral Agree agree Total
Years of work in 0 - 1 yr 4 17 40 75 16 152
Susee 2 - 3 yr 0 6 35 43 7 91
4 - 5 yr 0 4 6 18 8 36
6 yrs &0 0 2 15 4 21
above
Total 4 27 83 151 35 300
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 23.239a 12 .026
Likelihood Ratio 26.442 12 .009
Linear-by-Linear 8.570 1 .003
Association
N of Valid Cases 300
a. 8 cells (40.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .28.
INTERPRETATION:
From the above table it is inferred that the calculated p value .026 is not greater than 0.5.
Hence there is no significant difference between the years of work at Susee and employee
welfare activities in Susee.
Table
YEARS OF WORK AT SUSEE AND I LIKE MY JOB
Ho: There is no significant difference between the years of work at Susee and I like my
job
H1: There is a significant difference between the years of work at Susee and I like my
job
INTERPRETATION:
From the above table it is inferred that the calculated p value .000 is not greater than 0.5.
Hence there is no significant difference between the years of work at Susee and I like my
job.
Table
YEARS OF WORK AT SUSEE AND I HAVE AN IDEA OF SEEKING
EMPLOYMENT ANYWHERE
Ho: There is no significant difference between the years of work at Susee and I have an
idea of seeking employment.
H1: There is a significant difference between the years of work at Susee and I have an
idea of seeking employment.
INTERPRETATION:
From the above table it is inferred that the calculated p value .053 is not greater than 0.5.
Hence there is a significant difference between the years of work at Susee and I have an
idea of seeking employment.
Table
Ho: There is no significant difference between the years of work at Susee and overall
satisfaction in Susee.
H1: There is a significant difference between the years of work at Susee and overall
satisfaction in Susee.
Years of work in Susee * Overall satisfaction with our company Cross tabulation
Count
Overall satisfaction with our company
Strongly Strongly
disagree Disagree Neutral Agree agree Total
Years of work in 0 – 1 yr 2 9 48 61 32 152
Susee 2 - 3 yr 0 0 29 60 2 91
4 - 5 yr 2 0 0 30 4 36
6 yrs &0 0 2 15 4 21
above
Total 4 9 79 166 42 300
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2-
Value Df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 58.782a 12 .000
Likelihood Ratio 75.721 12 .000
Linear-by-Linear 4.295 1 .038
Association
N of Valid Cases 300
a. 9 cells (45.0%) have expected count less
than 5. The minimum
b. Expected count is .28.
INTERPRETATION:
From the above table it is inferred that the calculated p value .000 is not greater than 0.5.
Hence there is no significant difference between the years of work at Susee and overall
satisfaction in Susee.
CORRELATION
Table
AGE OF THE RESPONDENTS AND THE SATISFACTION ABOUT THE PAY
SCALE
Aim:
To identify whether there is any correlation between Age of the respondents and the
satisfaction about the pay scale.
Correlations
Age of the Satisfaction about
respondant the pay scale
Age of the respondent Pearson Correlation 1 -.098
Sig. (2-tailed) .089
N 300 300
Satisfaction about the pay scale Pearson Correlation -.098 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .089
N 300 300
INTERPRETATION
It is clear from the above table that correlation value is -.098 this means that there is a
negative correlation between Age of the respondents and the satisfaction about the pay
scale.
Table
To identify whether there is any correlation between Age of the respondents and the
career growth opportunities in Susee.
Correlations
Career growth
Age of the opportunities in
respondant Susee
Age of the respondent Pearson Correlation 1 .127*
Sig. (2-tailed) .028
N 300 300
Career growth opportunities in Pearson Correlation .127* 1
Susee Sig. (2-tailed) .028
N 300 300
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
INTERPRETATION
It is clear from the above table that correlation value is .127 this means that there is a
positive correlation between Age of the respondents and the career growth opportunities
in Susee
Table
To identify whether there is any correlation between Age of the respondents and I like
my job.
Correlations
Age of the
respondant I like my job
Age of the respondant Pearson Correlation 1 -.199**
Sig. (2-tailed) .001
N 300 300
I like my job Pearson Correlation -.199** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .001
N 300 300
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
INTERPRETATION
It is clear from the above table that correlation value is -.199 this means that there is a
negative correlation between Age of the respondents and I like my job.
Table
To identify whether there is any correlation between Age of the respondents and the
overall satisfaction with our company.
Correlations
Overall
Age of the satisfaction with
respondant our company
Age of the respondent Pearson Correlation 1 .074
Sig. (2-tailed) .199
N 300 300
Overall satisfaction with our Pearson Correlation .074 1
company Sig. (2-tailed) .199
N 300 300
INTERPRETATION
It is clear from the above table that correlation value is .074.this means that there is a
positive correlation between Age of the respondents and the overall satisfaction with our
company.
ANOVA
ANOVA
Satisfaction about the pay scale
Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 10.865 3 3.622 3.646 .013
Within Groups 294.051 296 .993
Total 304.917 299
INTERPRETATION
From the above table the value of P is 0.013 which is less than the significant value
0.05(0.013<0.05).so there is a significant difference between the satisfaction level about
the pay scale and the Age of the respondents.
INTERPRETATION
Scheffe multiple comparisons test shows that there is a significant difference between a
pair of means: “20 YEARS TO 30 YEARS” and “31YEARS TO 40 YEARS ”, p = 0.014
(≤0.05)
RELIABILITY ANALYSIS
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.720 14
INTERPRETATION
The obtained alpha score is 0.720, which indicates that the scale
Under the “Cronbach’s Alpha if Item deleted” the reliability of 0.795 is the highest/ the
reliability of 0.384 is the lowest from the table.
CHAPTER 6
27.7% of the respondents are from service department followed by 22.3% of the
respondents are from sales department and 15.3% of the respondents are from IT
department.
75.3% of the respondents are in the age group of 20-30 followed by 15.3% of the
respondents belongs to the age group 31-40 and 7.3% of the respondents belongs
to the age group 41-50
55% of the respondents are male and the remaining 45% of the respondents are
female.
50.7% of the respondents are at work from 0-1 years followed by 30.3% of the
respondents are at work in susee from 2-3 years and 12% of the respondents are at
susee from 4-5 years
46% of the respondents worked in some other organization before joining Susee
followed by 54% of the respondents did not worked anywhere before joining
Susee.
44.4% of the respondents worked for 2-3 years in the previous company followed
by 40% of the respondents worked from 0-1year.
29.3% of the respondent’s job is target oriented followed by 24% of them are
service oriented and 21.3% of the respondent’s job are system oriented.
36.7% respondents are neutral regarding the satisfaction about their pay scale
followed by 32.3% respondents are not satisfied with their pay scale and 18% of
them are satisfied with their pay scale.
44% respondents are agreeing their job as a secure one followed by 35% of the
respondents said their job security as neutral.
48.7% of the respondents agree that they have career growth opportunities
followed by 23.7% said neutral about the career growth opportunities and 14%
disagree that they does not have career growth opportunities.
51% the respondents agree that they feel valued part of this organization followed
by 26.3% feel neutral and 17.7% of the respondents strongly agree that they feel
valued part of this organization.
48.3% the respondents agree that there is a friendly atmosphere at Susee followed
by 26.7% of the respondents strongly agrees there is a friendly relationship exists
in the organization.
39% of the respondents agree that Susee policies are supportive to the staff
followed by 38.7% said neutral and 11.3% of the respondents disagree that Susee
policies are not supportive to the staff.
46.7% the respondents agree that my workload and deadlines are reasonable
followed by 36.3% of the respondents said neutral and 9.7% of the respondents
strongly agree that their workload and deadlines are reasonable..
50.3% of the respondents agree that employee welfare activities are carried out
effectively followed by 27.7% of the respondents rated their views as neutral and
11.7% of the respondents strongly agree that employee welfare activities are
carried out effectively.
36% of the respondents rated neutral for having an idea for seeking job followed
by 26% of the respondents agree they have an idea of seeking job and 16% of the
respondents strongly disagree for having an idea for seeking job.
43% of the respondents agree that they like their job followed by 25.3% of the
respondents rated neutral and 23.7% of the respondents strongly agree that they
like their job
55.3% of the respondents agree that they are satisfied with Susee followed by
26.3% rated as neutral and 14% of the respondents strongly agree that they are
satisfied overall with Susee.
60.7% of the respondents will recommend working for Susee to their family
members, friends and the remaining 39.3% of the respondents will not
recommend Susee to anyone.
64% of the respondents will not return back to Susee even if they dispel and the
remaining 36% of the respondents will return back to Susee even they dispel
There is no significant difference between the years of work at Susee and career
growth opportunities at Susee.
There is no significant difference between the years of work at Susee and I like
my job.
There is a significant difference between the years of work at Susee and I have an
idea of seeking employment.
There is no significant difference between the years of work at Susee and overall
satisfaction in Susee.
There is a positive correlation between Age of the respondents and the career
growth opportunities in Susee
There is a negative correlation between Age of the respondents and I like my job.
There is a positive correlation between Age of the respondents and the overall
satisfaction with our company.
SUGGESTIONS