Quantitative Techniques of

Business

Name：IBTAHAL IRAM
Roll #：32
Program：MBA
 Chapter 4

Findings

4.1 Demographic Profile

This part of study deals with demographic information covered by survey. Descriptive statistics
includes frequency distribution, percentile description, cumulative percentage, mean, standard
deviation and skewness of all demographic variables as gender, age, education level, nature of job
and length of service shown in following tables.

Table 1
Demographics
Demographic Variables Categories Frequency Percentage

Gender Male 96 47.1

Female 108 52.9
Age Up to 25 168 82.4
26-45 36 17.6
Qualification Bachelor's 146 71.6
Master's 36 17.6
PhD 17 8.3
Others 5 2.5
Nature of Employment Contractual 143 70.1
Permanent 30 14.7
Internee 31 15.2
Length of Service Up to 1 Year 115 56.4
2-5 Years 71 34.8
5-10 Years 14 6.9
10+ Years 4 2.0

Table 1 signifies the demographic statistics with respect to gender of respondents in terms of
frequency distribution, percentage and cumulative percentage. Table 1 shows that out of 204
respondents, 47.1% (96) were male and 52.9% (108) were female. Male respondents’ rate is less than
female respondents but still there is large number of men in Banking sector which indelicate the
women participation is increasing in this sector. Results indicates the distribution of respondents with
respect to age. Survey accounted 82.4% (168) respondents who had their age up to 25 years.
Moreover 17.6% (36) respondents were between age group 26 to 45, Results signifies that majority
of respondents are between age group of up to 25. Findings demonstrates demographic
characteristics of survey participants in terms of their educational level. It is evident from Table 3
that 71.6% (146) of the respondents possessed the bachelor degree, 17.6% (36) participants hold the
masters degree whereas only 8.3% (17) of the respondents got their PhD degree. Analysis further
implies that majority of participants hold bachelor degree.

Table 2
Descriptive Statistics of All Variables (N= 100)

Variables Mean S.D Skewness Kurtosis

Distribution injustice 3.41 .517 -.175 -.097

Emotional Labor 3.53 .546 -.115 -.333

Organization citizenship behavior 3.27 .629 .488 -.225

Table 6 presents the descriptive statistics of the study variables. It shows the mean values, standard
deviations of all under study variables with acceptable range of skewness and kurtosis. Mean values
of ,Organizational injustice,Emotional Labor of Job Satisfaction are 3.41, 3.53, 3.27 respectively.
Table 6 also demonstrates skewness and kurtosis values which are in acceptable range. Normality
was examined through skewness, kurtosis and. Scores all constructs were normally distributed
because the values for skewness and kurtosis between -2 to +2 are acceptable to prove the normal
distribution.

Table 3
Alpha Reliability Coefficients of All Scales (N= 100 )

Variables No. of Items Alpha Coefficient

Distribution injustice 7 0.86

Emotional Labor 4 0.88

Organization citizenship behavior 8 0.88

Reliability implies inter-item consistency of scale. Reliability of instruments assessed by calculating

the alpha coefficients and inter-item correlation of under study variables. Table 7 indicates the
reliability analysis by using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. Data of this study yields the coefficient
alpha value are ……..
Table 4
oi el js
1 Distribution injustice 1
2 Emotional Labor .403** 1
3 Organization citizenship behavior .330** .266** 1
Correlation Matrix

Table 4 signifies the correlation between under study variables. This correlation matrix identifies that
surface acting has highly significant positive correlation with Emotional Labor’ emotional
exhaustion (r=0.57, p<.05). In addition correlation matrix indicates that display of Emotional Labor
has significant positive correlation with Job satisfaction (r= -0.39, p<.05).

4.6 Regression Analysis

Regression analysis conducted to examine the hypothesized relationship between independent and
dependent variables. To explore the direct effect of all independent variables on dependent variables,
simple linear regression analysis is applied. This section is divided into three steps. In first step linear
regression is applied to support hypothesis. In second step moderation and mediation analysis
conducted.

Emotional Labor and Job Satisfaction

Table 5
Emotional Labor’ organization citizenship behavior

Variables B SE β t Sig.
Constant 1.634 .348 4.697 .000
Emotional Labor .321 .088 .340 3.640 .000
R2 = .216
F = 13.351

Table 5 signifies the regression analysis of surface acting and leaders’ emotional exhaustion. Results
divulge the beta coefficient, standard error, t-value, significance value, F value and goodness of fit.
Results show that Emotional Labor significantly and positively influence the Job Satisfaction
(β=0.669, p<.05) thus, H1 is supported. P value for beta coefficient of Emotional labor is .000 which
is significant at 5% level of significance and this means that beta coefficient value 0.669 is statistical
significant. Table 5 also divulges that 32% of variance has been explained by emotional labor in job
satisfaction. So hypothesis 1 has been supported by results which described that there is a positive
relationship between emotional labor with job satisfaction.

Measurement Model Assessment

Table 6
Convergent Validity

Constructs Items Loadings CR AVE

0.626
Distribution In-Justice Independent DIJ1 0.649 0.582
0.751
DIJ2
0.606
DIJ3
0.857
DIJ4
Emotional Labor Mediator 0.808
EL1 0.803 0.607
0.763
EL2
0.767
EL3
0.791
EL4
0.808
Organization Citizenship Behavior Independent OCB1
0.763
OCB2
0.897
OCB3
0.791
OCB4 0.786 0.593

Table 6 elaborates the factor loadings, composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted
(AVE) that were used to check the convergent validity of the constructs. The validity of the
constructs is said to be convergent when items load highly (>0.50) on their constructs (Hair et al.,
2011), and the result reveals that the values of the factor loadings were greater than 0.50. The
convergent validity of the constructs was measured by using the average variance extracted and the
composite reliability. The values of the AVE for all of the constructs were above 0.50, and the
composite reliability was greater than 0.8, indicating that the convergent validity of the entire
construct had been established.

Table 7
Discriminant Validity (HTMT Ratio)

Organization
Distribution In- Citizenship
Justice Emotional Behavior
Independent Labor Mediator Dependent

DIJ independent  
EL mediator 0.415  
OCB dependent 0.247 0.804  
Table 7 shows the HTMT ratio, which is an effective approach to access discriminant validity. Kline
(2011) defined that the HTMT ratio should be less than 0.85 to ensure the discriminant validity and
according to this criterion, all of the ratio values were greater than a minimum threshold that was the
evidence of the discriminant validity.
Table 4
Path Analysis

Relationships Std. beta Std. t-Value R2 Decision

Error

0.216 Supported
DIJ independent -> EL
H1 mediator 0.141 0.061 2.320
Supported
DIJ independent -> OCB
H2 dependent 0.441 0.058 7.572
Supported
EL mediator -> OCB
H3 dependent 0.119 0.044 2.691

Table 5
Indirect Effects

Relationships Std. beta Std. t-Value Decision

Error

DIJ independent -> EL mediator -> Supported

H4 OCB dependent 0.078 0.035 2.244

To understand the main relationship effects within the constructs, the SEM PLS structural model
analysis was conducted. The study used a bootstrapping procedure to assess the significance of the
path coefficients. The results identified that Organization Citizenship Behavior was positively and
significantly related to followers’ Distribution Injustice (β = 0.340, emotional labour’ Organization
Citizenship Behavior t = 3.640) and supported H1a. Moreover, there was a positive relationship
between distribution injustice and emotional labor (β = 0.141, t = 2.320) and supported H1b.
Additionally, the findings also divulged that distribution injustice was positively and significantly
related to perceived organization citizenship behavior (β = 0.441, t = 7.572) and supported H2a.
Meanwhile, there also a significant relationship between Emotional labor and organization
citizenship behavior (β = 0.119, t = 2.691) and does support H2b.
Figure 1: Measurement Model Assessment

Figure 2: Structural Model Assessment