Reliability

Case Processing Summary % 100,0 ,0 100,0

N Cases Valid Excludeda Total Weighted by the variable q19 81,00 ,00 81,00

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.

Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha ,805

N of Items 27

We can see in our example,Cronbachs Alpha is 0.805,which indicates a high level of internal consistency for our scale ith this specific sample.

Item Statistics N 81,00 81,00 81,00 81,00 81,00 81,00 81,00 81,00 81,00 81,00 81,00 81,00 81,00 81,00 81,00 81,00 81,00 81,00 81,00 81,00 81,00 81,00 81,00 81,00 81,00 81,00 81,00

Mean q1 q2 q3 q4 q5 q6 q7 q8 q9 q10 q11 q12 q13 q14 q15 q16 q17 q18 q19 q20 q21 q22 q23 q24 q25 q26 q27 4,4444 4,4074 4,5309 3,9753 3,9877 3,1852 4,0370 3,8642 4,1605 4,2840 4,0617 3,5802 3,8889 4,2840 3,9136 3,9630 4,0864 3,8148 2,2593 2,4198 2,1358 2,3457 4,1358 3,8889 4,0370 1,9012 2,0741

Std. Deviation ,50000 ,49441 ,50216 ,74120 ,51220 ,86763 ,76558 ,46779 ,51129 ,50583 ,48337 ,58873 ,52440 ,45372 ,52909 ,40139 ,52909 ,61464 ,75462 ,92011 ,87683 ,92413 ,46779 ,74162 ,43141 ,53863 ,90523

Item-Total Statistics Cronbach's Scale Mean if Item Deleted q1 q2 q3 q4 q5 q6 q7 q8 q9 q10 q11 q12 q13 q14 q15 q16 q17 q18 q19 q20 q21 q22 q23 q24 q25 q26 93,2222 93,2593 93,1358 93,6914 93,6790 94,4815 93,6296 93,8025 93,5062 93,3827 93,6049 94,0864 93,7778 93,3827 93,7531 93,7037 93,5802 93,8519 95,4074 95,2469 95,5309 95,3210 93,5309 93,7778 93,6296 95,7654 Scale Variance if Corrected ItemItem Deleted 46,300 46,294 47,094 47,266 47,746 45,078 45,136 47,110 45,853 45,039 45,017 46,480 44,650 46,514 44,913 47,436 45,372 43,903 42,244 39,888 41,102 45,246 48,152 44,150 45,311 45,457 Total Correlation ,283 ,288 ,164 ,065 ,066 ,227 ,268 ,178 ,341 ,468 ,497 ,205 ,507 ,284 ,463 ,159 ,396 ,515 ,577 ,666 ,587 ,191 ,016 ,383 ,513 ,376 ,805 ,812 ,808 ,806 ,802 ,804 ,799 ,794 ,794 ,804 ,793 ,801 ,794 ,805 ,797 ,791 ,786 ,778 ,784 ,809 ,809 ,796 ,794 ,797 Alpha if Item Deleted ,801 ,801

We can see that removal of any question except question 4,would result in a lower Cronbachs alpha.But,question 4s value in Corrected Item-Total Correlation column is low,so this might lead us to consider whether we should remove this item.

T-Test

Group Statistics Std. Error Mean ,04032

gender leadership male

N 46

Mean 3,9812

Std. Deviation ,27349

female groupcohesiveness male female

35 46 35

4,1181 3,8714 3,9357

,10857 ,25380 ,29015

,01835 ,03742 ,04904

For the table above,we can say that female can take more keen decisions about leadership than male.For group cohesiveness,the table shows us female is more suitable for group cohesion than male.

Independent Samples Test t-test for Equality of Means

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances

F leadership Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed groupcohesiveness Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed ,400 10,905

Sig. ,001

t -2,796 -3,091 ,529 -1,062 -1,043

We look at the Levenes significance values.For leadership,the value is below 0.05 so,variances are not equal. For group cohesiveness,we can say that variances are equal because the sig. value is greater than 0.05.

Independent Samples Test t-test for Equality of Means

df leadership Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed 79 62,048

Sig. (2-tailed) ,006 ,003

Mean Difference -,13694 -,13694

groupcohesiveness

Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

79 67,760

,291 ,301

-,06434 -,06434

For leadership,we should take the below value on sig.(2-tailed) column.So,the value is lower than 0.05 and we realized that difference is significant.

We accept the H hypothesis that supports there is a significant difference.

For group cohesiveness,we should take the upper value and we can say that the difference is not significant because the value is greater than 0.05.

We accept the Ho hypothesis that supports there is no significant difference.

Independent Samples Test t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Std. Error Difference leadership Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed groupcohesiveness Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed ,04898 ,04430 ,06057 ,06169 Lower -,23442 -,22550 -,18490 -,18745

Upper -,03945 -,04838 ,05623 ,05877

T-Test

Group Statistics educationle vel leadership university master groupcohesiveness university master N 53 28 53 28 Mean 4,0616 4,0000 3,8632 3,9673 Std. Deviation ,24138 ,19626 ,28686 ,22491

Std. Error Mean ,03316 ,03709 ,03940 ,04250

Independent Samples Test t-test for Equality of Means

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances

F leadership Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed groupcohesiveness Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed 3,907 ,768

Sig. ,384

t 1,162 1,239 ,052 -1,666 -1,795

According the table above,we can say that variances are equal for both leadership and group cohesiveness.

Independent Samples Test t-test for Equality of Means

df leadership Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed groupcohesiveness Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed 79 65,633 79 67,474

Sig. (2-tailed) ,249 ,220 ,100 ,077

Mean Difference ,06164 ,06164 -,10405 -,10405

As we look at the upper values on sig.(2-tailed) column,we can say that there is no significant difference for both leadership and group cohesiveness.

We accept the Ho hypothesis that supports there is no significant difference.

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Std. Error Difference leadership Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed groupcohesiveness Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed ,05303 ,04975 ,06245 ,05796 Lower -,04391 -,03770 -,22836 -,21973

Upper ,16718 ,16097 ,02025 ,01162

Oneway

ANOVA Mean Square 3 77 80 3 77 80 ,067 ,073 ,046 ,052

Sum of Squares leadership Between Groups Within Groups Total groupcohesiveness Between Groups Within Groups Total ,139 4,000 4,139 ,202 5,641 5,843

df

ANOVA Sig. ,892 ,919 ,449 ,436

F leadership groupcohesiveness Between Groups Between Groups

For the table above,there is no significant difference between the means of age categories for both leadership and group cohesiveness. We reject the H hypothesis that supports there is a significant difference.

Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons Bonferroni

Dependent Variable

(I) age

(J) age Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error ,05781 ,12389 ,16834 ,05781 ,11819 ,16418 ,12389 ,11819 ,19739 Sig. ,912 1,000 1,000 ,912 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000

leadership

between 21-25

between 26-30 between 31-35 above 36

,08365 ,11667 -,03333 -,08365 ,03302 -,11698 -,11667 -,03302 -,15000

between 26-30

between 21-25 between 31-35 above 36

between 31-35

between 21-25 between 26-30 above 36

above 36

between 21-25 between 26-30 between 31-35

,03333 ,11698 ,15000 -,09877 -,17424 -,00758 ,09877 -,07547 ,09119 ,17424 ,07547 ,16667 ,00758 -,09119 -,16667

,16834 ,16418 ,19739 ,06865 ,14713 ,19990 ,06865 ,14035 ,19497 ,14713 ,14035 ,23441 ,19990 ,19497 ,23441

1,000 1,000 1,000 ,926 1,000 1,000 ,926 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000

groupcohesiveness

between 21-25

between 26-30 between 31-35 above 36

between 26-30

between 21-25 between 31-35 above 36

between 31-35

between 21-25 between 26-30 above 36

above 36

between 21-25 between 26-30 between 31-35

We can see that no age categories have significant difference between each other.

We accept the Ho hypothesis that supports there is no significant difference.

Multiple Comparisons Bonferroni 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound ,2402 ,4522

Dependent Variable

(I) age

(J) age

Lower Bound leadership between 21-25 between 26-30 between 31-35 -,0729 -,2188

above 36 between 26-30 between 21-25 between 31-35 above 36 between 31-35 between 21-25 between 26-30 above 36 above 36 between 21-25 between 26-30 between 31-35 groupcohesiveness between 21-25 between 26-30 between 31-35 above 36 between 26-30 between 21-25 between 31-35 above 36 between 31-35 between 21-25 between 26-30 above 36 above 36 between 21-25 between 26-30 between 31-35

-,4892 -,2402 -,2870 -,5616 -,4522 -,3531 -,6846 -,4225 -,3276 -,3846 -,2847 -,5727 -,5489 -,0871 -,4556 -,4368 -,2242 -,3046 -,4681 -,5338 -,6192 -,8015

,4225 ,0729 ,3531 ,3276 ,2188 ,2870 ,3846 ,4892 ,5616 ,6846 ,0871 ,2242 ,5338 ,2847 ,3046 ,6192 ,5727 ,4556 ,8015 ,5489 ,4368 ,4681

Oneway

ANOVA Mean Square 9 71 ,096 ,046

Sum of Squares leadership Between Groups Within Groups ,867 3,273

df

Total groupcohesiveness Between Groups Within Groups Total

4,139 1,264 4,580 5,843

80 9 71 80 ,140 ,065

ANOVA Sig. ,042 ,034

F leadership groupcohesiveness Between Groups Between Groups 2,090 2,177

We can see that there are significant differences between the means of positions for both leadership and group cohesiveness. We accept the H hypothesis that supports there is a significant difference.

Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons Bonferroni Dependent Variable (I) position (J) position Mean Difference (I-J) leadership engineer analyst specialist assistant auditer adviser specialist report director report chargehand manager manager assistant analyst engineer specialist assistant auditer adviser specialist report director report chargehand manager manager assistant specialist assistant engineer ,28750 ,12002 ,866 -,1205 ,6955 ,04103 -,35897 ,16307 ,13751 1,000 ,496 -,5133 -,8264 ,5954 ,1085 -,09231 -,09972 -,14564 -,22564 -,25421 ,12275 ,09310 ,07649 ,13751 ,10065 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 ,620 -,5096 -,4162 -,4057 -,6931 -,5964 ,3250 ,2168 ,1144 ,2418 ,0879 ,07436 -,21314 ,12275 ,08016 1,000 ,436 -,3429 -,4857 ,4917 ,0594 -,03333 -,43333 ,18593 ,16397 1,000 ,455 -,6654 -,9907 ,5987 ,1241 -,16667 -,17407 -,22000 -,30000 -,32857 ,15181 ,12901 ,11759 ,16397 ,13456 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 ,770 -,6827 -,6126 -,6197 -,8574 -,7860 ,3494 ,2645 ,1797 ,2574 ,1289 -,07436 -,28750 Std. Error ,12275 ,12002 Sig. 1,000 ,866 Lower Bound -,4917 -,6955

95% Confidence Interval

Upper Bound ,3429 ,1205

Fort he table above,there are significant differences between report chargehand and analyst,and between report chargehand and specialist. We accept the H hypothesis that supports there is a significant difference among these positions.

Oneway

ANOVA Mean Square 4 ,499

Sum of Squares leadership Between Groups 1,996

df

Within Groups Total groupcohesiveness Between Groups Within Groups Total

2,143 4,139 ,699 5,145 5,843

76 80 4 76 80

,028

,175 ,068

ANOVA Sig. ,000 ,044

F leadership groupcohesiveness Between Groups Between Groups 17,699 2,580

There are significant differences between means of positions for leadership and group cohesiveness. We accept the H hypothesis that supports there is a significant difference.

Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons Bonferroni

Dependent Variable

(I) salary

(J) salary Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error ,09387 ,08787 ,09520 ,11265 ,09387 ,04933 ,06145 ,08603 ,08787 ,04933 ,05182 ,07944 ,09520 ,06145 ,05182 ,08749 ,11265 ,08603 ,07944 ,08749 ,14544 1,000 1,000 ,036 1,000 1,000 ,000 ,166 1,000 1,000 ,000 ,022 ,022 ,166 ,000 ,221 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,221 Sig. ,000 ,000

leadership

below 1000

1001-2000 2001-3000 3001-4000 above 4001

,77083* ,65556* ,57619* ,56000* -,77083* -,11528 -,19464* -,21083 -,65556* ,11528 -,07937 -,09556 -,57619* ,19464* ,07937 -,01619 -,56000* ,21083 ,09556 ,01619 -,43750*

1001-2000

below 1000 2001-3000 3001-4000 above 4001

2001-3000

below 1000 1001-2000 3001-4000 above 4001

3001-4000

below 1000 1001-2000 2001-3000 above 4001

above 4001

below 1000 1001-2000 2001-3000 3001-4000

groupcohesiveness

below 1000

1001-2000

We can see that for leadership,there are significant differences between below 1000 group and all the others.Also,table shows that 2001-3000 group is significantly different than 3001-4000 group.

We accept the H hypothesis that supports there is a significant difference.

For group cohesiveness,only below 1000 group is significantly different than 1001-2000 and 2001-3000 groups.

We accept the H hypothesis that supports there is a significant difference.

Multiple Comparisons Bonferroni 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound 1,0422 ,9096 ,8515 ,8857 -,4994 ,0274 -,0170 ,0379 -,4015 ,2579 ,0705 ,1341 -,3009 ,3723 ,2292 ,2368 -,2343 ,4596 ,3252 ,2691 -,0170

Dependent Variable

(I) salary

(J) salary

Lower Bound Leadership below 1000 1001-2000 2001-3000 3001-4000 above 4001 1001-2000 below 1000 2001-3000 3001-4000 above 4001 2001-3000 below 1000 1001-2000 3001-4000 above 4001 3001-4000 below 1000 1001-2000 2001-3000 above 4001 above 4001 below 1000 1001-2000 2001-3000 3001-4000 groupcohesiveness below 1000 1001-2000 ,4994 ,4015 ,3009 ,2343 -1,0422 -,2579 -,3723 -,4596 -,9096 -,0274 -,2292 -,3252 -,8515 ,0170 -,0705 -,2691 -,8857 -,0379 -,1341 -,2368 -,8580

Crosstabs

Case Processing Summary Cases Total

Valid

Missing

N salary * educationlevel 81

Percent 100,0%

N 0

Percent ,0%

N 81

Percent 100,0%

salary * educationlevel Crosstabulation Total

educationlevel university salary below 1000 Count Expected Count % within salary % within educationlevel 1001-2000 Count Expected Count % within salary % within educationlevel 2001-3000 Count Expected Count % within salary % within educationlevel 3001-4000 Count Expected Count % within salary % within educationlevel above 4001 Count Expected Count % within salary % within educationlevel Total Count Expected Count % within salary % within educationlevel 4 2,6 100,0% 7,5% 13 10,5 81,3% 24,5% 25 27,5 59,5% 47,2% 7 9,2 50,0% 13,2% 4 3,3 80,0% 7,5% 53 53,0 65,4% 100,0% master 0 1,4 ,0% ,0% 3 5,5 18,8% 10,7% 17 14,5 40,5% 60,7% 7 4,8 50,0% 25,0% 1 1,7 20,0% 3,6% 28 28,0 34,6% 100,0%

4 4,0 100,0% 4,9% 16 16,0 100,0% 19,8% 42 42,0 100,0% 51,9% 14 14,0 100,0% 17,3% 5 5,0 100,0% 6,2% 81 81,0 100,0% 100,0%

For the table above,university degree participants salary are between 2001-3000 mostly,like master degree participants.
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 6,475a 7,901 2,382 81 df 4 4 1 ,123 sided) ,166 ,095

a. 5 cells (50,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1,38.

Table shows us that there is no significant difference between education level and salary. We accept the Ho hypothesis that supports there is no significant difference.

Crosstabs

Case Processing Summary Cases Total Percent 81 100,0%

Valid N position * educationlevel 81 Percent 100,0% N

Missing Percent 0 ,0% N

position * educationlevel Crosstabulation Total

educationlevel university position engineer Count Expected Count % within position % within educationlevel analyst Count Expected Count % within position % within educationlevel specialist assistant Count Expected Count % within position % within educationlevel auditer Count Expected Count % within position % within educationlevel adviser Count Expected Count % within position % within educationlevel specialist Count Expected Count 0 2,6 ,0% ,0% 5 8,5 38,5% 9,4% 16 10,5 100,0% 30,2% 2 2,6 50,0% 3,8% 3 5,9 33,3% 5,7% 16 13,1 master 4 1,4 100,0% 14,3% 8 4,5 61,5% 28,6% 0 5,5 ,0% ,0% 2 1,4 50,0% 7,1% 6 3,1 66,7% 21,4% 4 6,9

4 4,0 100,0% 4,9% 13 13,0 100,0% 16,0% 16 16,0 100,0% 19,8% 4 4,0 100,0% 4,9% 9 9,0 100,0% 11,1% 20 20,0

For the table above,we can see that none of the master degree participant appear in assistant form.However,none of the managers have master degree.
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 37,038a 46,286 3,819 81 df 9 9 1 ,051 sided) ,000 ,000

a. 14 cells (70,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is ,69.

Table shows us that there is a significant difference between education level and position. We reject the Ho hypothesis that supports there is no significant difference.

Correlations

Descriptive Statistics N 81 81

Mean leadership groupcohesiveness 4,0403 3,8992

Std. Deviation ,22747 ,27026

Correlations groupcohesivene leadership ss

leadership

Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

-,113 ,317

81 -,113 ,317 81

81 1

groupcohesiveness

Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

81

Table shows us there is almost absence of correlation between leadership and group cohesiveness.Plus,we can not say that there is a statistically strong significant correlation by looking at the sig.(2-tailed) value. We accept Ho (null) hypothesis that supports there is no correlation between the items.

Regression

Variables Entered/Removed Variables Model 1 Entered groupcohesivene . ss, leadership

a

Variables Removed

Method Enter

a. All requested variables entered.

Model Summary Std. Error of the Estimate ,47527

Adjusted R Model 1 R ,337a R Square ,114 Square ,091

a. Predictors: (Constant), groupcohesiveness, leadership

Table shows us there is a weak sistematic correlation between leadership and group cohesiveness.Also,we can say that gender (dependent) can be explained by leadership and group cohesiveness (independent) with %11.4 chance.
ANOVAb Sig. ,009a

Model 1 Regression Residual Total

Sum of Squares 2,258 17,619 19,877

Df 2 78 80

Mean Square 1,129 ,226

F 4,997

a. Predictors: (Constant), groupcohesiveness, leadership b. Dependent Variable: gender

For the table above,we can see that the model applied is significantly good enough in predicting the outcome variable.
Coefficientsa Standardized Model Unstandardized Coefficients B 1 (Constant) leadership groupcohesiveness a. Dependent Variable: gender -2,489 ,696 ,285 Std. Error 1,291 ,235 ,198 ,317 ,154 Coefficients Beta t -1,929 2,959 1,439 Sig. ,057 ,004 ,154

Table shows us not both attitudes contribute significantly to the model,group cohesiveness have no significant difference when it analyzed seperately. Gender=-2,489+0,696 (leadership) +0,285 (group cohesiveness)

Regression

Regression

Variables Entered/Removed Variables Model 1 Entered groupcohesivene . ss, leadership

a

Variables Removed

Method Enter

a. All requested variables entered.

Model Summary Std. Error of the Estimate 2,29340

Adjusted R Model 1 R ,281a R Square ,079 Square ,056

a. Predictors: (Constant), groupcohesiveness, leadership

Table shows us there is a weak sistematic correlation between leadership and group cohesiveness.Also,we can say that position (dependent) can be explained by leadership and group cohesiveness (independent) with %7.9 chance,that is very low.
ANOVAb Sig. ,040a

Model 1 Regression Residual Total

Sum of Squares 35,299 410,256 445,556

df 2 78 80

Mean Square 17,650 5,260

F 3,356

a. Predictors: (Constant), groupcohesiveness, leadership b. Dependent Variable: position

For the table above,we can see that the model applied is significantly good enough in predicting the outcome variable.

Coefficientsa Standardized Model Unstandardized Coefficients B 1 (Constant) leadership groupcohesiveness a. Dependent Variable: position -2,903 2,659 -,795 Std. Error 6,227 1,134 ,955 ,256 -,091 Coefficients Beta t -,466 2,344 -,832 Sig. ,642 ,022 ,408

Table shows us not both attitudes contribute significantly to the model,group cohesiveness have no significant difference when it analyzed seperately. Position=-2,903+2,659 (leadership) -0,795 (group cohesiveness)