ANALYSIS AND DATA INTERPRET

Various organizations from two different sectors were identified that collectively representing
Public and Private sectors. Almost 150 questionnaires were floated among First-line and Second-
line managers and in total 65 useable questionnaires were received, representing the response rate
almost 43%. Based on the employment position and work profile it was inferred that the
respondents may have significant knowledge relating to the queries being posed.

All the responses to the questions have been statistically analyzed to identify the managerial style
and their individual impact towards the positive productivity in employees: Type of managerial
style that employee sees in his/her boss, Workplace Environment, Career path understanding, and
peer respect etc. that in total leads to 11 Items. Three major queries were asked from the
respondents which is being tabulated in Table 1.

Table 1: Data Frequency on Demographic

Source: Field Data

In Table 1, in the Age column, it can be observed that most of the respondents are ranged between
22 to 44 that are collectively summed up to be 59 out of the total 65 number of respondents. Also,
the response ratio between male and female is identified as 80 and 20 % respectively which can
be considered as significant in terms of representation. The responses have been collected almost
equally from public and private sector. The two sectors have been identified as one and being
represented as Financial Department ‘FD’; Human Resource Department ‘HR’, Information
Technology Department ‘IT’; Marketing Department ‘MD’ and Operational Department ‘OD’.
Graph 1: Histogram Representation of Department. Operation Department was put on major
focus as the OD is more leaned towards
the employee productivity.

Here it can be observed that the mean

value is 2.369; and SD is 1.219, then
approximately 66% data lies between
(2.369 - 1.219 = 1.15) and
(2.369 + 1.219 = 3.588 or 3.6).

Source: Field Data

Graph 2: Histogram Representation of Age

Also, in terms of respondents age, the
mean value 1.646 and SD is 0.738; that
gives an idea that 66% of the
respondents age lies between
(1.646 – 0.738 = 0.908) and
(1.646 + 0.738 = 2.384);

Source: Field Data

The respondents were then asked about the Boss Managers they face on their work place. For a
clear view the respondents were also explained the traits of different styles of managers so they
may have clear view back in mind before clearly they properly fit them in the right place. This has
been briefly tabulated in Table 2.
 Table 2: Respondents’ Preference

Source: Field Data

From the Table 2 it can be observed that in the above mentioned conflict managerial styles,
respondents majorly have agreed upon on the two and that are Accommodating and Collaborating
with 23 and 25 number of responses that collectively raised to 48 out of 65 number of responses.
According to the data received, rest of the three styles seem no more been preferably be used. To
further describe the summary of items and their collective input towards the assessment the conflict
managerial style; we’ll be using descriptive statistics.

Descriptive Statistics

In order to provide basic data summary; following are the findings:

Table 3: Descriptive Statistic between Department and Managerial Style

Source: Field Data

From Table 3; the mean value in describing the conflict managerial style ‘Accommodating’ is
2.478. Also, the Standard Deviation is ‘1.21’ which seems low that leads to an understanding that
the data is not wide spread and is within 3 standard deviations on each side of the mean. Also, the
Skewness of data seems within the range -1 to +1 i.e. 0.66. Kurtosis for ‘Accommodating Style’
appears negative i.e. -0.81 and lies within the range of -3 to +3.

Graph 3: Histogram Representation between Department and Conflict Managerial Style

Source: Field Data

Moving towards Avoiding, from the table 3, it can be observed that the mean and median are equal
and has No Skewness. Also, the standard deviation has decreased. Yet the interesting thing to note
here is that the Kurtosis is -6 which has increased from the range. The value of Kurtosis getting
out of range indicates that the respondents had no understanding of the query and hence data is not
right and needs to be discarded. Also, the data appears more flatter than normal. This representation
is known as platykurtic Kurtosis.
In Collaborating, the mean value is 2.24, and the data seems to be positively skewed. Kurtosis
however, appears to be within the range.

In Competing, the mean value is 3, and SD is 1.4. From the table 3, Skewness and Kurtosis seems
within the range.

Moving towards Compromising style, the mean value is 2.5; having standard deviation 1.414.
Also, the data is lies within the range of skewness. While Kurtosis value is negative -0.23 and
within the range. Yet like Avoiding, the data appears flatter than normal. This representation is
known as platykurtic Kurtosis.

Table 4: Descriptive Statistic between Office Environment and Conflict Managerial Style

Source: Field Data

In the given comparison in Table 4, the mean values are slightly over or below the median except
of Compromising where Mean and Median values are equal so data collected is centrally tending.
Also, it may be noticed that the data collected in terms of Avoiding in response to Office
Environment, is positively skewed (right-tailed) and has Kurtosis value 4.00 indicating that the
that the respondent did not fully understand the item and is little misleading.
Graph 4: Histogram Representation between Office Environment and Conflict Managerial Style

Source: Field Data

Table 5: Descriptive Statistic between Work with High-ups and Conflict Managerial Style

Source: Field Data

In the given comparison in Table 5, the mean values are slightly different from the median except
of that of Avoiding where Mean and Median values are equal so data collected is centrally tending.
Also, it may be noticed, the data collected in terms of Accommodating in response to Working
with High ups, is negatively skewed and Kurtosis value 4.40 indicating that the respondent did not
fully understand the item and is little misleading. Further explanation can be observed in Graph 5.

Graph 5: Histogram Representation between Work with High-ups and Conflict Managerial Style

Source: Field Data

Table 6: Descriptive Statistic between Full Potential Reach and Conflict Managerial Style

Source: Field Data

In the given comparison in Table 6, the mean values are slightly over or below the median except
of Accommodating where Mean and Median values are equal so data collected is centrally tending.
Also, it may be noticed that the data collected in terms of Compromising in response to full
potential reach, is positively skewed (right-tailed) and has Kurtosis value 8.00 indicating that the
value peeks are quite high and the respondent did not fully understand the item and is misleading.
The value shall be discarded. Further explanation can be observed in Graph 6.
Graph 6: Histogram Representation between Full Potential Reach and Conflict Managerial Style

Source: Field Data

Table 7: Descriptive Statistic between Full Potential Reach and Conflict Managerial Style

Source: Field Data

In the given comparison in Table 7, the mean values are slightly over or below the median except
of Accommodating and Competing where Mean and Median values are equal so data collected is
seemingly centrally tending. Also, it may be noticed that the data collected in terms of Avoiding
and Collaborating with Skewed values 2.00 and -1.12 in response to full potential reach, is
positively skewed (right-tailed) and negatively skewed respectively. However, Kurtosis value for
Avoiding 4.00 indicating that the value peeks high and the respondent did not fully understand the
item and is misleading. Also the Kurtosis for Competing lies on the range border. So the value
may be a doubtful. Further explanation can be observed in Graph 7.

Graph 7: Histogram Representation between Comfortable Working and Conflict Managerial

Style

Source: Field Data

Table 8: Descriptive Statistic between Recognition from Manager and Conflict Managerial
Style

Source: Field Data

In the given comparison in Table 8, the mean values are slightly different from the Median. Also,
it may be noticed that the data collected reflects skewness and Kurtosis are within the range in
response to Recognition from Manager. Further explanation can be observed in Graph 7.
Graph 8: Histogram Representation between Recognition from Manager and Conflict Managerial
Style

Source: Field Data

Table 9: Descriptive Statistic between Recognition from Manager and Conflict Managerial
Style

Source: Field Data

In the given comparison in Table 9, the Mean and Median values of Avoiding, Collaborating and
Competing are equal so data collected is seemingly centrally tending. Also, it may be noticed that
the data collected in terms of Conflict Managerial Style in response to Peer Respect can be
identified within the range values with slightly left or right tailed. However, Kurtosis value for
Avoiding -6.00 indicating that the respondent did not fully understand the item and is quite
misleading. Also the Kurtosis for Competing lies on the border range. So the value may be a
doubtful. Further explanation can be observed in Graph 9.

Graph 9: Histogram Representation between Recognition from Manager and Conflict Managerial
Style

Source: Field Data

Table 10: Descriptive Statistic between Leadership feedback and Conflict Managerial Style
Source: Field Data

In the given comparison in Table 10, the mean values are slightly over or below the median except
of Competing where Mean and Median values are equal so data collected is seemingly centrally
tending. Also, it may be noticed that the data collected in terms of Avoiding seems Skewed with
value -2.00 representing negatively skewed. However, Kurtosis value for Avoiding 4.00 indicating
that the value peeks are high and the respondent did not fully understand the item and is misleading.
Further explanation can be observed in Graph 10.

Graph 10: Histogram Representation between Recognition from Manager and Conflict
Managerial Style

Source: Field Data