Chapter 4 Statistical analysis and interpretation of data 4.1 Introduction The previous chapter presented the methodology adopted for the present investigation, while this chapter presents the statistical analysis of the data and the interpretation of the results. After the data has been collected, it is processed using Microsoft Excel 2007 Software. The statistical techniques adopted are means and standard deviation, analysis of variation, Pearson s Correlation, and Regression. SPSS 18.0, statistical software, has been used to conduct various statistical analyses. The results obtained thereby have been presented and interpreted. This has been done after obtaining the perception of recreational facilities available or made available by the management for utilisation in the organisation, for utilisation by organisational employees, planning and conduct of recreation activities, and their perceptions on contribution made. Aim of this investigation is to inquire into influence of the recreational facilities on the employee contribution made towards their organisations strategy. The collected data has been subjected to statistical treatments to arrive at the relevant conclusions. It begins with the characteristics of the sample, sample design and the descriptive statistics of the variables. Suitability and reasonability of the statistical instruments employed an analysis of their reliability and validity has been included. It is also intention of the researcher to report significant finding vis-à-vis attitudes of employees of variable demographics, namely, gender ( male and female), age ( 25, 26-35, 36-45, 46-55, 56 ), highest level of education ( Masters, M.Phil, PhD), marital status (married and unmarried), work experience (2-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20, 21-25 and 26> years), experience in the current position (designation) and experience in the current organisation.
The chapter has been organised under the following sections: 1. Descriptive statistics (frequency, means, standard deviation and percentages) 2. Bivariate analysis (Correlation) 3. Multivariate analysis (Regression) 4. Univariate analysis (ANOVA). 4.2 Sample Characteristics The technique of judgement and convenience sampling has been employed to determine sample for the study. A handy mix of organisations from IT, manufacturing, research and development, public or private were chosen to represent the population of Indian organisations. An aggregate of 450 questionnaires was distributed personally by hand by the researcher, out of which 210 completed questionnaires were returned, comprising a response rate of 46.7%. Seven responses were eliminated due to excessive missing data. Valid sample size for testing the hypotheses was 202 (45.11%). Tables from 4.1 to 4.9 present the profile of the respondents with regard to gender, age, highest level of education, marital status, working experience, experience in the current position and experience in the current organisation. Names of the respondent organisations have been omitted on their instructions. All the respondents were full-time employees who had completed at least two years in service with their present organisations. 4.3 Respondent profile The sample of respondents was drawn from ten different IT Services and manufacturing organisations located in Bangalore. The number of participants varied amongst the organisations - highest being 30.2 % from one manufacturing company and the least 2.97% from one of the IT Solutions companies. The sample drawn was fully representative. 2
Table 4.1: Indicating frequency and percentage based on departments Valid Missing Personnel & Administration Research & Development Purchase & Procurement Operations System dept Frequency Percent Valid Percent 66 32.7 33.0 33.0 27 13.4 13.5 46.5 50 24.8 25.0 71.5 57 28.2 28.5 100.0 200 99.0 100.0 2 1.0 202 100.0 Cumulative Percent In terms of functional departments, the above table indicates that 33.0% of the respondents were from the Personnel & Administration department, 13.5% from Research & Development, 24.8% from Purchase & Procurement, and 28.5% from Operations. Table 4.2: Indicating frequency and percentage based on designation Valid Missing Head of Department Senior Manager Manager Assistant Immediate Supervisor Entry Level System designation Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent 49 24.3 25.0 25.0 30 14.9 15.3 40.3 20 9.9 10.2 50.5 24 11.9 12.2 62.8 47 23.3 24.0 86.7 26 12.9 13.3 100.0 196 97.0 100.0 6 3.0 202 100.0 In terms of designation, the above table indicates that 25.0% of the respondents were Heads of Departments, 153.% were Senior Managers, 9.9% Managers, 11.9% Assistant managers, 23.3% Supervisors, and 13.3% Entry Level. 3
Table 4.3: Indicating frequency and percentage based on gender Valid Missing female male System gender Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent 44 21.8 22.8 22.8 149 73.8 77.2 100.0 193 95.5 100.0 9 4.5 202 100.0 The above table indicates that most of the respondents (77.2%) were male, followed by female (22.8%) in terms of gender. Table 4.4: Indicating the frequency and percentage based on age Valid 25- years and Below 26-35 years 36-45 years 46-55 years 56- years and Above age Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent 26 12.9 12.9 12.9 144 71.3 71.3 84.2 19 9.4 9.4 93.6 8 4.0 4.0 97.5 5 2.5 2.5 100.0 202 100.0 100.0 The above table indicates that most of the respondents were from the age group between 26 35 yrs (71.3 %) followed by 25 yrs and below (12.9 %), 36-45 yrs (9.4 %) and the least was from 56 yrs and above (2.5 %). 4
Table 4.5: Indicating the frequency and percentage based on education Valid Missing Diploma Bachelor's Degree Masters Degree Ph D System edn Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent 10 5.0 5.3 5.3 93 46.0 48.9 54.2 77 38.1 40.5 94.7 10 5.0 5.3 100.0 190 94.1 100.0 12 5.9 202 100.0 The above table indicates that most of the respondents were having Bachelor s degree (48.9%), followed by Master degree (40.5%), Ph D (5.3%) and Diploma holders (5.3%). Table 4.6: Indicating the frequency and percentage of marital status Valid Missing Married Single System marital Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent 97 48.0 57.7 57.7 71 35.1 42.3 100.0 168 83.2 100.0 34 16.8 202 100.0 The above table showing marital status of respondents indicates that most of the respondents were married (57.7%) followed by single respondents (42.3%) 5
Table 4.7: Indicating the frequency and percentage of total work experience Valid 2-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 21-25 years More than 25 years totworkexperience Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent 70 34.7 34.7 34.7 57 28.2 28.2 62.9 34 16.8 16.8 79.7 14 6.9 6.9 86.6 12 5.9 5.9 92.6 15 7.4 7.4 100.0 202 100.0 100.0 The above Table indicates that most of the respondents were having a work experience of 2-5 yrs (34.7%), followed by 6-10 yrs (28.2%), 11-15 yrs (16.8 %), >25 yrs (7.4%), 16-20 yrs (6.9%) and least from 21-25 yrs with (5.9%). Table 4.8: Indicating the frequency and percentage years in current position Valid Missing 2-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 21-25 years System desigkexperience Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent 140 69.3 70.0 70.0 38 18.8 19.0 89.0 12 5.9 6.0 95.0 7 3.5 3.5 98.5 3 1.5 1.5 100.0 200 99.0 100.0 2 1.0 202 100.0 6
The above table indicates that most of the respondents were holding to their current position for 2-5 (70.0%) yrs, followed by 6-10 yrs (19.0%), 11-15 yrs (6.0 %), 16-20 yrs (3.5%) and least from 21-25 yrs with (1.5%). Table 4.9: current organisation Indicating the frequency and percentage of total years working in the orgexperience Valid Missing 2-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 21-25 years More than 25 years System Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent 129 63.9 64.8 64.8 40 19.8 20.1 84.9 17 8.4 8.5 93.5 8 4.0 4.0 97.5 3 1.5 1.5 99.0 2 1.0 1.0 100.0 199 98.5 100.0 3 1.5 202 100.0 The above table indicates that most of the respondents were working in the current organisation for a period of 2-5 yrs (64.8%) followed by followed by 6-10 yrs (20.1%), 11-15 yrs (8.5 %), 16-20 yrs (4.0%), 21-25 yrs with (1.5%) and the least from >25 yrs with (1.0%). 7
4.4 Descriptive statistics Descriptive statistics describes the normality distribution of the scores of the sample under investigation. The descriptive statistics for the variables examined in this study is presented in this section. Tests of internal consistency (Cronbach s Alpha) to assess the reliability of each of the scales used were conducted. First, Cronbach s Alpha for pilot study of the instrument devised by the researcher was determined, and then, after some modifications, the tests were subjected to the final questionnaire. All of the measures included in the questionnaire showed acceptable levels of internal consistency reliability. The internal reliability for Employees productivity as a whole measured.887 while recreational facilities measured.837 and recreation activities.951 for the present sample. 4.4.1 To map employees perception towards availability of Recreational facilities in Indian organisations Table 4.10: Indicating mean, standard deviation and normal distribution histogram for Recreation facilities dimensions along with the scale statistics. 8
Descriptive Statistics recfacil_org recfacil_policy recfacil_needform recfacil_aswaste_reversed recfacil_in_cctt recfacil_out_park recfacil_in_multihall recfacil_daynight recfacil_in_avlib recfacil_in_gym recfacil_out_fampic recfacil_out_adven recfacil_out_bad recfacil_in_bad recfacil_out_tennis recfacil_in_billiards recfacil_in_saunabath recfacil_in_other Std. Mean Deviation 5.91 1.570 5.90 1.704 5.81 1.907 5.66 1.943 5.51 2.278 5.44 2.381 5.22 2.482 5.10 2.411 4.98 2.609 4.61 2.772 4.21 2.717 4.03 2.793 3.85 2.847 3.24 2.755 2.41 2.408 1.80 1.906 1.46 1.409 1.31 1.270 Amongst the eighteen items comprising the scale for recreational facilities, employees perceived periodic organization, institutionalization/ policy, need for formalization, and not considered as wastage of resources were found to have the highest mean ratings (above 5.50). At the other extreme, other indoor facilities, indoor sauna bath, indoor billiards, and outdoor badminton received the lowest ratings (below 2.50) on a 7 point Likert scale. Employees perceived no provisioning of recreational facilities with respect to outdoor badminton (3.85), indoor badminton (3.24), outdoor tennis (2.41), indoor billiards (1.80), indoor sauna bath (1.46), or any other facility (1.31) on the scale from inclined to disagree (3) to disagree (1); moderate provisioning of recreational facilities such as outdoor adventure (4.03), outdoor family picnic (4.21), indoor gymnasium (4.61) and indoor audio/ video and conventional library. Whereas, provisioning of recreational facilities such as provisioning for day and night shifts (5.10), multipurpose hall (5.22), outdoor park (5.44), indoor carom, chess and table tennis (5.51) was perceived to be moderately high. Highest in ratings was the policy institutionalizing recreation in organization rules (5.91), organised by earmarking appropriate period (5.90), need to be formalised (5.81), and recreational facility is not a waste of effort (5.66). 9
Figure 4.1: Frequency histogram of mean ratings for recreational facilities dimensions The level of perception of importance of recreational facilities varied considerably in the range 1.00-6.00, with a peak close to 5.00-5.50. The mean value was 4.29, with standard deviation 1.14 and the overall perception of the availability of Recreational Facilities was found to be moderate with the policy Item No 6 Organisation of Recreational Facilities needs to be formalised in the company rules being the highest and Any other Recreational Facility is existing, the least. 4.4.2 To map perception of employees towards Recreational activities in Indian organisations Table 4.11: Indicating mean, standard deviation and normal distribution histogram for Recreation activities dimensions along with the scale statistics. Amongst the twenty-eight items comprising the scale for recreational activities organised, involvement of activities advancing communication, goal-setting and clarification of goals, 10
creating satisfaction through the process of rewards & recognition, building of trust and confidence, self-efficacy, and team-work were found to have the highest mean ratings (above 5.50). At the other extreme, feedback/ involved feedback between leadership and participants, practicing of spiritual discourses, spiritual health and inclusion of immediate families in outdoor activities for example, picnics, trekking and social gatherings received the lowest ratings (below 5.0). 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 RecAct 40 30 20 10 0 Frequency Mean =5.4278 Std. Dev. =1.3048 N =202 Histogram Figure 4.2: Frequency histogram of mean ratings for recreational activities dimensions The level of perception of availability of Recreational Activities varied considerably in the range 2.00-7.00, with a peak close to 6.00-5.75. The mean value was 5.43, with standard deviation 1.30. 11
4.4.3 To find employees perception towards perceived contribution of employees as a result of recreation facilities (inclusive of recreation activities). Table 4.12: Indicating mean, standard deviation and normal distribution histogram for employee contribution dimensions along with the scale statistics. It has been observed that perception of employees towards employee contribution (productivity) as a result of recreational facilities is very high (mean 5.89). Most of the ratings centred around on a Likert scale of 7 points. This indicates the strength of perception of employees and their positive attitude towards importance of recreational facilities in enhancement of employee contribution. Amongst the sixteen items comprising the scale for employee contribution, belief that happy employees are productive employees, loyalty to their organisations, better psychological health, trust in support of colleagues and organisation doing a better job, and physical wellbeing were found to have the highest mean ratings (above 6.20). At the other extreme, thrill of winning in games and sports and its connection with productivity (4.26) and improvement in organizational citizenship behaviour (5.01) received lowest ratings but still remained on positive side of the scale (> 4 points). The level of perception of importance of employee contribution varied considerably in the range 3.00-7.00, with a peak close to 6.25-6.50. The mean value was 5.89, with standard deviation 1.00. 12 Figure 4.3: Frequency histogram of mean ratings for employee contribution dimensions
4.5 Correlational analysis (bivariate analysis) 4.5.1 Hypothesis H₀₁: There is no significant relationship between organizational Recreational facilities and Employee contribution. 4.5.2 Hypothesis H₀₂: There is no significant relationship between organizational Recreation activities and Employee contribution. Table 4.13: Indicating Pearson correlations among Recreational facilities, Recreation activities and Employee contribution Dimensions under Employee Contribution Investigation Recreational Facilities.533** Recreation Activities.769** There was significant positive correlation between the perception of importance of recreational facilities and recreational activities and the level of employee contribution. Thus, the level of employee contribution is related to the perception of importance of recreational facilities and the perception of importance of recreational activities. However, it was also observed that Recreation activities variable was more positively correlated than Recreational facilities to Employee contribution. Strength of correlation in case of Recreation Activities was stronger (.769) as compared to (.533), in case of Recreational Facilities at.01 level of significance. Table 4.14 results indicate that null hypothesis H₀₁ is rejected and the alternate hypothesis is accepted that there is significant relationship between employees perception of Recreational facilities and employee contribution to the organisation. Significant positive association was found between recreational facilities and employee contribution (.533**). The strength of relationship was moderate (.533**). 13
Table 4.14 results also indicate that null hypothesis H₀₂ is also rejected and the alternate hypothesis is accepted that there is significant relationship between employees perception of Recreation activities and employee contribution to his organisation. Significant positive relationship was found between recreation activities and employee contribution. The strength of relationship was high (.769**). 4.6 Multivariate analysis stepwise regression 4.6.1 Hypothesis 3 (H₀₃): Organizational Recreational facilities and Recreation activities do not significantly influence employee Contribution. Table 4.14: Indicating R square of employee contribution on Recreational facilities and Recreation activities, ANOVA and coefficients of stepwise multiple regression. Multiple linear regression of level of employee contribution on the independent variables of perception of importance of recreational facilities and perception of importance of recreational activities was found to be statistically significant (with F cal = 150.350, and p- value = 0.000). Both of the independent variables were found to have a significant impact on the level of employee contribution, and together explained 60.2% of the overall variation in level of employee contribution. Further, the perception of importance of recreational activities had more than 5.5 times the impact as the perception of importance of recreational facilities on the level of employee contribution. 14
It was found that recreational facilities and recreation activities significantly influenced employee contribution. The results of Table 4.17 indicate that null hypothesis H₀₃ is rejected and alternate hypothesis that recreational facilities and recreation activities influence employee contribution significantly, is accepted. 4.7 Univariate analysis ANOVA 4.7.1 Hypothesis H₀₄: There are no significant differences across demographics and with reference to perceptions of organizational recreational facilities and organizational recreation activities. 4.7.2 Hypothesis H₀₅: There are no significant differences across demographics with reference to perceptions of Employees contribution to their organizations. 15
Table 4.15.1: Indicating summary of perceptions of employees across Departments, with reference to the importance of Recreational facilities, Recreation activities and employee contribution as a result of Recreational facilities. Table 4.15.2: Indicating ANOVA for Recreational facilities, recreation activities and employee contribution as a result of Recreational facilities across Departments. There was significant difference in the perception of importance of recreational facilities and the level of employee contribution between different departments. The perception of importance of recreational facilities and of the level of employee contribution was significantly lower for the purchase & procurement department than for other departments. There was no significant difference in the perception of importance of recreational activities between different departments. It was found that results of Table 4.16.2 indicate that there are significant differences in perception of employees vis-à-vis recreational facilities but congruence of perception was observed towards recreation activities across Departments. Hypothesis H₀₄ is partially rejected and alternate hypothesis that significant difference in perception exists across departments in relation to recreation facility but not recreation activities. Table 4.16.2 results indicate that there is significant difference in opinion in relation to Employee contribution across departments. Null hypothesis H₀ 5 is rejected and alternate hypothesis that significant difference in opinion on importance of employee contribution exists across Departments. 16
Table 4.16.1: Indicating summary of perceptions of employees across Designations, with reference to the importance of Recreational facilities, Recreation activities and employee contribution as a result of Recreational facilities. Report 3.5740 4.1065 4.6060 4.2530 4.7058 4.8117 4.2795 1.39293.93640 1.08943 1.07193.81717.75637 1.14556 4.9960 5.4104 5.3321 5.5227 5.6989 5.7537 17
5.4273 1.37858 1.12951.92929 1.30648 1.28788 1.54071 1.31128 5.6342 5.6646 5.7536 6.0000 6.0548 6.4014 5.8985.96182.87430.83777 1.05986 1.14740.81837 1.00385 Mean Std. Deviation Mean Std. Deviation Mean Std. Deviation RecFac RecAct Contrib Head of Department Senior Manager Manager Assistant Manager 18
Supervisor Entry Level designation Table 4.16.2: Indicating ANOVA for Recreational facilities, recreation activities and employee contribution as a result of Recreational facilities across Designations. There was significant difference in the perception of importance of recreational facilities and the level of employee contribution between different designations. The perception of importance of recreational facilities and of the level of employee contribution was significantly lower for heads of departments and senior managers than for other designations. There was no significant difference in the perception of importance of recreational activities between different designations. It was found that results of Table 4.17.2 indicate that there are significant differences in perception of employees vis-à-vis recreational facilities but congruence of perception was observed towards recreation activities across Designations. Hypothesis H₀₄ is partially rejected and alternate hypothesis that significant difference in perception exists across designations in relation to recreation facility but not recreation activities. Table 4.17.2 results indicate that there is significant difference in opinion in relation to Employee contribution across designations. Null hypothesis H₀ 5 is rejected and alternate hypothesis that significant difference in opinion on importance of employee contribution exists across designations. 19
Table 4.17.1: Indicating summary of perceptions of employees across Gender, with reference to the importance of Recreational facilities, Recreation activities and employee contribution as a result of Recreational facilities. Table 4.17.2: Indicating ANOVA for Recreational facilities, recreation activities and employee contribution as a result of Recreational facilities across Gender. 20
There was significant difference in the perception of importance of recreational facilities and the importance of recreational activities between men and women. The perception of importance of recreational facilities and of the importance of recreational activities was significantly higher for men than for women. There was no significant difference in the perception of level of employee contribution between men and women. It was found that results of Table 4.18.2 indicate that there are significant differences in perception of men and women vis-à-vis recreational facilities and recreation activities across Gender. Hypothesis H₀₄ is rejected and alternate hypothesis that significant difference in perception exists across Gender in relation to recreational facilities and recreation activities. Table 4.18.2 results indicate that there is no significant difference in opinion in relation to Employee contribution across Gender. Null hypothesis H₀ 5 is accepted across Gender. 21
Table 4.18.1: Indicating summary of perceptions of employees across Age, with reference to the importance of Recreational facilities, Recreation activities and employee contribution as a result of Recreational facilities. Table 4.18.2: Indicating ANOVA for Recreational facilities, recreation activities and employee contribution as a result of Recreational facilities across Age. There was significant difference in the perception of importance of recreational facilities and the importance of recreational activities between age groups. The perception of importance of recreational facilities and of the importance of recreational activities generally increased with age group. There was no significant difference in the perception of level of employee contribution between age groups. It was found that results of Table 4.19.2 indicate that there are significant differences in perception of employees vis-à-vis recreational facilities and recreation activities across Age. Hypothesis H₀₄ is rejected and alternate hypothesis that significant difference in perception exists across Age in relation to recreational facilities and recreation activities. Table 4.19.2 results indicate that there is no significant difference in opinion in relation to Employee contribution across Age. Null hypothesis H₀ 5 is accepted across Age. 22
Table 4.19.1: Indicating summary of perceptions of employees across Educational qualification, with reference to the importance of Recreational facilities, Recreation activities and employee contribution as a result of Recreational facilities. Table 4.19.2: Indicating ANOVA for Recreational facilities, recreation activities and employee contribution as a result of Recreational facilities across Educational qualification. 23
There was significant difference in the perception of importance of recreational facilities, the importance of recreational activities, and the level of employee contribution between educational groups. The perception of importance of recreational facilities, recreational activities, and the level of employee contribution were significantly lower for Masters degree holders than for others. It was found that results of Table 4.20.2 indicate that there are significant differences in perception of employees vis-à-vis recreational facilities and recreation activities across Educational qualification. Hypothesis H₀₄ is rejected and alternate hypothesis that significant difference in perception exists across educational qualification in relation to recreational facilities and recreation activities. Table 4.20.2 results indicate that there is significant difference in opinion in relation to Employee contribution across educational qualification. Null hypothesis H₀ 5 is rejected across educational qualification and alternate hypothesis that there is significant difference in perception across educational qualification of employees in relation to level of employee contribution. 24
Table 4.20.1: Indicating summary of perceptions of employees across Marital status, with reference to the importance of Recreational facilities, Recreation activities and employee contribution as a result of Recreational facilities. Table 4.20.2: Indicating ANOVA for Recreational facilities, recreation activities and employee contribution as a result of Recreational facilities across Educational qualification. There was significant difference in the perception of importance of recreational activities between married and single professionals. The perception of importance of recreational activities was significantly higher for single professionals than for married professionals. There was no significant difference in the perception of importance of recreational facilities and level of employee contribution between married and single professionals.. It was found that results of Table 4.21.2 indicate that there is significant difference in perception of employees vis-à-vis and recreation activities across Marital status but no difference in perception of recreational facilities. Hypothesis H₀₄ is partially rejected and alternate hypothesis that significant difference in perception exists across Marital status in relation to recreation activities but no significant difference in perception of recreational facilities exists. Table 4.21.2 results indicate that there is no significant difference in perception in relation to Employee contribution across Marital status. Null hypothesis H₀ 5 is accepted across Marital status, 25
Table 4.21.1: Indicating summary of perceptions of employees across work experience, with reference to the importance of Recreational facilities, Recreation activities and employee contribution as a result of Recreational facilities. Table 4.21.2: Indicating ANOVA for Recreational facilities, recreation activities and employee contribution as a result of Recreational facilities across work experience. 26
There was significant difference in the perception of importance of recreational facilities, the importance of recreational activities, and the level of employee contribution according to total work experience. The perception of importance of recreational facilities, recreational activities, and the level of employee contribution generally increased with experience, with lowest level for professionals with less experience (less than 5 yrs.). It was found that results of Table 4.22.2 indicate that there are significant differences in perception of employees vis-à-vis recreational facilities and recreation activities across work experience. Hypothesis H₀₄ is rejected and alternate hypothesis that significant difference in perception exists across work experience in relation to recreational facilities and recreation activities. Table 4.22.2 results indicate that there is significant difference in opinion in relation to Employee contribution across work experience. Null hypothesis H₀ 5 is rejected across work experience and alternate hypothesis that there is significant difference in perception across work experience of employees in relation to level of employee contribution. 27
Table 4.22.1: Indicating summary of perceptions of employees across work experience at the current designation, with reference to the importance of Recreational facilities, Recreation activities and employee contribution as a result of Recreational facilities. Table 4.22.2: Indicating ANOVA for Recreational facilities, recreation activities and employee contribution as a result of Recreational facilities across work experience at the current designation. There was significant difference in the perception of importance of recreational facilities, the importance of recreational activities, and the level of employee contribution according to work experience at the current designation. The perception of importance of recreational facilities, recreational activities, and the level of employee contribution generally increased with experience, with lowest level for professionals with less experience (less than 5 yrs.). It was found that results of Table 4.23.2 indicate that there are significant differences in perception of employees vis-à-vis recreational facilities and recreation activities across work experience at the current designation. Hypothesis H₀₄ is rejected and alternate hypothesis that significant difference in perception exists across work experience at the current designation, in relation to recreational facilities and recreation activities. Table 4.23.2 results indicate that there is significant difference in opinion in relation to Employee contribution across work experience at the current designation. Null hypothesis H₀ 5 is rejected across work experience at the current designation and alternate hypothesis that there is significant difference in perception across work experience at the current designation of employees, in relation to level of employee contribution. 28
Table 4.23.1: Indicating summary of perceptions of employees across work experience within the current organisation, with reference to the importance of Recreational facilities, Recreation activities and employee contribution as a result of Recreational facilities. Table 4.23.2: Indicating ANOVA for Recreational facilities, recreation activities and employee contribution as a result of Recreational facilities across work experience within the current organisation. 29
There was significant difference in the perception of importance of recreational facilities, the importance of recreational activities, and the level of employee contribution according to work experience within the current organisation. The perception of importance of recreational facilities, recreational activities, and the level of employee contribution generally increased with experience, with lowest level for professionals with less experience (less than 5 yrs.). It was found that results of Table 4.24.2 indicate that there are significant differences in perception of employees vis-à-vis recreational facilities and recreation activities across work experience within the current organisation. Hypothesis H₀₄ is rejected and alternate hypothesis that significant difference in perception exists across work experience within the current organisation, in relation to recreational facilities and recreation activities. Table 4.24.2 results indicate that there is significant difference in perception in relation to Employee contribution across work experience within the current organisation. Null hypothesis H₀ 5 is rejected across work experience within the current organisation and alternate hypothesis that there is significant difference in perception across work experience within the current organisation of employees, in relation to level of employee contribution. 30