Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
AT
GD EXPRESS SDN BHD,
PETALING JAYA, SELANGOR
BY
SITI SARAH BT JANURI
(2003330728)
REPORT
SUBMITTED
TO
FACULTY OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
AND QUANTITATIVE SCIENCES
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA
SHAH ALAM
AS PART OF REQUIREMENT
19
FOR
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE (HONS) (STATISTICS)
Supervisors Approval :
20
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Praise to Allah, the Most Gracious and the Most Merciful Lord for His Blessing.
I wish to express my gratitude to my supervisors Puan Mazni bt. Mohamad
and Puan Ida Rosmini bt. Othman, for their guidance, enduring patience and
encouragement during the completion of this report. I also wish to thank the
coordinator of industrial training, Encik Mohd Zain b. Hamzah.
I would like to extend my appreciation to the Board of Director of GD
Express Sdn Bhd, Mr. Leong Teck Lean for giving me the opportunity to do
industrial training at GD Express Sdn Bhd.
Many thanks to the Head of Domestic Public Relation Department of GD
Express Sdn Bhd, Puan Zaihanizah bt Borhan and Head of Human Resource, Miss
Mala a/p Kupusamy as my organizations supervisor for their guidance and help. My
gratitude is also for all staff of GD Express Sdn Bhd, who has helped and supported
me during this training. Also, to GDex organizations supported this study. All are
thanked for their ongoing support throughout the many vicissitudes of this complex
and challenging process. The time and effort staff took in completing the
questionnaire made this study possible.
Last, a heartfelt thank you to my parents and friends for their constant
patience, guidance and support.
21
ABSTRACT
22
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTENT
PAGE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
ABSTRACT
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iii
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
vi
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
2.2
2.3
Problem Statement
10
2.4
10
2.5
11
2.6
Literature Review
11
16
3.2
16
3.3
17
Descriptive Analysis
19
4.2
Test of Normality
21
23
4.3
24
4.4
Comparisons Mean
25
4.5
Regression Analysis
26
Conclusions
34
5.2
Recommendations
35
REFERENCES
APPENDIX
24
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
PAGE
23
4.2.1
Test of Normality
4.3.1
4.4.1
Analysis of Variance
4.5.1.1
4.5.2.1
4.5.3.1
4.5.3.1.1
Correlation Analysis
Test of Multicollinearity
Data
Test significant for Each Predictor Variable
24
26
27
28
29
30
LIST OF FIGURES
25
FIGURE
PAGE
4.1.1
Percentage of Gender
19
4.1.2
20
4.1.3
4.2.1
4.4.1
4.5.3.3.1
4.5.3.3.2
21
22
25
33
33
26
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1
1.2
To practice the theory that has been studied at the university by solving the
research problem and analyzing the real data.
(2)
(3)
27
GD Express Sdn Bhd (GDex) was formed in 1997 to provide express delivery
service for both the domestic and international markets. It operates a network of 73
stations, comprising 36 branches, 6 affiliate stations and 31 agents throughout East
and West Malaysia. GDex has a fleet of more than 170 trucks and vans used
primarily for hauling of documents and parcels between stations and the National
Hub (termed "line-haul" fleet) for local pick-ups and deliveries. The company's
express delivery service operations are structured along the principles of the "Hub
and Spoke" concept whereby customers' packages are collected by the branches, sent
by trucks to a Central Clearing Hub for sorting and then redirected to their ultimate
destinations.
GDex is the first local express delivery company to obtain ISO 9001: 2000
(Quality Management System) certifications for all its entire 18 departments in 2003.
In its quest to be a world class service provider, the company has embarked on a
world class excellence training programme called the Prime Minister Quality Award
programme (PMQA) to equip its employees for world class performance in express
carrier service and operations.
GDex is listed on the Mesdaq market of Bursa Malaysia through its holding
company GD Express Carrier Bhd in May 2005. Internationally, GDEx had strategic
alliances with international courier companies such as FedEx, DHL Worldwide
Express, TNT Express and United Parcel Service. Beside that, GD Express is also
strategic partner of FedEx in Malaysia. In other word, GDEx will cover all the area
that cannot be covered by their partners.
GDEx courier services include;
1.
28
a. Express Service
b. Diplomatic Service Bulk Service
2.
Express Service
b.
Freight Services
3.
Security Handling
b.
Mailroom Handling
c.
Project Handling
4.
Customer Service
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Online tracking
29
1.4
Over 65 stations
30
31
GDex has the mission to deliver the most trusted and professional express
carrier service Malaysia.
The vision of the company is to be a market leader and industry role model
providing high quality, value for money, technology driven express delivery service.
CHAPTER TWO
32
BACKGROUND
2.1
2.2
Since Elton Mayo studied the work habits of the employees at the Hawthorne
Western Electric Plant in the 1920's (Pugh, 1990) and discovered that the perceptions
the employees had about how they were treated by management had some effect on
their work habits and production, there has been considerable research on job
satisfaction. By 1985, over 4700 articles had been written on some aspect of job
satisfaction (Spector, 1985). Schultz (1982) defined job satisfaction as the
psychological disposition of people toward their work - and this involves a collection
of numerous attitudes or feelings (p.287). Thus, job satisfaction or dissatisfaction
depends on a large number of factors ranging from where employees have to eat their
lunch to the sense of self fulfillment they may receive from doing their jobs.
Herzberg (1973) found that job attitudes are a powerful force and are functionally
related to the productivity, stability, and adjustment of the industrial working force
(p. 96). Also, the positive effects of high attitudes are more potent than the negative
effects of low attitudes (Herzberg, 1973, p. 96). Thus, a explanation of the factors
that produce a positive attitude about work is important to the improvement of job
performance.
33
34
(John Wiley & Sons, Inc.). "The reverse is also true - an unsupportive atmosphere
can lead to reduce performance levels and higher turnover for businesses."
This investigation is used to measure the satisfaction level of GDex workers.
From this study, we could see the performance of workers and the factors that
contributing of workers satisfaction
2.3
PROBLEM STATEMENT
This study is taken to look at the factors that contribute to workers loyalty
and satisfaction to the organization. The data used for this study was obtained from
questionnaire distributed among workers. This study involved the executives and
officers at GD Express Sdn Bhd at Petaling Jaya headquarter only.
2.4
2.
3.
4.
35
2.5
This study enables us to find out whether there are any relationship between
level of satisfaction and their performance. Besides that, it will enable us to find out
whether there is any association between level of satisfaction and demographic
factors. It is hoped that this study will be able to provide information on factors that
influence the satisfaction of workers in order to improve the facilities and better
management so that the performance of workers will increase. This will enhance the
good image of the company and enables the company to widen its business to the
higher level and more established.
2.6
LITERATURE REVIEW
36
the fish-trimming task. The positive correlation coefficient (0.87) for this condition
was found to be highly significant. This has an important implication for setting a
strategy for achieving higher worker satisfaction and productivity in such an
industry. Production standards with feedback generally improved worker satisfaction
and productivity. Monetary incentive further improved worker performance but
added no incremental satisfaction gain. The incorporation of production standards,
performance feedback and monetary incentive affected worker satisfaction and
productivity differently and this had an effect on the worker satisfaction-productivity
relationship. In an earlier laboratory study, no significant worker satisfactionproductivity relationship was found when subjects (college students) were provided
with similar experimental conditions.
The other study by Ibrahim Ali and Juhary Haji Ali on The Effects Of The
Interaction Of Technology, Structure, And Organizational Climate On Job
Satisfaction in Sunway Academic Journal 2, 2332 (2005). This study examines the
effects of the interaction of technology, structure, and organizational climate on job
satisfaction in power-generation plants. Correlation tests and series of hierarchical
regression analyses were performed. The study reveals several significant
correlations among these three organizational variables and with employee job
satisfaction.
Worker Satisfaction at Academic Institution is a study by Rita Johan (2002)
at Atma Jaya Ctaholic University, Jakarta, Indonesia. The objective of this study is to
know the level of satisfaction on teachers in Indonesia. The study found that job
satisfaction is an important factor for get the optimum job. Besides that, factors
37
influence the job satisfaction divided by two which is intrinsic factor and extrinsic
factor.
The Relationship between Perceived Leadership Behaviours and Job
Satisfaction of Undergraduate Trained Teachers under the Twining Program between
MPIK and UPSI is a research by Dr. Jaganathan A/L Marimuthu, Ishak bin Osman
and Noorul Aini bt. Abdul Rahman (2001). The objective of the study is to know the
relationship of teacher expectation about leadership behavior and job satisfaction.
The sample is 60 teachers doing a course Program Khas Pensiswazahan Guru
Maktab Perguruan Ilmu Khas Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris. The study found
that have positive relationship between job satisfaction and expectation of leadership
behaviours. Besides that, teachers satisfied with headmaster that have realize success,
power and responsibilities, creativity, social, better position opportunity, benefits,
working conditions and overall job satisfaction.
Sarimah (2000) on the study job satisfaction at Maktab Pengurusan
Temenggong Ibrahim (MPTI), Johor Baharu. The purpose of this study is to look
overall level of satisfaction among lecturers. 48 lecturers is a sample in this study.
The result is only 1 respondent not satisfied, 26 neutral and 21 respondent satisfied
with their job. Also, the study found that there is weak relationship between job
satisfaction with gender and years of service.
The study by Georgia Profesional Standards Commision, Atlanta, Amerika
Syarikat (1985) to know perception about the headmaster function and leadership to
execute the school activities found more 30 percent not satisfied on communication
between teachers and headmaster. This study shows the teachers hoped the
headmaster give the good communication.
38
Muchinsky (1979) found that job satisfaction and organizational climate were
correlated.
Gorton and Kalaman (1985) found in their national survey of 400 elementary
school assistant principals that over 50% of the respondents did not view their
current jobs as career positions and hoped within five years to become principals.
Twenty-nine percent wanted to become central office administrators. These studies
suggest that opportunity for advancement is important to assistant principals. Thus, it
is reasonable to assume that how an assistant principal views the opportunity for
advancement affects that persons job satisfaction. Therefore, a positive, linear
relationship between opportunity for advancement and job satisfaction was expected.
Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman (1959) stated that the relationship
between workers and supervisors is overrated as a variable affecting job satisfaction.
Morris Altman (University of Saskatchewan) on Job Satisfaction and
performance: Is a Happy Worker a Productive Worker? For decades, researchers have
been concerned with the job satisfaction-job performance relationship (the implicit
assumption guiding this research has been that a happy worker is a productive
worker). Even William Shakespeare wrote: "To business that we love we eagerly
arise, and go to with delight." Performance related outcomes of job satisfaction have
been studied over the years:
39
2.
40
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
3.1
The survey was done at GD Express Sdn Bhd which involved only HQ (PJ).
They were grouped into two categories which were E1- E2 as the executives and A1A3 as the officers. The S1- S2 was the management officers and was not included in
the survey because both categories were provided by the management.
3.2
Source of Data
Questionnaire was used to collect information on this study. The
questionnaire consists of four sections which were Demographic Respondent, Level
of Satisfaction, Management Method and Facilities.
Sample
The population of this study was the workers of GD Express Sdn Bhd at Jalan
Tandang, Petaling Jaya. About 190 respondents from executive level (E1- E3) and
officer level (A1- A3) have been chosen from this population by simple random
sampling.
41
adjusted n = n =
n___
1+ n
N
=
323
1.702
= 190
3.3
Test of normality
The purpose is to check whether a variable is normally distributed. This is
because all parametric tests require the variables analyzed to be normally
distributed.
2.
42
3.
Comparison Mean
Independent sample t- test is to compare the means of a variable between two
independent groups and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) is to compare the
means of three or more groups.
4.
Regression Analysis
- Correlation analysis
- To measure of the degree to which two variables are linearly
associated. The coefficient ranges from -1 to +1, where a value
close to zero is no correlation, a value <0.5 or >-0.5 is weak or
low correlation, between 0.5 and 0.7 is moderate correlation
and higher than 0.7 or lower than -0.7 is high or strong correlation.
- Test of Multicollinearity
- To check correlation among predictor variables.
- Regression model
- A multiple regression model is used to predict one dependent
variable (Y) from two or more independent variables (X 1, X2
Xp)
- Coefficient of Multiple Regression
- To know how many percentage of total variation in the dependent
variable is explained by the predictor variables.
- Diagnostic Test Residual
- To determine the appropriateness of the model.
43
CHAPTER FOUR
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
4.1
DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS
The chart above shows that 52% of the respondents are female while 48% are male.
44
The result shows that most workers at GD Express Sdn Bhd are Malays with 65.22%
of them are male and 48.98% are female.
45
The chart above shows that most executives at GD Express Sdn Bhd are Chinese
with 39.39% and most officers at GD Express is Malay with 62.42%. (Refer to
Appendix 1).
4.2
TEST OF NORMALITY
The first step in the analysis was to perform the test of normality. This was to
check whether the distribution of the data was normally distributed or not.
If the size of the data was more than 30, we used Kolmogorov-Smirnov to
test the normality, but if the size of the sample was less than or equal to 30, ShapiroWilk was used.
46
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
4.5
1
0
Observed Value
Observed Value
5.0
6
4.5
4.0
4
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
0
3.5
1
0
Observed Value
Observed Value
1
1
Observed Value
47
Kolmogorov- Smirnov Z
1.177
1.148
1.595
1.041
1.312
p-value
0.125
0.143
0.012
0.228
0.064
The charts and table shows that the distribution of all variables is
approximately normal except data for Department.
4.3
48
VARIABLE
P-VALUE
0.498
0.005
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.001
4.4
COMPARISON MEAN
49
p-value=0.027
p-value=0.000
3.62
3.60
3.52
Mea
n
3.50
3.40
3.30
3.35
3.30
3.20
3.10
Executive
Officer
Position Level
Male
Female
Gender
The chart shows that the mean satisfactions score for position level and
gender are more than three. Means the officers are more satisfied with GDex
compared to executive level and male are more satisfied than female. Since pvalue<0.05, we conclude that there is a significant difference in the mean satisfaction
between executives and officers and male received a significantly (p-value<0.001)
higher mean score than female.
50
Variable
Level of satisfaction*years of service
Level of satisfaction*monthly salary
Level of satisfaction*race
F- test
2.629
18.783
0.936
p- value
0.036
0.000
0.424
The table above shows there is evidence to conclude that the mean
satisfaction is different for five categories of years of service and for three categories
of monthly salary was at 5% level of significance. (P-value<0.05).
Then, Duncan test was to determine which pairs different. The results
indicate on the average, those with RM2001- RM3000 monthly salary had moderate
satisfaction while less than RM2000 monthly salary had highest satisfaction.
The table above also shows there is no evidence to conclude at the 5% level
of significance that the mean satisfaction score is different for the four categories of
race, (p-value>0.05).
4.5
REGRESSION ANALYSIS
The regression analysis was performed in order to investigate the factors that
contribute to the level of satisfaction of workers at GD Express Sdn Bhd. The
considerable factors are employer, department, facilities and needs.
A random
sample of 190 workers was selected in order to conduct the regression analysis.
The study consists of four quantitative predictor variables (employer,
department, facilities and needs). The tests that we used were correlation analysis,
test of multicollinearity and test concerning the regression coefficient.
VARIABLE
PEARSON
CORRELATION
P-VALUE
0.619
0.000
0.495
0.000
0.447
0.000
0.236
0.001
employer score
52
satisfaction score and mean need score has the lowest correlation which is 0.236
even though the correlation is still positive.
Variable
Employer
Department
Facilities
Needs
Variance Inflation
Factor (VIF)
1.869
1.656
2.148
1.083
Tolerance (TOL)
0.535
0.604
0.466
0.924
53
54
t-test
6.710
3.440
-0.743
1.479
p-value
0.000
0.001
0.458
0.141
p-value= 0.000<0.05.
EMPLOYER is a significant predictor variable.
A worker who has higher satisfied with their employer get higher satisfaction than
workers who not satisfied with their employer by 0.309 when department was held
constant.
Forty three percent of the total variation in the level of satisfaction has been
explained by employer, department, facilities and needs. But facilities and needs are
not significant predictor variables, hence, only 42.2% has been explained by
employer and department. Since, we do not include facilities and needs, the
percentage was reduced. Then, 57.8% of total variation in satisfaction is explained by
other factors. (R2= 0.422). (Refer to Appendix 10)
56
The diagnostic test for residual is to check the appropriateness of the model.
We have to plot the residuals, ei against predicted value, to know whether the error
term fulfill the assumptions. It is because the assumptions of error term must be
proven to be valid before regression analysis can be carried out. Assumptions of error
term are independent, identically normal distributed with mean 0 and constant
variance, 2.
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
-1.0
-.5
0.0
.5
1.0
1.5
Unstandardized Residual
57
From the figure, we can saw that the points in the scatter plot are randomly
scattered. Then, we can conclude that the distribution of the error (residuals) has a
constant variance.
1.0
.5
0.0
-.5
-1.0
-1.5
-1.5
-1.0
-.5
0.0
.5
1.0
1.5
Observed Value
Since the points lie straight on the line, we said that the distribution of error is
normal.
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the analysis and results from the previous chapter, we can conclude that:
(i)
58
(ii)
59
The pairwise correlation of the variables mean satisfaction and mean employer
has the highest positive correlation (r= 0.619). This means that the relationship
between these two variables is strong. While, the predictor variables are not
highly correlated among others.
We conclude that the model is appropriate since the distribution of error term is
normal and has a constant variance.
5.2
RECOMMENDATIONS
60
REFERENCES
61
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Descriptive Analysis
62
gender
Valid
Male
Female
Total
Frequency
92
98
190
Percent
48.4
51.6
100.0
Valid Percent
48.4
51.6
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
48.4
100.0
gender
Male
Female
Total
Count
% within gender
Count
% within gender
Count
% within gender
Malay
60
65.2%
48
49.0%
108
56.8%
Race:
Chinese
Indian
14
12
15.2%
13.0%
17
31
17.3%
31.6%
31
43
16.3%
22.6%
Others
6
6.5%
2
2.0%
8
4.2%
Total
92
100.0%
98
100.0%
190
100.0%
Position
at GDex
Total
Malay
10
30.3%
98
62.4%
108
56.8%
Race:
Chinese
Indian
13
7
39.4%
21.2%
18
36
11.5%
22.9%
31
43
16.3%
22.6%
Others
3
9.1%
5
3.2%
8
4.2%
Total
33
100.0%
157
100.0%
190
100.0%
63
M_SAT
190
3.4782
.51383
.085
.060
-.085
1.177
.125
Mean
Std. Deviation
Absolute
Positive
Negative
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
M_EMPLYR
190
3.2805
.82562
.083
.083
-.078
1.148
.143
M_DEPT
190
3.4295
.69524
.116
.093
-.116
1.595
.012
M_FACIL
190
3.1418
.80105
.076
.067
-.076
1.041
.228
M_NEED
190
3.5639
.86974
.095
.054
-.095
1.312
.064
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value
5.365a
6.502
6
6
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
.498
.369
.078
df
3.107
190
Chi-Square Tests
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value
10.413a
12.091
9.812
2
2
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
.005
.002
.002
df
190
64
Chi-Square Tests
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value
26.235a
26.857
2
2
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
.000
.000
.000
df
17.377
190
Chi-Square Tests
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value
27.172a
23.547
8
8
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
.001
.003
.206
df
1.602
190
Chi-Square Tests
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value
62.250a
31.033
4
4
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
.000
.000
.000
df
17.009
190
Chi-Square Tests
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value
23.988a
19.512
1.448
6
6
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
.001
.003
.229
df
190
65
M_SAT
gender
Male
Female
Mean
3.6172
3.3477
92
98
Std. Deviation
.47043
.52083
Std. Error
Mean
.04905
.05261
F
M_SAT Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Sig.
.023
.881
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Upper
3.736
188
.000
.2696
.07216
.12722
.41191
3.748
187.726
.000
.2696
.07193
.12768
.41146
Group Statistics
M_SAT
Position at GDex
E1- E3 (Executive)
A1- A3 (Officer)
Mean
3.2987
3.5159
33
157
Std. Deviation
.69125
.46217
Std. Error
Mean
.12033
.03689
F
M_SAT Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
6.354
Sig.
.013
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Upper
-2.231
188
.027
-.2172
.09738
-.40932
-.02513
-1.726
38.227
.092
-.2172
.12586
-.47196
.03751
66
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
df
4
185
189
Mean Square
.671
.255
F
2.629
Sig.
.036
F
18.783
Sig.
.000
M_SAT
Duncan
a,b
Years of services
3 years- 4 years
5 years and above
6 months and below
1 year- 2 years
7 months- 1 year
Sig.
N
34
5
33
78
40
Subset
for alpha
= .05
1
3.2626
3.2857
3.4286
3.5595
3.5679
.122
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
8.347
41.552
49.899
df
2
187
189
Mean Square
4.174
.222
67
M_SAT
Duncan
a,b
Monthly salary
RM2001- RM3000
Less than RM1000
RM1001- RM2000
Sig.
N
13
62
115
Level of satisfaction*race
ANOVA
M_SAT
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
.742
49.157
49.899
df
3
186
189
Mean Square
.247
.264
F
.936
Sig.
.424
mean
employer
mean
department
mean
facilities
mean needs
3.29
3.20
3.06
4.00
3.79
3.29
3.40
2.69
3.57
2.79
2.57
3.40
3.63
4.29
3.43
3.29
4.00
3.69
3.71
3.86
4.29
5.00
4.69
3.71
3.93
3.29
3.40
3.00
3.86
3.86
3.43
3.60
3.25
3.57
68
3.86
3.43
3.60
3.25
3.57
2.86
2.71
3.40
2.88
1.57
3.07
1.71
3.00
3.88
2.71
3.07
2.86
4.00
3.13
3.14
2.36
2.43
3.00
2.44
3.00
3.14
2.57
2.80
2.19
3.00
3.14
2.57
3.00
2.19
3.00
3.86
3.00
3.00
2.25
2.00
3.43
2.86
3.00
2.81
2.86
2.86
1.71
3.00
2.06
3.86
3.00
2.43
3.00
2.50
3.00
3.43
3.57
3.20
3.38
4.43
4.00
4.43
4.00
4.25
5.00
4.36
4.71
4.20
4.38
5.00
3.21
2.29
3.00
2.63
2.86
3.36
2.57
3.60
2.75
2.14
3.93
4.14
3.20
3.75
2.00
2.79
3.86
3.20
3.31
3.00
4.00
5.00
4.00
4.63
3.57
3.50
3.14
4.00
2.88
3.86
2.79
3.57
4.20
3.88
4.71
3.86
4.43
4.00
3.75
4.14
3.86
4.43
4.00
3.75
4.14
4.00
4.43
3.60
4.06
4.14
3.29
3.43
3.00
3.38
4.86
3.21
4.00
4.40
4.06
1.86
3.29
4.43
3.40
4.06
4.14
3.93
3.00
4.80
3.13
2.57
3.64
2.86
3.20
2.38
4.00
3.29
3.14
3.20
2.25
1.86
69
3.79
4.14
3.60
3.75
3.86
4.00
3.57
3.40
2.81
2.71
3.21
3.71
3.80
3.13
3.29
4.00
3.43
3.20
2.25
4.29
3.29
3.29
3.00
2.88
2.00
3.64
3.29
3.00
2.81
2.43
3.43
3.29
2.60
3.06
2.00
3.86
3.57
4.40
4.19
3.86
3.86
3.57
4.40
4.19
3.86
4.07
4.57
3.60
3.81
4.43
4.21
4.71
3.00
3.25
4.71
3.29
3.00
2.40
3.25
3.00
4.07
3.86
3.60
3.94
3.43
4.00
2.86
2.80
2.31
3.43
4.14
3.57
4.00
1.63
1.29
3.43
3.86
2.80
2.94
2.14
4.14
4.14
3.40
2.56
2.14
4.00
3.43
3.80
2.75
4.14
3.50
3.43
5.00
2.88
3.86
4.00
3.29
3.80
3.13
4.14
4.21
4.57
4.40
4.13
4.71
3.43
3.43
3.00
2.81
2.43
3.29
3.71
2.80
3.06
4.43
3.29
3.71
2.80
3.06
4.43
3.79
3.14
3.40
3.13
4.14
3.43
5.00
5.00
3.94
3.14
3.21
3.43
3.20
2.56
3.71
3.07
2.29
4.40
1.38
5.00
3.64
2.00
3.40
2.25
4.14
3.64
2.00
3.40
2.25
4.14
70
3.64
2.43
2.40
2.75
4.14
3.50
3.14
2.60
1.81
3.71
4.79
3.86
4.00
4.50
4.71
3.93
3.43
4.00
3.25
4.29
3.21
5.00
4.20
4.38
4.14
3.50
3.00
3.00
2.63
4.71
3.21
2.00
2.40
1.19
3.86
3.71
4.14
4.00
3.75
5.00
3.14
3.00
2.40
2.31
4.43
3.14
3.00
2.40
2.31
4.43
3.93
3.71
3.60
3.06
3.29
3.43
3.71
3.00
2.75
3.57
3.14
3.29
2.40
2.44
3.00
3.07
2.71
4.00
3.44
4.43
3.07
3.43
3.40
3.38
3.14
2.71
2.29
2.60
1.75
4.43
3.00
2.71
3.20
3.06
4.43
3.64
3.29
3.40
2.88
3.00
3.07
2.14
3.00
3.31
3.86
3.14
3.00
3.40
3.38
3.14
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.81
3.00
2.79
3.14
3.80
3.25
2.71
2.79
3.14
3.80
3.25
2.71
3.29
3.57
3.60
3.94
4.43
1.71
1.00
1.00
0.88
3.00
1.71
1.00
1.00
0.88
3.00
3.86
3.14
3.20
3.63
3.71
4.21
4.57
3.80
3.50
4.29
3.79
3.29
3.80
3.00
3.43
3.14
2.14
3.60
3.19
3.29
71
3.14
2.14
3.60
3.19
3.29
3.14
3.57
3.20
2.94
3.29
3.36
2.86
3.20
3.94
4.86
4.21
2.57
4.00
4.31
3.29
3.57
3.86
2.80
3.06
4.29
3.07
3.71
2.80
2.94
4.29
3.64
3.43
3.60
4.44
4.57
4.86
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
3.36
3.29
2.80
3.38
4.00
3.43
3.29
2.60
3.06
2.43
3.50
3.43
3.00
4.13
4.00
3.50
3.00
4.80
3.13
4.43
3.50
3.00
4.80
3.13
4.43
3.21
2.86
3.00
3.00
4.71
3.43
3.29
3.20
3.06
4.00
3.79
3.29
3.40
2.69
3.57
2.79
2.57
3.40
3.63
4.29
3.43
3.29
4.00
3.69
3.71
3.86
4.29
5.00
4.69
3.71
3.93
3.29
3.40
3.00
3.86
3.86
3.43
3.60
3.25
3.57
2.86
2.71
3.40
2.88
1.57
3.07
1.71
3.00
3.88
2.71
3.07
2.86
4.00
3.13
3.14
3.21
2.29
3.00
2.69
2.86
3.36
2.57
3.60
2.75
2.14
3.93
4.14
3.20
3.75
2.00
2.79
3.86
3.20
3.31
3.00
4.00
5.00
4.00
4.63
3.57
3.50
3.14
4.00
2.88
3.86
72
2.79
3.57
4.20
3.88
4.71
3.86
4.43
4.00
3.75
4.14
4.00
4.43
3.60
4.06
4.14
3.29
3.43
3.00
3.38
4.86
3.64
3.29
3.00
2.81
2.43
3.43
3.29
2.60
3.06
2.00
3.86
3.57
4.40
4.19
3.86
4.07
4.57
3.60
3.81
4.43
4.21
4.71
3.00
3.25
4.71
3.29
3.00
2.40
3.25
3.00
4.07
3.86
3.60
3.94
3.43
4.00
2.86
2.80
2.31
3.43
4.14
3.57
4.00
1.63
1.29
3.43
3.86
2.80
2.94
2.14
3.07
2.29
4.40
1.38
5.00
3.64
2.00
3.40
2.25
4.14
3.64
2.43
2.40
2.75
4.14
3.50
3.14
2.60
1.81
3.71
4.79
3.86
4.00
4.50
4.71
3.93
3.43
4.00
3.25
4.29
3.21
5.00
4.20
4.38
4.14
3.50
3.00
3.00
2.63
4.71
3.21
2.00
2.40
1.19
3.86
3.71
4.14
4.00
3.75
5.00
3.14
3.00
3.40
3.38
3.14
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.81
3.00
2.79
3.14
3.80
3.25
2.71
3.29
3.57
3.60
3.94
4.43
1.71
1.00
1.00
0.88
3.00
1.71
1.00
1.00
0.88
3.00
73
3.86
3.14
3.20
3.63
3.71
4.21
4.57
3.80
3.50
4.29
3.79
3.29
3.80
3.00
3.43
3.14
2.14
3.60
3.19
3.29
3.64
3.71
3.60
3.44
3.86
4.07
3.57
3.60
3.50
3.71
3.86
4.86
4.00
4.50
4.00
3.43
3.29
3.20
3.06
4.00
2.79
2.57
3.40
3.63
4.29
3.86
4.29
5.00
4.69
3.71
3.86
3.43
3.60
3.25
3.57
3.07
1.71
3.00
3.88
2.71
2.36
2.43
3.00
2.44
3.00
3.14
2.57
3.00
2.19
3.00
3.43
2.86
3.00
2.81
2.86
3.00
2.43
3.00
2.50
3.00
4.00
4.43
4.00
4.25
5.00
3.21
4.00
4.40
4.06
1.86
3.29
4.43
3.40
4.06
4.14
3.93
3.00
4.80
3.13
2.57
3.64
2.86
3.20
2.38
4.00
3.29
3.14
3.20
2.25
1.86
3.79
4.14
3.60
3.75
3.86
4.00
3.57
3.40
2.81
2.71
3.21
3.71
3.80
3.13
3.29
3.93
3.29
3.40
3.00
3.86
3.86
3.43
3.60
3.25
3.57
2.86
2.71
3.40
2.88
1.57
3.07
1.71
3.00
3.88
2.71
3.07
2.86
4.00
3.13
3.14
74
3.79
3.29
3.40
2.69
3.57
3.86
3.43
3.60
3.25
3.57
3.64
2.00
3.40
2.25
4.14
M_EMPLYR
M_DEPT
M_FACIL
M_NEED
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
M_SAT
M_EMPLYR M_DEPT
M_FACIL
M_NEED
1
.619**
.495**
.447**
.236**
.
.000
.000
.000
.001
190
190
190
190
190
.619**
1
.529**
.660**
.233**
.000
.
.000
.000
.001
190
190
190
190
190
.495**
.529**
1
.605**
.193**
.000
.000
.
.000
.008
190
190
190
190
190
.447**
.660**
.605**
1
.264**
.000
.000
.000
.
.000
190
190
190
190
190
.236**
.233**
.193**
.264**
1
.001
.001
.008
.000
.
190
190
190
190
190
Coefficient
75
Coefficientsa
Model
1
(Constant)
M_EMPLYR
M_DEPT
M_FACIL
M_NEED
Unstandardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
1.758
.173
.317
.047
.182
.053
-.039
.052
.050
.034
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
.509
.246
-.060
.085
t
10.151
6.710
3.440
-.743
1.479
Sig.
.000
.000
.001
.458
.141
Collinearity Statistics
Tolerance
VIF
.535
.604
.466
.924
1.869
1.656
2.148
1.083
Appendix 9
ANOVAb
Model
1
Regression
Residual
Total
Sum of
Squares
21.072
28.828
49.899
df
2
187
189
Mean Square
10.536
.154
F
68.344
Sig.
.000a
Coefficientsa
Model
1
(Constant)
M_EMPLYR
M_DEPT
Unstandardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
1.876
.151
.309
.041
.172
.048
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
.496
.233
t
12.431
7.579
3.551
Sig.
.000
.000
.000
Appendix 10
76
Model Summaryb
Change Statistics
Model
1
R
R Square
.656a
.430
Adjusted
R Square
.418
Std. Error of
the Estimate
.39211
R Square
Change
.430
F Change
34.889
df1
4
df2
185
Sig. F Change
.000
df2
187
Sig. F Change
.000
Model Summaryb
Change Statistics
Model
1
R
R Square
.650a
.422
Adjusted
R Square
.416
Std. Error of
the Estimate
.39263
R Square
Change
.422
F Change
68.344
df1
2
77