CHAPTER-IV

DATA ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATION

 CHAPTER – IV

DATA ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATION

Table 4.1: Age of the Respondents

Age(years) Frequency Percentage

20-25 18 23
25-35 26 32
35-45 17 21
45-55 12 15
Above 55 7 9
Total 80 100

Interpretation:

From the above table, it was found that 23% of the respondents come under the age group of 20-
25, 32% of them come under the age group of 25-35, 21% of them are of 35-45 years of age
group, 15% of them belong to the category of 45-55 years and 9% of them are above 55 years of
age.

Chart: 4.1.1

Age of the Respondents

40
30
20
10
0
 Table: 4.1.2

Gender Distribution of the Respondents

Gender Frequency Percentage

Male 57 71
Female 23 29
Total 80 100

Interpretation:

It is clear from the above table that about 71% of the respondents are male and 29% of them are
female.

Chart: 4.2.2

Gender Distribution of the Respondents

80

70

60

50

40

30
 Table: 4.1.3

Experience of the respondents

Experience Frequency Percentage

Less than 1 year 11 14
1-5 years 32 40
5-10 years 14 17
10-15 years 10 13
15-20 years 9 11
Above 20 years 4 5
Total 80 100

Interpretation:

Out of 80 respondents, it is clear that 14% of them have less than 1 year experience, 40% of
them have 1-5 years of experience, 17% of them have 5-10 years of experience, 13% of them
have 10-15 years of experience, 11% of them have 15-20 years of experience and 5% of the
respondents are experienced above 20 years. It is concluded that highest percentage of the
respondents belonged to 1-5 years of experience

Chart: 4.1.3

Experience of the Respondents

 45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Less than 1 year1-5 years 5-10 years 10-15 years15-20 yearsAbove 20 years

Table: 4.1.4

Monthly income of the respondents

Monthly income (₹) Frequency Percentage

5000-10000 14 18
10000-20000 31 39
20000-30000 30 37
Above 30000 5 6
Total 80 100

Interpretation:

From the table, it is found that 18% of the respondents receive 5000-10000 salary, 39% of them
receive 10000-20000 of monthly income, 37% of the respondents receive 20000-30000 of
monthly income and 6% of them receive above 30000 of monthly income. It is clear that highest
no of respondents receive salary of ₹10000-20000 and least no of respondents receive salary
above ₹30000.

Chart: 4.1.4

Monthly Income of the Respondents

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
 TABLE: 4.1.5

EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION OF THE RESPONDENTS

Educational Qualification Frequency Percentage

School level 36 45
Degree Level 24 30
PG Level 12 15
Diploma ITI 8 10
Total 80 100

Interpretation:

From the above table, it is clear that 45% of the respondents are school level qualified, 30% of
them are degree holders, 15% of them are PG degree holders and 10% them are diploma ITI
qualified.

CHART: 4.1.5

EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION OF THE RESPONDENTS

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
TABLE: 4.1.6

AWARENESS ABOUT PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM

Particulars Frequency Percentage

Aware 13 16.25
Aware to an extent 42 52.5
Not at all aware 25 31.25
Total 80 100

Interpretation:

Out of 80 respondents, 16.25% of them are aware about the performance appraisal system,
52.5% of them are aware about the appraisal system to an extent and 31.25% of them are not at
all aware about the performance appraisal system.

CHART: 4.1.6

AWARENESS ABOUT PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Aware Aware to an extent Not aware
TABLE: 4.1.7

APPRAISED BY THE COMPANY OF THE RESPONDENTS

Particulars Frequency Percentage

2 times 57 71.25
Less than 2 times 15 18.75
Not appraised 8 10
Total 80 100

Interpretation:

From the above table, it is found that 71.25% of the respondents are appraised twice by the
company, 18.75% of them are appraised less than 2 times by the company and 10% of them not
at all appraised.

CHART: 4.1.7

APPRAISED BY THE COMPANY OF THE RESPONDENTS

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

2 times Less than 2 times Not appraised

TABLE: 4.1.8

CONFIDENTIALITY IN APPRAISAL SYSTEM

Particulars Frequency Percentage

Necessary 10 12.5
Necessary to an extent 19 23.75
Not at all necessary 51 63.75
Total 80 100

Interpretation:

Out of 80 respondents, it is concluded that 12.5% of them say that it is necessary to be

confidential in appraisal system, 23.75% of them say that it is necessary to an extent to be
confidential in appraisal system and 63.75% of them say that it is not necessary to be
confidential in appraisal system.

CHART: 4.1.8

CONFIDENTIALITY IN APPRAISAL SYSTEM

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Necessary Necessary to an extent Not necessary
TABLE: 4.1.9

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM WILL HELP IN BUILDING GOOD

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SUPERIOR AND THE SUB-ORDINATE

Particulars Frequency Percentage

Strongly Agree 13 16.25
Agree 27 33.75
Neutral 24 30
Disagree 11 13.75
Strongly Disagree 5 6.25
Total 80 100

Interpretation

From the above table it is found that, out of 80 respondents, 16.25%of them strongly agree that
performance appraisal system helps in building good relationship between the superior and sub-
ordinate, 33.75% of them agree that performance appraisal helps in building good relationship
between the superior and sub-ordinate, 30% of them are neutral about the performance appraisal
system helps in building good relationship between the superior and sub- ordinate, 13.75% of
them disagree that performance appraisal system helps in building good relationship between the
superior and sub-ordinate, 6.25% of them strongly disagree that performance appraisal system
helps in building good relationship between the superior and sub- ordinate.

CHART: 4.1.9

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM WILL HELP IN BUILDING GOOD

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SUPERIOR AND THE SUB-ORDINATE

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disgree Strongly Disagree

TABLE: 4.1.10

PERIODICITY OF CONDUCTING PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL OF THE

RESPONDENTS

Particulars Frequency Percentage

Once in 3 months 11 13.75
Once in 6 months 29 36.25
No periodical appraisal 17 21.25
Once in 1 year 23 28.75
Total 80 100

Interpretation:

From the above table it is found that, out of 80 respondents, 13.75%of them say that they have
performance appraisal for once in 3 months, 36.25% of them say that they have appraisal once in
6 months, 21.25% of them say that they have no periodical appraisal and 28.75%of them say that
they have appraisal once in a year.

CHART: 4.1.10

PERIODICITY OF CONDUCTING PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL OF THE

RESPONDENTS

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Once in 3 months Once in 6 monthsNo periodical appraisal Once in 1 year

TABLE: 4.1.11

FEEDBACK ABOUT THE PERFORMANCE AFTER APPRAISAL SYSTEM

Particulars Frequency Percentage

Yes 24 30
No 56 70
Total 80 100

Interpretation:

Out of 80 respondents, it is found that 30% of them gave feedback about the performance after
appraisal system and 70% of them did not give any feedback about the performance after the
appraisal system.

CHART: 4.1.11

FEEDBACK ABOUT THE PERFORMANCE AFTER APPRAISAL SYSTEM

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Yes No
TABLE: 4.1.12

FACTORS AFFECTING PERFORMANCE OF THE RESPONDENTS

Particulars Frequency Percentage

Family Problem 24 30
Inter-personal Problem 17 21.25
Financial Problem 11 13.75
Health Condition 7 8.75
Mental Stress 21 26.25
Total 80 100

Interpretation:

From the table it is clear that, 30% of the respondent’s performance are affected by family
problems, 21.25% of their performance are affected by inter-personal problems, 13.75% of their
performance are affected by financial problem, 8.75% of their performance are affected their
health condition and 26.25% of their performance are affected their mental stress.

CHART: 4.1.12

FACTORS AFFECTING PERFORMANCE OF THE RESPONDENTS

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Family Problem Inter-personal Financial Problem Health ConditionMental Stress

Problem
TABLE: 4.1.13

REASON FOR THE FAILURE OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

Particulars Frequency Percentage

Manager not taking appraisal 36 45
seriously
Partiality of the appraisal 44 55
Total 80 100

Interpretation

Out of 80 respondents, 45% of the respondents says that manager not taking appraisal seriously,
55% of the respondents say that there is partiality of the appraisal. It shows that majority of the
respondents say there is partiality in the appraisal.

CHART: 4.1.13

REASON FOR THE FAILURE OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Manager not taking Partiality of the
seriously appraisal
TABLE: 4.1.14

DIRECT LINKAGE WITH TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT

Particulars Frequency Percentage

Fully 24 30
Partially 32 40
Not at all 24 30
Total 80 100
Interpretation

Out of 80 respondents, 30% of the respondents say that performance appraisal has full linkage
with the training and development, 40% of the respondents say that they are partially linked and
30% of the respondents say that they are not at all linked. It shows that the majority of the
respondents say that they are partially linked with training and development.

CHART: 4.1.14

DIRECT LINKAGE WITH TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Fully Partially Not at all

TABLE: 4.1.15

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL AS A PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITY

Particulars Frequency Percentage

Strongly Agree 17 21.25
Agree 20 25
Neutral 21 26.25
Disagree 13 16.25
Strongly Disagree 9 11.25
Total 80 100
Interpretation

Out of 80 respondents, 21.25% of the respondent says that they strongly agree grading is the tool
used to decide promotions, 25% of the respondents agrees that it is used to decide promotions,
26.25% of the respondents say that it is neutral to decide for promotions, 16.25% of the
respondents disagree that the grading is used to decide promotions and 11.25% of the
respondents strongly disagree to that. It shows that the majority of the respondents strongly
disagree that it is used to decide promotions. It shows that the majority of the respondents agree
that the grading is used to make decision on promotions.

CHART: 4.1.15

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL AS A PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITY

30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

TABLE: 4.1.16

INDIVIDUAL AND ORGANISATIONAL OBJECTIVES OF THE RESPONDENTS

Particulars Frequency Percentage

Strongly Agree 17 21.25
Agree 48 60
Neutral 15 18.75
Total 80 100

Interpretation

Out of 80 respondents, 21.25% of the respondents strongly agree that appraisal helps in meeting
both the individual and organizational objectives, 60% of the respondents says that they agree
and 18.75 of the respondents say that they are neutral about the decision. It shows that majority
of the respondents agree that appraisal system helps in meeting both the individual and
organizational objectives.

CHART: 4.1.16

INDIVIDUAL AND ORGANISATIONAL OBJECTIVES OF THE RESPONDENTS

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral
TABLE: 4.1.17

EVOKING EMPLOYEES COMMITMENT TO WORK OF THE RESPONDENTS

Particulars Frequency Percentage

Yes 63 78.75
No 17 21.25
Total 80 100

Interpretation

Out of 80 respondents, 78.75% of the respondents say that the appraisal system will help in
evoking the employees commitment to work and 21.25% of the respondents says that it does not
help in evoking employee’s commitment to work. It says that the majority of the respondents say
that performance appraisal helps in evoking employees commitment to work.

CHART: 4.1.17

EVOKING EMPLOYEES COMMITMENT TO WORK OF THE RESPONDENTS

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Yes No
TABLE: 4.1.18

HELPING FOR THE FUTURE GROWTH OF THE RESPONDENTS

Particulars Frequency Percentage

Yes 61 76.25
No 19 23.75
Total 80 100

Interpretation

Out of 80 respondents, 76.25% of the respondents say that it helps for their future growth and
23.75% of the respondents says that it does not helps in the future growth. It shows that the
majority of the respondents say that performance appraisal helps in future growth.

CHART: 4.1.18

HELPING FOR THE FUTURE GROWTH OF THE RESPONDENTS

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 Yes No
TABLE: 4.1.19

OPINION TOWARDS PRESENT PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM OF THE

RESPONDENTS

Particulars Frequency Percentage

Highly Satisfied 32 40
Satisfied 19 23.75
Neutral 13 26.25
Dissatisfied 11 13.75
Highly Dissatisfied 5 6.25
Total 80 100

Interpretation

Out of 80 respondents, 40% of the respondents are highly satisfied about the present
performance appraisal, 23.75% of the respondents are satisfied, 26.25% of the respondents are
neutral about the decisions and 20% of the respondents are highly dissatisfied about the
performance appraisal. It shows that the majority of the respondents are satisfied about the
present performance appraisal system.

CHART: 4.1.19

OPINION TOWARDS PRESENT PERFORMAL APPRAISAL SYSTEM OF THE

RESPONDENTS

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Highly Satisfied Satisfied Neutral DissatisfiedHighly Dissatisfied

TABLE: 4.1.20

TRAINING PROGRAM TO IMPROVE THE PERFORMANCE OF THE

RESPONDENTS

Particulars Frequency Percentage

Highly Satisfied 18 22.5
Satisfied 20 25
Neutral 22 27.5
Dissatisfied 12 15
Highly Dissatisfied 8 10
Total 80 100

Interpretation

Out of 80 respondents, 22.5% of the respondents are highly satisfied towards the training
program, 25% of the respondents are satisfied about the training program, 27.5 %of the
respondents are neutral about the training program and 15% of the respondents are dissatisfied,
10% of the respondents are highly dissatisfied about the training program. It shows that the
majority of the respondents are neutral about the training program to improve the performance.

CHART: 4.1.20

TRAINING PROGRAM TO IMPROVE THE PERFORMANCE OF THE

RESPONDENTS
 30

25

20

15

10

Highly Satisfied Satisfied Neutral DissatisfiedHighly Dissatisfied

TABLE: 4.1.21

BETTER SALARY AND INCENTIVES TO PERFORM BETTER FOR THE

RESPONDENTS

Particulars Frequency Percentage

Strongly Agree 27 33.75
Agree 31 38.75
Neutral 0 0
Disagree 12 15
Strongly Disagree 10 12.5
Total 80 100

Interpretation

Out of 80 respondents, 70% of the respondents agree that better salary and incentives help to
perform better and 25% of the respondents disagree with this. It shows that majority of the
respondents agrees with this.

CHART: 4.1.21

BETTER SALARY AND INCENTIVES TO PERFORM BETTER FOR THE

RESPONDENTS

45
40
35
30
25
20
TABLE: 4.1.22

PROMOTIONAL OPPORTUNITIES OF THE RESPONDENT BASED ON

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

Particulars Frequency Percentage

Yes 53 66.25
No 27 33.75
Total 80 100

Interpretation

Out of 80 respondents, 66.25% of them agree that their promotional opportunities are based on
their performance appraisal.

CHART: 4.1.22

PROMOTIONAL OPPORTUNITIES OF THE RESPONDENT BASED ON

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Yes No
TABLE: 4.1.23

IMPROVEMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS AFTER GETTING INFORMATION

ABOUT THE PERFORMANCE

Particulars Frequency Percentage

Yes 56 70
No 24 30
Total 80 100

Interpretation:

Out of 80 respondents, 70% of the respondents say that their performance got improved after
getting the information about their performance and 30% of the respondents say there is no
difference in their work even after getting the information about their performance. It shows that
majority of the respondents performance have improved.

CHART: 4.1.23

IMPROVEMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS AFTER GETTING INFORMATION

ABOUT THE PERFORMANCE
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Yes No

CORRELATION

CORRELATION BETWEEN AGE AND EXPERIENCE OF THE

RESPONDENTS

Age Experience
Age Pearson 1 .8686**
Correlation
Sign.(2 Tailed) .000
N 80 80

Experience Pearson .8686** 1

Correlation
Sign.(2 Tailed) .000
N 80 80
** Correlation significant at the 0.01 level

Interpretation

It was found that there is a significant relationship between Age and Experience of the
respondents. The correlation value is .8686. Hence the relationship between Age and Experience
of the respondents is positively correlated.

CORRELATION BETWEEN AGE AND EDUCATIONAL

QUALIFICATIONOF THE RESPONDENTS
Age Educational Qualification
Age Pearson 1 .7263**
Correlation
Sign. (2 tailed) .000
N 80 80

Educational Pearson .7263** 1

Qualification Correlation
Sign. (2 tailed) .000
N 80 80

** Correlation significant at the 0.01 level

Interpretation
It was found that there is a significant relationship between Age and Educational Qualification of
the respondents. The correlation value is .7263. Hence the relationship between Age and
Educational Qualification of the respondents is positively correlated.

CORRELATION BETWEEN EXPERIENCE AND BETTER SALARY

AND INCENTIVES OF THE RESPONDENTS
Age Educational Qualification
Experience Pearson 1 .6762**
Correlation
Sign. (2 tailed) .000
N 80 80

Better Pearson .6762** 1

Incentive Correlation
And Sign. (2 tailed) .000
Salary N 80 80

** Correlation significant at the 0.01 level

Interpretation
It was found that there is a significant relationship between Experience and Better incentives and
salary of the respondents. The correlation value is .6762. Hence the relationship between
Experience and Better incentives and salary of the respondents is positively correlated.

CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS

CONFIDENTIALITY AND AWARENESS ABOUT THE

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM
Aware Aware to an Not at all Total
Extent aware
Necessary 4 5 1 10
Necessary to 6 7 6 19
an
extent
Not at all 3 30 18 51
necessary
Total 13 42 25 80

Hypothesis
H0: There is no association between the confidentiality and awareness about the performance
appraisal system

H1: There is association between the confidentiality and awareness about the performance
appraisal system

Chi-Square Test
Value Df Asymp. Sig. (2
sided)
Pearson chi square 9.488a 4 12.5917

Inference

From the above chi-square table, it is inferred that the significant value is 12.5917 which is
greater than 9.488(χ 2 0.05 at df=4). Hence null hypothesis is rejected. There is association
between the confidentiality and awareness about the appraisal system

PROMOTIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE

RESPONDENTS
Improvement No Improvement Total
Promotional 47 6 53
opportunities
No Promotional 9 18 27
opportunities
Total 56 24 80

Hypothesis

H0: There is no association between the promotional opportunities and improvement of the
respondents.

H1: There is association between the promotional opportunities and improvement of the
respondents.
 Chi-Square Test
Value Df Asymp. Sig. (2
sided)
Pearson chi square 3.841a 1 26.0907

Inference

From the above chi-square table, it is inferred that the significant value is 26.0907 which is
greater than 3.841(χ 2 0.05 at df=1). Hence null hypothesis is rejected. There is association
between the promotional opportunities and improvement of the respondents.