CHAPTER IV
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
TABLE 4.1
TABLE REPRESENTING GENDER OF RESPONDENTS:
Gender
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
1.0 51 51.0 51.0 51.0
Valid 2.0 49 49.0 49.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
INFERENCE:
From the above table we infer that 51% of the respondent from male and 46% of the respondent
from female
CHART 4.1
CHART REPRESENTING GENDER OF RESPONDENTS:
TABLE 4.2
TABLE REPRESENTING AGE GROUP OF RESPONDENTS
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Below 25 years 20 20.0 20.0 20.0
25-35 years 36 36.0 36.0 56.0
35-45 years 14 14.0 14.0 70.0
Valid
45-55 years 19 19.0 19.0 89.0
Above 55 years 11 11.0 11.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
INFERENCE:
From the above table we infer that 19 % of the respondent are from age group of 45-55
years , % and 14% of the respondent are from age group of 35-45 years and ,36% of the
respondent are from age group of 25-35 years and 20% of the respondent are from age group of
below 25 yrs and 11% of the respondent are from age group of above 55 yrs.
CHART 4.2
CHART REPRESENTING AGE GROUP OF RESPONDENTS
TABLE 4.3
TABLE REPRESENTING EDUCATION QUALIFICATION OF RESPONDENTS:
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent
Percent
SSLC 21 21.0 21.0 21.0
HSC 36 36.0 36.0 57.0
Valid UG 21 21.0 21.0 78.0
PG 22 22.0 22.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
INFERENCE:
From the above table we infer that 21% and 22% of respondents has UG and PG Qualification
respectively, 21% of respondents are SSLC and 36 % of respondents are HSC.
CHART 4.3
EDUCATION QUALIFICATION OF RESPONDENTS:
TABLE 4.4
TABLE REPRESENTING THE DESIGNATION OF THE RESPONDENTS
Designation
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Superintendent 24 24.0 24.0 24.0
Inspector senior 37 37.0 37.0 61.0
Tax assistant 19 19.0 19.0 80.0
Valid
Deputy officer 20 20.0 20.0 100.0
superintendent
Total 100 100.0 100.0
INFERENCE:
From the above table we infer that 37% of the respondent is Inspectors, 24% of the
respondents are superintendents, 19% of the respondents are Senior Tax Assistants and 20% of
the respondents are Deputy Officer Superintendent
CHART 4.4
CHART REPRESENTING THE DESIGNATION OF THE RESPONDENTS
TABLE 4.5
TABLE REPRESENTING THE MARITAL STATUS OF RESPONDENTS
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent
Percent
Married 52 52.0 52.0 52.0
Valid Unmarried 48 48.0 48.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
INFERENCE:
The above table shows that 52% of respondents are married and 48 % of respondents are
unmarried.
CHART 4.5
CHART REPRESENTING THE MARITAL STATUS OF RESPONDENTS
TABLE 4.6
TABLE REPRESENTING THE EXPERIENCE OF RESPONDENTS.
Freque Percent Valid Cumulative
ncy Percent Percent
Less than 5 year 17 17.0 17.0 17.0
5-10 years 41 41.0 41.0 58.0
10-15 years 17 17.0 17.0 75.0
Valid
15-20 years 15 15.0 15.0 90.0
Above 20years 10 10.0 10.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
INFERENCE:
From the above table we infer that 10% of the respondent are from respondents having above
20 yrs of experience.15 % of the respondent are15-20 yrs of experience, 14% of the respondent
are respondents having less than 5 yrs of experience, 41% and 17% of the respondent are from
respondents having experience of 5-10 yrs and 10-15 yrs respectively.
CHART 4.6
CHART REPRESENTING THE EXPERIENCE OF RESPONDENTS.
TABLE 4.7
TABLE REPRESENTING THE LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH SALARY AND
BENEFITS
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Highly satisfied 19 19.0 19.0 19.0
Satisfied 19 19.0 19.0 38.0
Neutral 17 17.0 17.0 55.0
Valid
Dissatisfied 25 25.0 25.0 80.0
Highly Dissatisfied 20 20.0 20.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
INFERENCE:
The above table shows that 19% of the respondents are satisfied about their salary and benefits
19% of respondents are highly satisfied,17% of the respondents are neutral25% of the
respondents are dissatisfied with salary and benefits and only 20% of the respondents are highly
dissatisfied
CHART 4.7
CHART REPRESENTING THE LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH SALARY AND
BENEFITS
TABLE 4.8
TABLE REPRESENTING THE LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH WORK
ASSIGNMENT
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Highly Satisfied 22 22.0 22.0 22.0
Satisfied 25 25.0 25.0 47.0
Neutral 21 21.0 21.0 68.0
Valid
Dissatisfied 18 18.0 18.0 86.0
Highly Dissatisfied 14 14.0 14.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
INFERENCE:
From the above table we infer that 25% of the respondents are satisfied with their work
assignment, 22% of the respondents are highly satisfied with their work assignment,21% of the
respondents are neutral,18% of the respondents are dissatisfied with their work assignment and
only 14% of the respondent are highly dissatisfied with their work assignment.
CHART 4.8
CHART REPRESENTING THE LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH WORK
ASSIGNMENT
TABLE 4.9
TABLE REPRESENTING THE LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH TRANSFER
POLICIES
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulativ
e Percent
Highly Satisfied 24 24.0 24.0 24.0
Satisfied 29 29.0 29.0 53.0
Neutral 12 12.0 12.0 65.0
Valid
Dissatisfied 22 22.0 22.0 87.0
Highly Dissatisfied 13 13.0 13.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
INFERENCE:
The above table we infer that 29% of the respondents are satisfied with the transfer policies,
24% of the respondents are highly satisfied with the transfer policies, 12% of the respondents are
neutral with the transfer policies, 22% of the respondents are dissatisfied with the transfer
policies,13% of the respondents are highly dissatisfied with the transfer policies.
CHART 4.9
CHART REPRESENTING THE LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH TRANSFER
POLICIES
TABLE 4.10
TABLE REPRESENTING THE LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH THE
PROMOTION POLICY
Frequen Percent Valid Cumulative
cy Percent Percent
Highly Satisfied 23 23.0 23.0 23.0
Satisfied 30 30.0 30.0 53.0
Neutral 7 7.0 7.0 60.0
Valid
Dissatisfied 25 25.0 25.0 85.0
Highly Dissatisfied 15 15.0 15.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
INFERENCE:
The above table shows that 15% of the respondents are dissatisfied with the promotion
policies, 25% of the respondents are highly dissatisfied with the promotion policies, 30% of the
respondents are satisfied with the promotion policies, 07% of the respondents are neutral with
the promotion policies, and , 23% of the respondents are highly satisfied with the promotion
policies.
CHART 4.10
CHART REPRESENTING THE LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH THE
PROMOTION POLICY
TABLE 4.11
TABLE REPRESENTING THE LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH BONUS
PROVIDED
Frequency Perce Valid Cumulative
nt Percent Percent
Highly Satisfied 23 23.0 23.0 23.0
Satisfied 30 30.0 30.0 53.0
Neutral 17 17.0 17.0 70.0
Valid
Dissatisfied 21 21.0 21.0 91.0
Highly Dissatisfied 9 9.0 9.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
INFERENCE:
The above table shows that 30% of the respondents are satisfied with the bonus provided for
them, 21% of the respondents are dissatisfied with the bonus provided, 09% of the respondents
are highly dissatisfied with the bonus provided 17% of the respondents are neutral with the
bonus provided, and only 09% of the respondents are highly satisfied with the bonus provided.
CHART 4.11
CHART REPRESENTING THE LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH BONUS
PROVIDED
TABLE 4.12
TABLE REPRESENTING THE LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH THE MEDICAL
CHECKUP
Freque Percent Valid Cumulative
ncy Percent Percent
Highly Satisfied 22 22.0 22.0 22.0
Satisfied 29 29.0 29.0 51.0
Neutral 17 17.0 17.0 68.0
Valid
Dissatisfied 21 21.0 21.0 89.0
Highly Dissatisfied 11 11.0 11.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
INFERENCE:
The above table shows that 21% of the respondents are dissatisfied with the medical checkup
provided by the concern, 11% of the respondents are highly dissatisfied medical checkup
provided by the concern, 29% of the respondents are satisfied with the medical checkup,17% of
the respondents are neutral medical checkup provided by the concern, and 22% of the
respondents are is highly satisfied with the medical checkup.
CHART 4.12
CHART REPRESENTING THE LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH THE MEDICAL
CHECKUP
TABLE 4.13
TABLE REPRESENTING THE SATISFACTION OF QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF
FOOD PROVIDED IN THE CANTEEN
Frequency Perce Valid Cumulative
nt Percent Percent
Highly Satisfied 25 25.0 25.0 25.0
Satisfied 31 31.0 31.0 56.0
Neutral 9 9.0 9.0 65.0
Valid
Dissatisfied 22 22.0 22.0 87.0
Highly Dissatisfied 13 13.0 13.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
INFERENCE:
The above table we infer that 25% of the respondents are highly satisfied about the
quality and quantity of food provided in the canteen, 31% of the respondents are satisfied the
quality and quantity of food provided in the canteen , 09% of the respondents are neutral with the
quality and quantity of food provided in the canteen, 22% of the respondents are dissatisfied with
the quality and quantity of food provided in the canteen and 13% of the respondents are highly
dissatisfied that the quality and quantity of food provided in the canteen.
CHART 4.13
CHART REPRESENTING THE SATISFACTION OF QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF
FOOD PROVIDED IN THE CANTEEN:
TABLE 4.14
TABLE REPRESENTING THE LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH THE RATE OF
FOOD PROVIDED BY THE CANTEEN
Frequenc Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
y Percent
Highly Satisfied 22 22.0 22.0 22.0
Satisfied 33 33.0 33.0 55.0
Neutral 14 14.0 14.0 69.0
Valid
Dissatisfied 19 19.0 19.0 88.0
Highly Dissatisfied 12 12.0 12.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
INFERENCE:
From the above table we infer that 33% of the respondents are satisfied about the rate food
provided by the canteen, 14% of the respondents are neutral about the rate food provided by the
canteen,, 22% of the respondents are highly satisfied about the rate food provided by the canteen,
19% of the respondents are dissatisfied about the rate of food in the canteen and 12% of the
respondents are is highly dissatisfied about the rate food provided by the canteen,
CHART 4.14
CHART REPRESENTING THE LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH THE RATE OF
FOOD AVAILABLE IN THE CANTEEN
TABLE 4.15
TABLE REPRESENTING THE LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH GRIEVANCE
REDRESSEL
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent
Percent
Highly Satisfied 18 18.0 18.0 18.0
Satisfied 32 32.0 32.0 50.0
Neutral 15 15.0 15.0 65.0
Valid
Dissatisfied 21 21.0 21.0 86.0
Highly dissatisfied 14 14.0 14.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
INFERENCE:
From the above table we infer that 32% of the respondents are satisfied about the grievance
redressed, 15% of the respondents are neutral about the grievance redressed,, 21% of the
respondents are dissatisfied about the grievance redressed14% of the respondents are highly
dissatisfied about the grievance redressed and 18% of the respondents are highly satisfied about
the grievance redressed.
CHART 4.15
CHART REPRESENTING THE LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH GRIEVANCE
REDRESSEL
TABLE 4.16
TABLE REPRESENTING THE RATING FOR SEATING ARRANGEMENT
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Very good 21 21.0 21.0 21.0
Good 28 28.0 28.0 49.0
Average 18 18.0 18.0 67.0
Valid
Poor 20 20.0 20.0 87.0
Very poor 13 13.0 13.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
INFERENCE:
From the above table we infer that 28% of the respondents rated good with seating
arrangement , 18 % of the respondents are says that average of seating arrangement , 21% of the
respondents are says that very good with seating arrangement,20% of the respondents says that
poor with seating arrangement and 13 % of the respondents says that rated very poor for seating
arrangement
CHART 4.16
CHART REPRESENTING THE RATING FOR SEATING ARRANGEMENT
TABLE 4.17
TABLE REPRESENTING THE OPINION ABOUT COMPUTER CONFIGURATION
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Very good 23 23.0 23.0 23.0
Good 34 34.0 34.0 57.0
Average 13 13.0 13.0 70.0
Valid
Poor 20 20.0 20.0 90.0
Very poor 10 10.0 10.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
INFERENCE:
From the above table we infer that , 34% of the respondents rated good with computer
configuration , 13% of the respondents are says that average of computer configuration, 23% of
the respondents are says that very good with computer configuration,20% of the respondents
says that poor with computer configuration and 10 % of the respondents says that rated very poor
for computer configuration
CHART 4.17
CHART REPRESENTING THE OPINION ABOUT COMPUTER CONFIGURATION:
TABLE 4.18
TABLE REPRESENTING THE RATING FOR VENTILATION, A/C
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Very good 20 20.0 20.0 20.0
Good 32 32.0 32.0 52.0
Average 17 17.0 17.0 69.0
Valid
Poor 18 18.0 18.0 87.0
Very poor 13 13.0 13.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
INFERENCE
From the above table we infer that 32% of the respondents rated good with ventilation and
A/C., 17% of the respondents are says that average of ventilation and A/C , 20% of the
respondents are says that very good with ventilation and A/C.18 % of the respondents says that
poor with ventilation and A/C and 13% of the respondents rated very poor for ventilation and
A/C
CHART 4.18
CHART REPRESENTING THE RATING FOR VENTILATION, A/C
TABLE 4.19
TABLE REPRESENTING THE RATING FOR LIGHTS
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Very Good 25 25.0 25.0 25.0
Good 32 32.0 32.0 57.0
Average 16 16.0 16.0 73.0
Valid
Poor 18 18.0 18.0 91.0
Very poor 9 9.0 9.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
INFERENCE:
From the above table we infer that 32% of the respondents rated good with lighting facility,
16% of the respondents are says that average of lighting facility, 25% of the respondents are
says that very good with lighting facility ,18% of the respondents says that poor with lighting
facility and 09% of the respondents says that rated very poor for lighting facility.
CHART 4.19
CHART REPRESENTING THE RATING FOR LIGHTS
TABLE 4.20
TABLE REPRESENTING THE RATING FOR FIRE-EXTINGUISHER
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Very good 24 24.0 24.0 24.0
Good 30 30.0 30.0 54.0
Average 9 9.0 9.0 63.0
Valid
Poor 24 24.0 24.0 87.0
Very poor 13 13.0 13.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
INFERENCE:
From the above table we infer that 30 % of the respondents are good with fire
extinguisher and 09% of the respondents are says that average of fire extinguisher and 24%
respondents are says that very good with fire extinguisher,24% of the respondents says that poor
with fire extinguisher and 13 % of the respondents rated very poor for fire extinguisher.
CHART 4.20
CHART REPRESENTING THE RATING FOR FIRE-EXTINGUISHER
TABLE 4.21
TABLE REPRESENTING THE SUPERIORS ARE COOPERATIVE
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Strongly agree 23 23.0 23.0 23.0
Agree 34 34.0 34.0 57.0
Moderate 12 12.0 12.0 69.0
Valid
Disagree 20 20.0 20.0 89.0
Strongly Disagree 11 11.0 11.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
INFERENCE:
The above table shoes that 34% of the respondents agreed that their superiors are
cooperative, 23% of the respondents strongly agreed that their superiors are cooperative, 12% of
the respondents are moderate that their superiors are cooperative , 20% of the respondents are
disagreed that their superiors are cooperative and 11 % of the respondents are is strongly
disagreed that their superiors are cooperative.
CHART 4.21
CHART REPRESENTING THE SUPERIORS ARE COOPERATIVE
TABLE 4.22
TABLE REPRESENTING THE SATISFACTION WITH THE WORK SPACE
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Strongly agree 22 22.0 22.0 22.0
Agree 33 33.0 33.0 55.0
Moderate 14 14.0 14.0 69.0
Valid
Disagree 23 23.0 23.0 92.0
Strongly Disagree 8 8.0 8.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
INFERENCE:
From the above table, we infer that 33% of the respondents are agreed about their
workspace satisfaction, 14% of the respondents are moderate about their workspace satisfaction ,
22% of the respondents are strongly agreed that they are satisfied about their work space, 8% of
the respondents are highly disagreed about their workspace satisfaction,23% of the respondents
are disagreed about their workspace satisfaction.
CHART 4.22
CHART REPRESENTING THE SATISFACTION WITH THE WORK SPACE
TABLE 4.23
TABLE REPRESENTING FREEDOM TO OFFER SUGGESTIONS
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Strongly Agree 23 23.0 23.0 23.0
Agree 35 35.0 35.0 58.0
Moderate 14 14.0 14.0 72.0
Valid
Disagree 20 20.0 20.0 92.0
Strongly Disagree 8 8.0 8.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
INFERENCE:
The above table shows that 35% of the respondents agreed that they are given freedom to
offer suggestions on official matters, 14% of the respondents are moderate that they are given
freedom to offer suggestions on official matters , 20% of the respondents disagreed that they are
given freedom to offer suggestions on official matters, 23% of the respondents are strongly
agreed and 08% of the respondents strongly disagreed that they are given freedom to offer
suggestions on official matters.
CHART 4.23
CHART REPRESENTING FREEDOM TO OFFER SUGGESTIONS
TABLE 4.24
TABLE REPRESENTING THE REWARD FOR OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Strongly agree 17 17.0 17.0 17.0
Agree 41 41.0 41.0 58.0
Moderate 13 13.0 13.0 71.0
Valid
Disagree 19 19.0 19.0 90.0
Strongly Disagree 10 10.0 10.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
INFERENCE:
The above table shows that that 41% of the respondents agreed they are getting
reward for outstanding performance, 1.% of the respondents are neutral they are getting reward
for outstanding performance , 10% of the respondents strongly disagreed they are getting reward
for outstanding performance,19% of the respondents disagreed they are getting reward for
outstanding performance and 17% of the respondents strongly agreed they are getting reward for
outstanding performance.
CHART 4.24
CHART REPRESENTING THE REWARD FOR OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE
TABLE 4.25
TABLE REPRESENTING THE LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH TRAINING
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Strongly Agree 20 20.0 20.0 20.0
Agree 39 39.0 39.0 59.0
Moderate 12 12.0 12.0 71.0
Valid
Disagree 18 18.0 18.0 89.0
Strongly disagree 11 11.0 11.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
INFERENCE:
The above table shows that 39% of the respondents are satisfied about the training
given for them , 12% of the respondents are neutral about the training given for them, 18% of the
respondents are dissatisfied only about the training given for them 20% of the respondents are
highly satisfied with the training given for them, and 11% of the respondents are highly
dissatisfied about the training given for them.
CHART 4.25
CHART REPRESENTING THE LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH TRAINING
TABLE 4.26
TABLE REPRESENTING THE REQUIREMENT OF THE SPECIALITY HOSPITALS
TO BE ADDED IN THE LIST OF HOSPITALS PROVIDED.
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Yes 51 51.0 51.0 51.0
Valid No 49 49.0 49.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
INFERENCE
The above table shows that 51% of the respondents required that the specialty hospitals to
be added in the list of hospitals provided by the concern, 49 % of the respondents do not require
the specialty hospitals to be added in the list of hospitals provided.
CHART 4.26
CHART REPRESENTING THE REQUIREMENT OF THE SPECIALITY HOSPITALS
TO BE ADDED IN THE LIST OF HOSPITALS PROVIDED.
TABLE 4.27
TABLE REPRESENTING THE REQUIREMENT OF HEALTH AND
FITNESS CLUB
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Yes 57 57.0 57.0 57.0
Valid No 43 43.0 43.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
INFERENCE
The above table shows that 57% of the respondents required the health and fitness club
and 43% of the respondents do not require the health and fitness club
CHART 4.27
CHART REPRESENTING THE REQUIREMENT OF HEALTH AND FITNESS CLUB
TABLE 4.28
TABLE REPRESENTING THE REGULAR FEEDBACK ON PERFORMANCE
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Always 21 21.0 21.0 21.0
Often 37 37.0 37.0 58.0
Occasionally 13 13.0 13.0 71.0
Valid
Rare 20 20.0 20.0 91.0
Never 9 9.0 9.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
INFERENCE
The above table shows that 20% of the respondents are getting feedback rarely, 21% of
the respondents are always getting feedback on their performance, 37% of the respondents are
getting feedback often, 13% of the respondents are getting feedback occasionally, and only09%
of the respondents never getting feedback.
CHART 4.28
CHART REPRESENTING THE REGULAR FEEDBACK ON PERFORMANCE
TABLE 4.29
TABLE REPRESENTING THE OPINION ABOUT THE OVERALL QUALITY OF
WORK LIFE
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Excellent 23 23.0 23.0 23.0
Very good 37 37.0 37.0 60.0
Valid Typical 17 17.0 17.0 77.0
Fair 23 23.0 23.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
INFERENCE:
The above table shows that 17% of the respondents feel that the overall quality of work
life is typical, 37% of the respondents feel very good,23% of the respondents feel that the overall
quality of work life is excellent, 23% of the respondents feel fair and no respondents feel that the
overall quality of work life is poor.
CHART 4.29
CHART REPRESENTING THE OPINION ABOUT THE OVERALL QUALITY OF
WORK LIFE
TABLE 4.30
TABLE REPRESENTING THE OPINION ABOUT DO YOU THINK OR WORRY
ABOUT WORK ( WHEN YOU ARE ACTUALLY AT WORK OR TRAVELING TO
WORK)
Frequenc Percent Valid Cumulative
y Percent Percent
Never think about 18 18.0 18.0 18.0
work
Rarely 36 36.0 36.0 54.0
Valid Often 18 18.0 18.0 72.0
Always 16 16.0 16.0 88.0
Never 12 12.0 12.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
INFERENCE
The above table shows that 18% of the respondents are getting feedback never think or
worry about work 16% of the respondents are always getting feedback on their worry about
work , 18% of the respondents are getting feedback often on their worry about work, 36 % of
the respondents are getting feedback rarely, and only12 % of the respondents never getting
feedback
CHART 4.30
CHART REPRESENTING THE OPINION ABOUT DO YOU THINK OR WORRY
ABOUT WORK ( WHEN YOU ARE ACTUALLY AT WORK OR TRAVELING TO
WORK
TABLE 4.31
TABLE REPRESENTING THE OPINION ABOUT FEEL ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF
TIME YOUR SPEND AT WORK
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Very happy 21 21.0 21.0 21.0
Un happy 36 36.0 36.0 57.0
Indifferent 10 10.0 10.0 67.0
Valid
Happy 20 20.0 20.0 87.0
Very unhappy 13 13.0 13.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
INFERENCE
The above table shows that 17% of the respondents feel that the amount of time you
spend at work is very happy, 37% of the respondents feel that unhappy of amount of time you
spend at work,23% of the respondents feel that the amount of time you spend at work Is
indifferent , 23% of the respondents feel happy with amount of time you spend at work
And13% of the respondents feel that very unhappy amount of time you spend at work
CHART 4.31
CHART REPRESENTING THE OPINION ABOUT FEEL ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF
TIME YOUR SPEND AT WORK
TABLE 4.32
TABLE REPRESENTING THE OPINION ABOUT RARELY QUALITY TIME WITH
YOU FAMILY OR YOUR FRIENDS BECAUSE
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Never 24 24.0 24.0 24.0
Rarely 39 39.0 39.0 63.0
Sometimes 11 11.0 11.0 74.0
Valid
Often 19 19.0 19.0 93.0
Always 7 7.0 7.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
INFERENCE
The above table shows that 39 % of the respondents are getting feedback rarely quality
time with you family or your friends because , 24% of the respondents are always getting
feedback on their quality time with you family or your friends because , 19% of the respondents
are getting feedback often, 07% of the respondents are getting feedback always , and only11 %
of the respondents sometimes getting feedback quality time with you family or your friends.
CHART 4.32
CHART REPRESENTING THE OPINION ABOUT RARELY QUALITY TIME WITH
YOU FAMILY OR YOUR FRIENDS BECAUSE
TABLE 4.33
TABLE REPRESENTING THE OPINION ABOUT YOU MANAGE STRESS ARISING
FROM YOUR WORK
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Yoga 22 22.0 22.0 22.0
Mediation 34 34.0 34.0 56.0
Entertainment 12 12.0 12.0 68.0
Valid
Dance 21 21.0 21.0 89.0
Work 11 11.0 11.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
INFERENCE
The above table shows that 22% of the respondents are you manage stress arising from
your work from yoga, 34% of the respondents are you manage stress arising from your work
from Mediation , 12% of the respondents are you manage stress arising from your work from
Entertainment , 21% of the respondents are you manage stress arising from your work from
dance , 11% of the respondents are you manage stress arising from your work .
CHART 4.33
CHART REPRESENTING THE OPINION ABOUT YOU MANAGE STRESS
ARISING FROM YOUR WORK
TABLE 4.34
TABLE REPRESENTING THE OPINION ABOUT YOU EVER FEEL TIRED OR
DEPRESSED BECAUSE OF WORK
Frequenc Percent Valid Cumulative
y Percent Percent
Never 19 19.0 19.0 19.0
Rarely 36 36.0 36.0 55.0
Sometimes 16 16.0 16.0 71.0
Valid
Often 18 18.0 18.0 89.0
Always 11 11.0 11.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
INFERENCE
The above table shows that 36% of the respondents are getting feedback rarely, 11% of
the respondents are always getting feedback on their you ever feel tired or depressed because of
work , 18% of the respondents are getting feedback often on their you ever feel tired or
depressed because of work , 16% of the respondents are getting feedback sometimes on their
you ever feel tired or depressed because of work , and only 19% of the respondents never
getting feedback on their you ever feel tired or depressed because of work.
CHART 4.34
CHART REPRESENTING THE OPINION ABOUT YOU EVER FEEL TIRED OR
DEPRESSED BECAUSE OF WORK
TABLE 4.35
TABLE REPRESENTING THE OPINION ABOUT HINDER YOU IN BALANCING
YOUR WORK AND FAMILY COMMITMENTS
Frequenc Percent Valid Cumulative
y Percent Percent
Technology such as lap 21 21.0 21.0 21.0
tops /call phones
Negative attitude of 41 41.0 41.0 62.0
poor’s and colleagues
at work place
Valid
Negative attitude of 20 20.0 20.0 82.0
supervisors
Negative attitude 18 18.0 18.0 100.0
family members
Total 100 100.0 100.0
INFERENCE
The above table shows that 21 % of the respondents are Technology such as lap tops /call
phones balancing your work and family commitments, 41% of the respondents are Negative
attitude of poor’s and colleagues at work place commitments, 20% of the respondents are
Negative attitude of supervisors commitments, 18% of the respondents are Negative attitude
family members commitments
CHART 4.35
CHART REPRESENTING THE OPINION ABOUT HINDER YOU IN BALANCING
YOUR WORK AND FAMILY COMMITMENTS
TABLE 4.36
TABLE REPRESENTING THE OPINION ABOUT OVERALL SATISFACTION
WITH YOUR JOB
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Dissatisfaction 47 47.0 48.5 48.5
Highly satisfaction 39 39.0 40.2 88.7
Valid
Satisfaction 11 11.0 11.3 100.0
Total 100 100.0
INFERENCE
The above table shows that 48% of the respondents are says that dissatisfaction with your
job , 40% of the respondents are says that highly satisfaction with your job , 12% of the
respondents are says that satisfaction with your job.
CHART 4.35
CHART REPRESENTING THE OPINION ABOUT OVERALL SATISFACTION
WITH YOUR JOB
