Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CHAPTER - 6
EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT
1 INTRODUCTION
Employees of an organisation, especially staff having direct contact with
customers as in the case of banking sector, play an important role in satisfying the
customers, since these organisations can serve their customers in the best manner
their employees' involvement and active partic~pation. Customer ~nteractions
2r.t 'moments of truth' as customer forms an oplnion of the company based on thc
of interaction. Similarly, 'quality of service' rendered by the employees
penetrate not only into the minds but also into the hearts of the customers. In vie- of
this. employees' commitment is vital to sustain the company's quest for excellence
io\\ards achieving the customer sa t~sfact~on. Which 1s a continuous process.
Ln1i7Ioyees commitment towards quality of service greatly influences the customer
j a t l s f a~ t i~n . This chapter deals with 'employee commitment' towards deli\.ering
quality service and thus making customer satisfaction happen.
Data collected from Government Banks. Natlonal~sed Banks. I'r~\dtc.
H'inh$, C'o-operati\ e Banks and Fore~gn Banks in connection n lth thc cmployetr sen ~ c e
qudl l t ) commitment are ut~llsed for testlng the hypothesis developed The folloulng
sections deal w ~ t h the hypothesis testlng and its results
6.2 EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT AMONG BANKS
Testing of hypothesis # 9
Sull Hypothesis
There is no significant difference in Employee Commitment among
C~a\cmment Banks, Nationalised Banks, Private Banks, Co-operative Banks and
Fol.cign Banks.
Alternate hypothesis
There is a significant difference in Employee Commitment among
G O ~ c m m e n t Banks. Nationalised Banks, Private Banks. Co-operative Banks and
One-way ANOVA was performed to test the above mentioned hypothesis.
able 6.1 presents the result of one-way ANOVA. As indicated by the significant levels
of F-values given in the last column of table, significant differences were found among
lhese bank employees, at 0.001 level for Involvement and Motivation, Quality of
information, Quality of Service Commitment and the overall Employee C'omn~~tmcnt.
1'he result suggests that employees from foreign banks showed greater concern for
clllaIity commitment. The result also indicates that the employee commitment is lowest
ill ~o-operative Banks.
TABLE: 6.1 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT BETWEEN THE TYPES OF BANKS.
VARIABLE
I I I- F--- - STD I STD I F P
GROUP N MEAN 1 DEV 1 ERR VALUE ' VALUE I I
1 I _t- A -
! I
1 1 3 3 ' 3 3 0 1 0 2 9 1 0050 40158 0000 2 8 3 I 2 8 9 0 61 0 067
INVOLVEMENT 8 3 72 3 39 0 65 0 076 MOTIVATION i 4 28 2 66 0 35 0 065
5 37 4 1 2 0 3 0 0 050 253 , 3 27 1 0 07 0 042 1
I - I -t----- -. -
1 1 3 3 3 3 0 I 0 2 7 0046 43112 0000 1 2 83 2 78 0 69 0 076
QUALITY OF 1 3 72 2 90 0 53 0 062 INFORMATION 1 4 28 2 61 0 34 0 065
0 30 0 049 0 67 I 0 042
QUALITY OF SERVICE 0 80 0 094 1 COMMITMENT 28 1 2 78 0 27 0 052
37 4 03 0 40 0 068 Total 253 3 49 0 74 0 047 I
---7-__C__t_-+ 7
33 3 35 0 21 1 0 037 42 593 0 000 83 3 06 0 57 0 062 1
EMPLOYEE 72 3 29 0 54 0 064 COMMITMENT 28 2 69 0 23 0 043 1
37 4 05 0 24 0 039
Total 253 3 20 0 51 0 037 I
1 -- A-
Slgnlficant at 0 01 Level, GROUP 1 Govt Banks 2 Natlonallsed Banks 3 private Banks 4 Co - operative Banks 5 Fore~gn Banks
In order to ascertain the grouping of employees, Scheffe's tcst was used to
fhrm the homogeneous sub-sets among the banks. The result of the tcst is given in table
, The result indicates that all the variables of employee commitment differed
among the various banks. For involvement and motivation, four sub-sets
\\,ere formed, in which Foreign Bank formed a separate group. This indicates that
foreign bank employee commitment towards quality is far above the other bank
Nationalised bank employees comm~tment .joined wlth Co-operative Banks
,,:, %,ell as with Government Banks. Government Banks also ~olned ulth the Pr~vate
Hanks and formed another set or sub-group.
HOMOGENEOUS SUBSETS
TABLE 6 2 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT BETWEEN THE TYPES OF BANKS-HOMOGENEOUS SUBSETS
INVOLVEMENT AND MOTIVATION I
-- - -- TYPES N Subset for alpha = 0 05
- - - I I 7 3 , - 4 4 00 28 2661 ' I
2 00 / 83 1 2 989 1 2 989 1 I 1 00 , 33 1 1 3 305 3 305 3 00 I 72 1 I 3 391 5 00 I
- - - 37 __i - - - I 4 118 - - - - -
-- -- QUALITY OF INFORMATION -- --
TYPES
- - QUALITY OF SERVICE COMMITMENT -
1
- - EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT I
Subset for alpha = 0 05 - 1 2 +-- --- I 3 -- TYPES
--
Subset for alpha = 0 05
N
TYPES \- .~ I 4.00 I 2.00
3.00 1 .oo I
L. .. 5.00
- - - 4 00 2 00
4 00 2 00 1 00 3 00 5 00
- --
N
28 83 72 33 37
I
- - 1 1 2 3 -_
28 2611 , 83 2 779 ,
28 2 785 83 1 1 3419
1 3 446 1 3 582 3 582 I
37 -- - 1 4 032 -
1
3 00 72 2 897
2 Subset for alpha = 0.05
2.686 3.062 1 -1 j
3.291 1 I
3.349 , I
. 1 - L 4 3 - - !
I S I
For quality of information, only three sub-groups were formed. Here also
k'oreign Bank employees' commitment significantly differed from other banks and
formed a separate group. Government Bank employees commitment, which IS below
Foreign Bank and above other banks formed a separate group. For the variable, Quality
of Service commitment, three sub-groups were formed. In this case, Co-operative Bank
formed a separate group with the lowest score of 2.785. The highest score of 3.037
belonging to Foreign Bank joined with Private Bank employees' commltment. It shows
that Private Bank commitment is similar to Foreign Bank and the narrow difference
between them may be due to chance cause. Nationalised Banks, Government Banks
and Co-operative Banks formed together a separate group. This shows clearly that the
quality of service commitment among the closely related types of banks 1s almost the
same and is significantly different from that of foreign banks. It IS also seen from the
table 6.2 that overall employees' commltment and Quality of Service commitment are
looking very similar.
6.3 EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT DISCRIMINATION
lesting of hypothesis # 10
Yull hypothesis
While predicting Employee Commitment, none of the Employee
Commitment variables strongly discriminates Government Banks. Nationalised Banks.
Private Banks, Co-operative Banks and Foreign Banks.
Alternate hypothesis
While predicting Employee Commitment, one or more Enlplokee
('ommitment variable isiare strongly discriminating Government Banks, Nat~onallsed
[3anks, Private Banks, Co-operative Banks and Foreign Banks.
Result Table 6.3 presents the result of overall step-wise discriminant analysis
after all the discriminating factors have been included in the estimation of the
discriminant function. This summary table indicates that all the three variables, Quality
of Information, Involvement & Motivation and Quality of Service Commitment entered
the model and were significant discriminators based on their Wilk's Lambda.
TABLE 6.3: RESULTS OF STEPWISE DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT
The multivariate aspects of the model are reported in table 6.4 under the
heading 'canonical discriminant function'. It is seen from the table that the canonical
to-relations are 0.699. 0.3 18 and 0.189 respectively for the three functions. i.e. the
association between the groups and the discnminant for function 1 1s 69.9%. for
function 2 is 31.8% and for function 3 is 18.9%. Also the value of Wilk's Lambda
shows that the function 1 has a good discnminatlng power as the value I S near to Lero.
STEP
1
2
3
The statlstlcal slgnlficance of the functlon 1 IS O 0002. I e N C uould get d
L~I-square of 201 614 only two tlmes out of 10,000 samples when there actually drc no
d~fferences between the centro~ds Slmllarly the statlst~cal slgnlficancc of hnctlon 7
mil functlon 3 also prokes that the results d ~ d come from a popularlor, v.h~ch hdd
~l~ffcrences between the fike groups
TABLE 6.4: CANONICAL DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION FOR EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT
ENTERED
QlNF
INMO
QSEC
VARIN
1
2
3
- P -- i C A N O N ~ ; ~ ~ ~ OF
'OF 1 CUM I CAL IUNC GEN I "ARIA- I WILK'S
'ION VALUE 1 NCE CHI DF SIC-
FUNCT10 LAMBDA SQUARE % CORREL NS
1 1 ( 0 954
2 0 113
0 0 3 7 -
W~LK'S LAMBDA
0.590
ATlON -- - 1 I
I
86.4 0 699 Thrygh ' 0 444 201 6.4 72 0 000' ~ I I I
I ; 2
10 3 96 7 3
3.3 100.0 0189 3 0 964 8985 2 I 0011 1 1
EXACT F j SIG -+ 43112 0000
0 474 27 939 0 000 I I
0444 1 19 518 I 0 000
The canonical discriminant function co-efficients are presented in table
( 1 . 5 . It is observed from table 6.5 that among the three var~ables of Employee
Commitment, Quality of Information has emerged as the most contributing var~able to
the discriminant function. The next best discriminating variable is Involvement 8:
Motivatlon and finally the last discriminating variable is the Quallty of Scrvlce
('ommitment.
TABLE 6.5: STANDARDISED CANONICAL DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION CO-EFFICIENTS OF EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT
r -- - -. 7
1 FUNCTIONS I VARIABLE I v- -
1 2 3
I I - I
INMO I 0 672 0 493 , - 0 975
I QlNF 0 653 -0 784 0 397
QSEC - 0 205 0 635 I 1 069 ~
-.
Dlscrlminant loadings of three Independent \ar~ables arc presented In
t ~ b l r 6 6. It is observed from the table that the relatlve contr~butions of Qudlltv of
intormat~on 1s hlgher than the other five \,anables for funct~on 1 dnd the contr~but~on of
( J u d l ~ t y of S e n ~ c c Commitment IS hlgher that the othe~ tuo variables for functlon 2 dnd
t h t contnbutlon of Involvement and Mot~vat~on is hlgher than the other tuo anables
TABLE 6.6: DISCRIMINANT LOADINGS OF EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT VARIABLES.
INDEPENDENT 1 FUNCTIONS
VARIABLE I 1 1 1 -i--rT- 1 -!-A- *
QlNF 1 0 840 - 0 380 0 387 , I I I
INMO ( 0.799 I 0 571 - 0 1 8 6 i 1
Q ~ E C 0.418 0.662 j 0.622 I I
The classification matrix of discriminant analysis is presented in tablc 6.7.
.4n analysis of the table confirms that the discriminating power of the classification
function is 57%. It is seen that 79% cases correctly match with Government bank
group, 28% only correctly match with Nationalised bank groups, 50% cases correctly
match with the Private Bank groups, 82% cases correctly match with the ('0---operat~\,c
bank groups and 97% cases correctly match with the Forelgn Bank groups. Where as.
the coefficient of variation for Government banks, Nationalised banks. C‘o-operative
banks and Foreign banks are 6.27, 18.63, 16.41, 8.55 and 5.93 respectively This
clearly shows that the employee commitment in these banks is very different. From the
above results, one can conclude that all the three variables of employee commitment are
,trongly discriminating the five groups of banks. Hence, we can reject the Null
hypothesis (H5) and accept alternate hypothesis.
TABLE 6.7: RESULTS OF CLASSIFICATION MATRIX OF EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT.
GOVERNMENT 26 BANKS 3(g0/o) 319%) I 0 (OO/o) I 1 (3%)
ACTUAL GROUP
I I I
NATIONALISED BANKS
I l 3 ' 23 (289) 20 (24%) 22 (2lY0) 5 (b0/o; (1 6%) I I
I 2 1 3 4 5
No of Cases
I
FOREIGN BANKS 11 0 10°/0) 0 (Oo/o) 1 (3O/o. 36
1 0(00'0) (970/0)
- - -
PREDICTED GROUP MEMBERSHIP I I
7-
I PRIVATE BANKS 1 72
CO-OPERAT'VE 28 BANKS
6.4 EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT AMONG DIFFERENT AGE GROUPS OF EMPLOYEES
l 2 1 4 (6%) 35 (50%) 15 (21%) 5 17%) (,7%) ,
I
0 (OO/o) 1 4 (lPO/o) 1 (4%) 23 (82%) 0 (0%) I
'resting of hypothesis # I I
Null hypothesis
There is no significant difference in Employee Commitment among thc
different age groups of the employees.
Alternate hypothesis
There is a significant difference in Employee Comm~tment among the
different age groups of the employees.
Result
Table 6.8 presents the results of the one-way ANOVA conducted on age
proup of employees for employee commitment variables.
TABLE: 6.8 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT BETWEEN AGE GROUP OF EMPLOYEES
INVOLVEMENT & MOTIVATION
-
VARIABLE
1 2 3 4 5
Total
QUALITY OF INFORMATION
GROUP
1 2 3 4 5
Total
I 1 1 2 5 QUALITY OF 2 18
/ SERVICE 3 7 1 i COMMITMENT 4 109 I 5 30
Total 253
N
EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT
- - -- -- I STD ) STD P
MEAN / DEV r ERR I VALUE VALUE
1 2 3 4 5
Total
Group :- 1. c 25 Years. 2. 25 to 35 Years. 3. 35 to 45 Years.
Group 1 indicates the employees whose age are below 25 years, Group 2
!ndicates the age group of 25-35 years, Group 3 - 35-45 years, Group 4 - 45-55 years
Jnd Group 5 indicates the employees whose age are above 55 years. As indicated by the
significant level of F-values given in the last column of table 6.8, no significant
difference was noticed among the various groups even at 0.05 level. I t indicates that
age is not a factor in determining the commitment level of employees In the banking
~ectors.
6.5 EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT AMONG DIFFERENT EXPERLENCE GROUP OF EMPLOYEES
Testing of hypothesis # 12
l; ull hypothesis
There IS no significant difference In Employee Commitment among the
d~fferent experience groups of employees.
ilternate hypothesis
There IS a s~gnlficant difference In Employee Commitment among
d~lrcrent experlence groups of employees
Result
Table 6 9 presents the results of the one-nay AYOVA conducted on
c\Pcnence groups of employees The experlence of emploqees has been groupcd Into
5 1 \ d~stlnctlve groups. Group1 Indicates the employees who are ha t~ng 1 0 \ie,lls
e\Pcr~ence and below, g roup2 lndlcates the employees having evpencnce betueen 10
""d 20 years, g r o u p 3 whose experlence ranges 15 to 20 years, group4 ulth the
"Xpnence of 2 0 to 25 years, g roup5 25 and 30 years and group-6 lnd~cates employees
'hose experience IS above 30 years.
* Significant at 0.01 Level. * Significant at 0.001 Level
TABLE : 6.9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT BETWEEN EXPERIENCE GROUP OF EMPLOYEES
GROUP: 1. < 10 Years. 2. lOto15Years. 3. 15to20Years 4. 20 to 25 Years. 5. 25 to 30 Years. 6. > 30 Years.
r I VARIABLE I
I I
INVOLVEMENT & MOTIVATION
I
QUALITY OF INFORMATION
As indicated by the significant level of F-values given in the last colllnln
"fahie, significant difference was found among these six groups in all the variables.
1 0 1 3 : E: 0 042 1 +--+ ---- - *- --C -
1 26 3 7 2 0 7 1 0139 1 59 3 46 0 083 QUALITY OF 3 45 3 79
72 0 6 3 0 1 0 7 SERVICE 1 4
COMMITMENT 5 38 1 3 4 5
0 7 8 0134 4 3 3 2 3 1 O
3610 0004
6 42 i 3 35 O 88 0 005 1 Total 253 3 49
i O 62
0 047 - - &'_A- P +-----
I 1 26 0 5 5 0108
50 0 58 0 075
EMPLOYEE * *
COMMITMENT O 088 5 346 0 000
3 15 Total 253 29 0 09 0 037
- - -. -
MEAN
1 26 3 50 2 59 3 45 4
733 o;2 5 6 I
Total I 1 I I d
1 1 2 6 1 3 2 6 ' Oti4 0126 0102
1 5 ' 3 0 2 0 7 8 I 45 1 3 3 3 0 6 1 i I. 4 38 2 95 0 58 i
087 4 082 0 001 ' 43 1 2 7 7 0 5 7 I
oleo 6
STD DEV
STD ERR FTP VALUE VALUE 1 + --
Overall employee ~ ~ n m i t m e n t differed at 0.001 level between these
5roups Quality of inf~rlllation is exactly at 0.001 level differed among these
[lowever, involvement and motivation and Quality of service Commitment were found
j,gnificant at 0.005 level. All these results show that the experience groups of
employees predicts the level of employee commitment differently. In overall employee
commitment, employees who are having less than 10 years of experienccs (1.e.
youngsters) and employees who are having 15 to 20 years (i.e. middle) experience
persons showed greater concern for quality. Employees who are having 25 to 30 years
showed lesser commitment. This shows that the commitment level and the experience
are having definite set of relationship. As experience increases commltmcnt level
increases and after 20 years of experience people started showing diminishing interest in
quality of service. The result also shows that highly experienced persons regain their
enthusiasm in showing quality commitment.
In order to ascertain the correct grouping of employees. Scheffe's test was
used to form the homogenous sub-set among the per-defined groups of employees
hased on experience. The result of homogeneous test is given in table 6.10. The result
~nd~cates that in all the variables three sub-groups were formed. For involvement and
motivation, Group 2, 4, 6 and 5 formed a simple set. Group 1. 2 and 4 formed another
~ c t and finally, Group 1 and 3 formed a separate group.
It indicates that the experience groups 3 and 5 keep far apart and are
significantly different. This shows that employees with experience between I S to 20
)cars are having the least commitment and the employees whose cxperlence IS between
7 5 and 30 years are having the most commitment towards quality. I t is interesting to
note that exactly in the same way other variables are also formed their sub groups. It
shows that middle aged persons having 15 to 20 years of experience are to be trained to
improve their commitment level in order to improve the quality of service in this sector.
HOMOGENEOUS SUBSETS
TABLE : 6.10 RESULT OF HOMOGENEOUS SUBSETS AMONG THE VARIOUS GROUPS OF EMPLOYEES.
INVOLVEMENT AND MOTIVATION
QUALITY OF INFORMATION
r
EXPPS
r ----.P - I EXPPS
I t s for alpha = 0 05
1 1 I + 2 3
,- -
I 5.00 43 1 2 767
I 4 00 38 1 2.950 6 00 4 2 2 972 2 972 2 00 59 3016 3 016 1 00 I 26 ~ 3 260 3 260 3 00
L - - 1 45 1 --- -- 3 328 -- -
QUALITY OF SERVICE COMMITMENT
5.00 4 3 3.087 ! A - ,
6 .OO 3.125
1 .OO 3 498 I 3 498 3.00 4 5 3 570 -App
N Subsets for alpha = 0 05 7
-- I 1 2 7 - 3
EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT
-- - i EXPPS , N v ~ u b s e t s = o o 5 - I--- - 1 2 . 3
d
5 00 4 3 3 230 6 00 ' 42 3 354 4 00 I 38 3 453 3 453 2.00 I 3.459 1 ;: , 3 459
I 1 .OO 3 725 3 725 1 3 0 0 j 45 1 3 796
2.00
3.00
N
43 42 38 59 26 45
- Subsets for alpha = 0.05 I
I 3 -- 1
1 2 3.087 3.125 I 3.201 3.235
3.201 3.235 1 3.498 1 3.498
1 3.570 1 - -
6.6 EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT AMONG DIFFERENT EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND OF EMPLOYEES
,resting of hypothesis # 13
Y dl hypothesis
There 1s no s~gn~ficant difference in Employee Commltment among thc
different employees who are grouped based on their educational background.
Alternate hypothesis
There is a significant difference in Employee Commltment among the
employees who are grouped based on their educational background.
Kesult
Table 6.1 1 presents the results of the one-way ANOVA conducted on
ili~alification group of employees. Employees u.ho participated In the sune) wcrc
classified into three groups based on the educational background. Group 1 indicates the
c~nployees whose qualification is up to HSC, group 2 indicates the employees whose
ilualification is above HSC and up to Degree and group 3 indicates the employees u h o
Jrc. Post-Graduates.
TABLE : 6.1 1 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT BETWEEN QUALIFICATION GROUP OF EMPLOYEES
QUALITY OF 2 1 5 7 1 303 072 , 0057 0 984
INFORMATION 77 1 305 066 , 0075 0016
1 VARIABLE
t
I
1 INVOLVEMENT & MOTIVATION
( Total / 253 1 3 04 , 0 67 0 042 1 I
QUALITY OF 2 157 3 43 0 72 0 058 SERVICE 0 127
COMMITMENT 77 354 1 074 0846 2081 I
Total 253 3 49 0 74 ( 0 466 '
GROUP
1
2
3
Total
1
EMPLOYEE 1 157 323 1 0 6 1 0049 COMMITMENT
Group : 1. HSC 2 . Graduate 3. Post Graduate
N
19
157
77
253
19
As indicated by the significant level of F-\,slues given in the last column
oftable, no significant differences were found among HSC, Degrec and Post-Graduate
cnl~loyees in any of the variable. It indicates that the level of qualification does not
when we consider the employee commitment. The commitment of employees in
thobe banks is found to be at the same level among the three groups of employees. I t
that qualification is not a factor in determining the level of quality commitment
Of employees in these banks.
MEAN
333
323
3 35
3 27
303
STD DEV
049
070
~ I O 391 0 66 0 075 0 943 , 0 67 0 042 1 1
I
0 35 0804
STD ERR
1 F T-p-l VALUE VALUE
A--,
I 0 1 1 3 1
1 I I
0055
6.7 EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE EMPLOYEES
Testing of hypothesis # 14
Yul l hypothesis
There is no significant difference in Employee Commitment between male
and female employees.
Alternate hypothesis
There is a significant difference in Employee Commitment between male
and female employees.
TABLE : 6.12 T-TEST FOR EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE (SEX) OF THE EMPLOYEES
, -- I-
VARIABLE MEAN , I DEV STD , ERR STD T P VALUE VALUE
1
INVOLVEMENT 1 3 3 5 0 6 6 0053 1 5 6 1
S MOTIVATION 2 ' 97 I
3 15 0 6 7 0068 0013 0909 i I I
3 1 1 0 6 6 0 0 5 3 , QUALITY OF 1 'I56
I
I ' I
INFORMATION I 1 2 97 1 2 92 1 0 68 0 069 6 551 1 0450
Group:- 1. Male. 2. Female
QUALITY OF 1 1 156
1 3 5 8 0 7 6 0061 SERVICE COMMITMENT
EMPLOYEE 156 3 35 1 0 59 0 047
I COMMITMENT
1 0 036 2 97 1 3 1 3 0 5 7 0 0 5 7 6 1 1 I 0 850 1
0 385 * I 3 34 j o 70 i o 071 o 757 97 1
1 4
I
143
Result
Table 6.12 presents the results of the two-way sample t-test. As indicated
I J ~ the significant level of t-vaue given in the last column of table, no significant
d~fference was found among the two groups even at 95% confidence limits for all the
\.ariable~. The result suggests that sex is not a factor in determining the level of
rnanagernent commitment in these banks. Both male and the female employees
perceived the same level of quality commitment. The difference notlced between them
Ill~ght be due to chance cause. Therefore in evaluating employee commitment sex need
not be considered as a differentiating factor.
6.8 EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT BETWEEN I S 0 CERTIFIED AND NON I S 0 CERTIFIED BANK EMPLOYEES
1 esting of hypothesis # 15
Y ull hypothesis
There is no significant difference In Employee Commitment between
c~nployees of IS0 certified banks and employees of non-IS0 certified banks.
.Alternate hypothesis
There is a significant difference In Employee Commitment betnccn
employees of IS0 certified banks and employees of non-IS0 cert~fied banks
TABLE : 6.13 T -TEST FOR EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT BETWEEN I S 0 CERTIFIED AND NON -CERTIFIED BANK EMPLOYEES.
VARIABLE GROUP MEAN STD STD I I I
INVOLVEMENT & 1 116 3.24 0 71 0 066 1 -1 MOTIVATION
QUALITY OF 1 116 3 0 5
INFORMATION 2 137 / 3.02
SERVICE ' I I
COMMITMENT 1 2 1 1 3 7 3 3 6 I 0 7 6 0071 2 515 0013
EMPLOYEE 1 1 ' 1 1 6 1
COMMITMENT 1 2 1 1 3 7 , i
* Significant at 0.05 level
Group 1 : I S 0 Certified. Group 2 : 1 S 0 Non Certified
Result Table 6.13 presents the results of the tuo sample t-test. As indicated by
thc s~gn~ficant level given In the last column of table. sign~ficant difference was not~ced
I I I Qual~ty of s enwe commltment at 0.05 level of slgnlficance. It s h o ~ s that employees
\\ho are drawn from IS0 certified banks showed greater sewice commltment than thc
~mployees drawn from non-IS0 certified banks. This gives clear signal that the banks
lihlch are yet to go in for IS0 certification can go in for IS0 certification to impro~e
their employees service commitment. However, thc result further indicates that
t'nlployees' involvement and Quality of Information are un-affected by the IS0
c t ' t I~ f i ca t i~~ . Overall employee commitment also did not significantly differ between
thiie groups. It further shows that sustaining the IS0 certification can differentiate
thcse factors also.
6.9 EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT BETWEEN TRAINED AND UNTRAINED EMPLOYEES ON QUALITY
Testing of hypothesis # 16
Null Hypothesis
There is no significant difference In employee commitment betueen
employees who are trained on quality and employees who are not tralned on q u a l ~ t y
~ l t ernate hypothesis
There 1s a s~gn~ficant d~fference In employee commltnlent betmeen
employees who are tra~ned on qual~ty and the employees M ho are not tra~ned on quallt)
TABLE: 6.14 T-TEST FOR EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT BETWEEN THE TRAINED AND UNTRAINED EMPLOYEES ON QUALITY
-- I
------ I STD I STD T P VARIABLE GROUP N MEAN DEV ERR VALUE VALUE
-7- A- C----- --A - - --
INVOLVEMENT & ~ MOTIVATION
QUALITY OF 1 INFORMATION 1
EMPLOYEE :i: 329 000 1 0057 ; I I
I 1 0 635 1 COMMITMENT
I
3 25 1 0 57 0 049 ) 1 0 526 I
-- L-LI- -
QUALITY OF SERVICE
COMMITMENT
Group:- 1. TRAINED 2. UNTRAINED
1 116 348 075 0070 I - 0 160 0 873
2 1 137 1 350 074 0063 I
Result
Table 6.14 presents the result of two-sample t-test. As indicated by the
significant level given in the last column of table, no significant difference was found
among the two groups even at 0.05 level of significance. It suggests that the employee
level has not improved even after giving training on quality. It shows that
the training was not effective. Bank authorities should take note of this result and
nlodify their training modules so as to give the expected effects on the employees'
commitment level. As such training did not create any effect on the employee quality
in these banks.
