Case- Study- Compensation Date 10th Aug’ 23

Correlations
Number of Number of
Compensatio Experience in employees projects
n in Rs Years Education supervised handled
Compensation in Rs Pearson 1 .295 .852** .711** .858**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .285 .000 .003 .000
N 15 15 15 15 15
**
Experience in Years Pearson .295 1 .382 .655 .605*
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .285 .160 .008 .017
N 15 15 15 15 15
** **
Education Pearson .852 .382 1 .650 .771**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .160 .009 .001
N 15 15 15 15 15
Number of employees Pearson .711** .655** .650** 1 .824**
supervised Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .008 .009 .000
N 15 15 15 15 15
** * ** **
Number of projects Pearson .858 .605 .771 .824 1
handled Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .017 .001 .000
N 15 15 15 15 15

Table-1 Correlations
Compensation Experience in
in Rs Years Education
Compensation in Rs Pearson Correlation 1 .295 .852**
Sig. (2-tailed) .285 .000
N 15 15 15
Experience in Years Pearson Correlation .295 1 .382
Sig. (2-tailed) .285 .160
N 15 15 15
**
Education Pearson Correlation .852 .382 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .160
N 15 15 15
** **
Number of employees Pearson Correlation .711 .655 .650**
supervised
Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .008 .009
N 15 15 15
Number of projects handled Pearson Correlation .858** .605* .771**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .017 .001
N 15 15 15

Based on Table 1 we find that

1. Compensation has high association with Education as correlation
coefficient observed = 0.852
2. Compensation has high association with Number of employees supervised
as correlation coefficient observed = 0.711
3. Compensation has high association with Number of projects handled as
correlation coefficient observed = 0.858
4. Multicollinearity is depicted among following variables
∙ Number of Employees supervised & Experience in Years (0.655)
∙ Number of Employees supervised & Education (0.650)
∙ Number of project Handled & Experience in Years (0.605)
∙ Number of project Handled & Education (0.771)
Regression

Table-2 Variables Entered/Removedb

Variables Variables
Model Entered Removed Method
1 Number of . Enter
projects
handled,
Experience in
Years,
Education ,
Number of
employees
supervised
2 . Number of Backward
employees (criterion:
supervised Probability of
F-to-remove >=
.100).
a. All requested variables entered.
b. Dependent Variable: Compensation in Rs

Based on Table 2 It was found that 2 models were generated and Variable named as
Number of Employees supervised have been removed from Model 2. The variable removed
has less impact on the Compensation (Dependent Variable)

Table-3 Model Summary

Adjusted R
Model R R Square Square Std. Error of the Estimate
a
1 .942 .888 .843 221.06937
b
2 .938 .881 .848 217.31490
Based on Table-3 the model accepted is Model 2
R= 0.938 indicating high correlation of dependent variable with all
other independent variables
R square =0.881 indicates that 88% of variation in predicting
compensation is caused by independent variables.
Adjusted R square = 0.848 it indicates approximately 84.8%
variations in Dependent variable due to changes happening in
independent variable
 Table-4 ANOVAc
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 3861033.355 4 965258.339 19.751 .000a
Residual 488716.645 10 48871.665
Total 4349750.000 14
2 Regression 3830266.595 3 1276755.532 27.035 .000b
Residual 519483.405 11 47225.764
Total 4349750.000 14

Based on Table 4 we indicate the significance of the model

HO: Model is insignificant
H1: Model is significant
Since p value =0.00 we conclude Model is significant.

Table-5 Coefficientsa
Standardized
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 456.847 173.949 2.626 .025
Experience in Years -93.432 39.717 -.340 -2.352 .040
Education 110.270 47.788 .392 2.307 .044
Number of employees 44.211 55.721 .159 .793 .446
supervised
Number of projects handled 77.515 28.216 .631 2.747 .021
2 (Constant) 462.792 170.836 2.709 .020
Experience in Years -82.081 36.422 -.299 -2.254 .046
Education 114.344 46.705 .406 2.448 .032
Number of projects handled 89.187 23.669 .726 3.768 .003

Based on Table-5 we find that Model 2 is as follows

Compensation= 462.792-82.081*Experience in Years + 14.344*Education+89.187*Number of Projects handled
HO1: Experience in Years is not significant in predicting Compensation
H11: Experience in Years is significant in predicting Compensation
Based on p value= 0.046 we conclude that Experience in Years is significant in predicting
Compensation
HO2: Education is not significant in predicting Compensation.
H12: Education is significant in predicting Compensation
Based on p value= 0.032 we conclude that Education is significant in predicting Compensation.
HO3: Number of projects handled is not significant in predicting Compensation.
H13: Number of projects handled is significant in predicting Compensation
Based on p value= 0.003 we conclude that Number of projects handled is significant in
predicting Compensation
Excluded Variablesb
Partial Collinearity
Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Statistics
Tolerance
a
2 Number of employees .159 .793 .446 .243 .279
supervised
a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Number of projects handled, Experience in Years, Education
b. Dependent Variable: Compensation in Rs