Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Contents
QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE ANALYSIS STRUCTURE ...................................................................................... 2
DEMOGRAPHICS ............................................................................................................................................................ 3
TRAINING DESIGN ......................................................................................................................................................... 5
HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS-1 ............................................................................. 6
HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS-2 ............................................................................. 8
MOTIVATION ANALYSIS-BASED ON EXPERIENCE ............................................................................................ 10
MOTIVATION ANALYSIS-BASED ON DEPARTMENT........................................................................................... 11
PEOPLE NOT ABLE TO IMPLEMENT THE LEARNING ........................................................................................ 12
1|Page
HR ANALYTICS
GAURAV CHATURVEDI
MBA-2, 20162164
Q.1 Is it beneficial for Pilgrim Bank if more customers use online banking ?
Q.2 What is the Impact of Training on the employees: Are they Motivated to implement the learning?
Q.3 How has the perspective towards the customer satisfaction has changed?
Q.4 What is the overall training effectiveness on the Motivation level, Manager Support and Peer Support?
Q.5 Identify those individuals who need immediate attention in motivation, improve manager support?
Q.6 Frame hypothesis to perform multiple regression for the significance of numerous factors on training
effectiveness and test the hypothesis.
Q.7 Study the experience pattern and gender diversity in different departments
Q.8 Employees not feeling motivated, or feel that the training program is ineffective, Training need
Identification can be done again for these employees.
The given questionnaire refers to the feedback on training effectiveness on the performance and motivation of
the employees of 21 departments. The findings are
2|Page
HR ANALYTICS
DEMOGRAPHICS
This is one of the things to start wth.We ought to calculate the gender diversity of the participated work force:
GENDER
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid FEMALE 41 12.3 12.4 12.4
MALE 290 86.8 87.6 100.0
Total 331 99.1 100.0
Missing System 3 .9
Total 334 100.0
The Gender diversity is a concern but depends upon the policy of the concerned company. Only
12.3% of the workforce is female. The company may want to increase the number of female
employees.
We can also study the gender dispersion as per the experience levels of the employees
3|Page
HR ANALYTICS
Crosstabs
4|Page
HR ANALYTICS
TRAINING DESIGN
20 percent of respondents are below neutral or dissatisfied which gives the trainer an opportunity to
further develop her training program by taking feedback about the disliked factor into consideration
AVG_TRAINING Total
2.0 2.2
1.00 1.50 0 5 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75 4.00 4.25 4.33 4.50 4.67 4.75 5.00
COMMUNICATIONS 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3
CUSTOMER SERVICES 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 5 4 7 5 0 4 0 2 1 31
ENGINEERING 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 3 6 12 5 1 13 0 4 4 53
ENVIRONMENTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 3
FINANCE 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 4 4 4 17 3 0 1 0 4 3 42
GENERAL MANAGEMENT 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 8
HUMAN RESOURCES 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 6
INTERNAL SERVICES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
MANUFACTURING 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 3 1 7 3 0 4 1 1 6 32
MARKETING 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 2 3 3 0 1 0 1 2 17
PROJECT MANAGEMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 4 1 0 0 0 2 3 13
QUALITY 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 1 0 0 2 1 13
QUALITY MANAGEMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2
REAL ESTATE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
SALES 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 6 19 6 0 5 0 4 4 48
Senior Manager - IT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
STRATEGY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Total 2 1 4 6 3 6 4 13 21 29 97 40 2 39 1 29 34 331
5|Page
HR ANALYTICS
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
AVG_TRAINING 333 1.00 5.00 4.0543 .68849
Valid N (listwise) 333
The median score is 4 and the mean score is 4.053, which signifies that most of the participants are
satisfied with the training design. 20 employees are not fully satisfied with the training design and
further improvements may be done regarding the Training need Identification of those employees.
Null Hypothesis Ho: The population correlation coefficient IS NOT significantly different from 0. There IS NOT
a significant linear relationship(correlation) between TRAINING DESIGN and ACE ASPECTS AND NDS in the
population.
Alternate Hypothesis Ha: The population correlation coefficient IS significantly DIFFERENT FROM 0. There
IS A SIGNIFICANT LINEAR RELATIONSHIP (correlation) between TRAINING DESIGN and ACE ASPECTS
AND NDS in the population.
To test our hypothesis, we may like to run a regression of one variable over the other:
Variables Entered/Removeda
Variables Variables
Model Entered Removed Method
1 AVG_TRAINING . Enter
b
6|Page
HR ANALYTICS
Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Model R R Square Square Estimate
1 .682a .465 .464 .46853
a. Predictors: (Constant), AVG_TRAINING
This shows that there is significant amount of correlation between the training design and overall after
impact called ACE aspect and NDS. A R sq value of 0.465 explains that 46.5% of aftereffects can be
explained by the implementation of training design.
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 63.018 1 63.018 287.068 .000b
Residual 72.443 330 .220
Total 135.461 331
a. Dependent Variable: AVG_ACE_ASPECTS
b. Predictors: (Constant), AVG_TRAINING
As we can see that the p value at F(1,330) is < 0.005, hence the results are statistically significant
and Null hypothesis cannot be accepted..
This means that our alternate hypothesis that there is significant linear relationship between
TRAINING DESIGN and ACE ASPECTS AND NDS in the company.
Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized 95.0% Confidence Interval
Coefficients Coefficients for B
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 (Constant) 1.654 .154 10.723 .000 1.350 1.957
AVG_TRAININ .635 .037 .682 16.943 .000 .561 .709
G
a. Dependent Variable: AVG_ACE_ASPECTS
There is no significant deviation from 0, implies that our regression model is a good fit.
This means that by increasing the training effectiveness through all the departments better efficiency
and customer centric goals may be achieved.
7|Page
HR ANALYTICS
HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS-2
Let us now analyze the effect of other factors on Training Effectiveness viz. peer support, and
Manager Support by plotting a multiple regression for the same. Our hypothesis remains the same:
Null Hypothesis Ho: The population correlation coefficient IS NOT significantly different from 0. There IS NOT
a significant linear relationship(correlation) between Peer and Manager support with ACE Aspect and NDS
in the population.
Alternate Hypothesis Ha: The population correlation coefficient IS significantly DIFFERENT FROM 0. There
IS A SIGNIFICANT LINEAR RELATIONSHIP (correlation) between Peer and Manager support with Peer
and Manager support with ACE Aspect and NDS in the population.
Regression
Variables Entered/Removeda
Variables
Model Variables Entered Removed Method
1 AVG_PEER_SUP . Enter
PORT,
AVG_MGR_SUPP
ORT,
AVG_PP_EXT_B
EH,
AVG_TRAINING,
AVG_PP_INT_BE
Hb
a. Dependent Variable: AVG_MOTIVATION
b. All requested variables entered.
8|Page
HR ANALYTICS
Model Summaryb
Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Model R R Square Square Estimate
1 .696a .485 .477 .43533
a. Predictors: (Constant), AVG_PEER_SUPPORT, AVG_MGR_SUPPORT,
AVG_PP_EXT_BEH, AVG_TRAINING, AVG_PP_INT_BEH
b. Dependent Variable: AVG_MOTIVATION
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 58.118 5 11.624 61.335 .000b
Residual 61.780 326 .190
Total 119.899 331
a. Dependent Variable: AVG_MOTIVATION
b. Predictors: (Constant), AVG_PEER_SUPPORT, AVG_MGR_SUPPORT, AVG_PP_EXT_BEH,
AVG_TRAINING, AVG_PP_INT_BEH
Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized 95.0% Confidence Interval for
Coefficients Coefficients B
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 (Constant) .533 .198 2.694 .007 .144 .922
AVG_TRAINING .140 .049 .160 2.857 .005 .044 .236
AVG_PP_INT_BEH .285 .052 .328 5.517 .000 .183 .386
AVG_PP_EXT_BEH .062 .029 .094 2.148 .032 .005 .119
AVG_MGR_SUPPOR .122 .046 .110 2.635 .009 .031 .212
T
AVG_PEER_SUPPOR .220 .045 .251 4.910 .000 .132 .308
T
a. Dependent Variable: AVG_MOTIVATION
If we look at the table of co efficient, the significance value of all the factors except Externalization
behavior of employees are <0.05 and thus are crucial factors to decide the motivation. In the table,
we can also see that Internal Motivation and Peer Support of employee is also important.
9|Page
HR ANALYTICS
170 employees who are of the experience group have given their response less than 4 i.,e either they are
neutral or not motivated. This is due to the response that this lot feels overloaded with work. What is more
alarming is that out of the 30 young generation employees in the first column, 17 have their mean responses,
either neutral or not motivated.
This particular group has to be counselled immediately
10 | P a g e
HR ANALYTICS
On the same lines the particular employees of the department Quality, Manufacturing, Sales and
Engineering should be given training and counselling to increase their motivation levels.
11 | P a g e
HR ANALYTICS
12 | P a g e
HR ANALYTICS
RESEARCH & 6 1 7
DEVELOPMENT
SALES 25 9 34
SCM PROCUREMENT / 15 5 20
LOGISTICS
STRATEGY 2 1 3
Total 167 58 225
The same analysis goes here as well and employees based on these two tables should be asked to
retrain until their scores are high as well because as a company I should make sure that all my
training programs are 100 % effective.
13 | P a g e