i) Part 1: Descriptive Variables Frequency Tables for Demographic Variables
Table 1.
Variable 1: Agency where one Works
AGENCY
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
AF
33351
5.6
5.6
5.6
AG
43352
7.2
7.2
12.8
AM
1837
.3
.3
13.1
AR
70005
11.7
11.7
24.8
BG
526
.1
.1
24.9
BO
338
.1
.1
25.0
CM
20725
3.5
3.5
28.5
CT
476
.1
.1
28.5
CU
633
.1
.1
28.6
DD
30877
5.2
5.2
33.8
DJ
30978
5.2
5.2
39.0
DL
8075
1.4
1.4
40.3
DN
8624
1.4
1.4
41.8
DR
1115
.2
.2
42.0
ED
2592
.4
.4
42.4
EE
1379
.2
.2
42.6
EP
7972
1.3
1.3
44.0
FC
594
.1
.1
44.1
FQ
470
.1
.1
44.1
FT
638
.1
.1
44.2
GS
7157
1.2
1.2
45.4
HE
43029
7.2
7.2
52.6
HF
412
.1
.1
52.7
HS
73899
12.4
12.4
65.1
HU
4628
.8
.8
65.8
IB
829
.1
.1
66.0
IN
28290
4.7
4.7
70.7
KS
326
.1
.1
70.8
NF
940
.2
.2
70.9
NL
859
.1
.1
71.1
NN
11568
1.9
1.9
73.0
NQ
1743
.3
.3
73.3
NU
2308
.4
.4
73.7
NV
47882
8.0
8.0
81.7
OM
3069
.5
.5
82.2
RR
413
.1
.1
82.3
SB
1543
.3
.3
82.5
SE
3394
.6
.6
83.1
SK
355
.1
.1
83.1
SN
520
.1
.1
83.2
ST
7228
1.2
1.2
84.4
SZ
26318
4.4
4.4
88.8
TD
21552
3.6
3.6
92.4
TR
42027
7.0
7.0
99.5
XX
3157
.5
.5
100.0
Total
598003
100.0
100.0
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) accounted for the greatest number of participants among the 85 participating agencies, at 12.4 percent, followed by the Department of Agriculture at 11.7 percent. The Department of Commerce accounted for 7 percent of participants in the survey.
Table 2.
Variable 2: Sex
DSEX
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
79100
13.2
13.2
13.2
Male
293014
49.0
49.0
62.2
Female
225889
37.8
37.8
100.0
Total
598003
100.0
100.0
49 percent of the survey participants were male, 37.8 percent were female, and 13.2 percent preferred did not indicate their gender.
Table 3.
Variable 3: Education Level
DEDUC
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
No degree
77380
12.9
12.9
12.9
Doctorate
149163
24.9
24.9
37.9
Bachelors
182979
30.6
30.6
68.5
Masters
188481
31.5
31.5
100.0
Total
598003
100.0
100.0
24.9 percent of participants had a Doctorate degree, 31.5 percent had a masters degree, 30 percent had a Bachelors degree, and 12.9 percent had some college education with no degree.
Table 4
Variable 4: Tenure in the Federal Agency
DFEDTEN
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
1-3 years
73076
12.2
12.2
12.2
6 -10years
221712
37.1
37.1
49.3
11-20 years
162634
27.2
27.2
76.5
4 -5 years
140581
23.5
23.5
100.0
Total
598003
100.0
100.0
37 percent of participants have been with the federal government for 6 to 10 years, 27 percent for 11 to 20 years, 23 percent for 4 to 5 years, and 12 percent for 1 to 3 years.
Table 5
Variable 5: Supervisory Status
DSUPER
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
63962
10.7
10.7
10.7
Non-Supervisor
432781
72.4
72.4
83.1
Supervisor
101260
16.9
16.9
100.0
Total
598003
100.0
100.0
72 percent of the participating employees were of a non-supervisor status, 10. 7 percent were team leaders, while 16.9 percent identified themselves as being of supervisor status.
Table 6
Variable 6: Race
DMINORITY
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
Hispanic
87317
14.6
14.6
14.6
Other
168099
28.1
28.1
42.7
White
342587
57.3
57.3
100.0
Total
598003
100.0
100.0
57.3 percent of participating employees identified as non-Hispanic white, 14.6 percent identified as Latino or Hispanic, and 28.1 percent identified as others.
Table 7
Variable 7: Intention to Leave over the Next Year
DLEAVING
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
Yes-other
30165
5.0
5.0
5.0
No
382646
64.0
64.0
69.0
Yes -1
100354
16.8
16.8
85.8
Yes - 2
22298
3.7
3.7
89.5
Yes- retire
62540
10.5
10.5
100.0
Total
598003
100.0
100.0
64 percent of participating employees indicated that they were not planning to leave their current agency within the next year. 16.8 percent indicated that they were planning to leave to take up another job within the federal government, 3.7 percent to take up a job outside the federal government, 10.5 percent to retire, and 5 percent indicated that they were planning to leave for undisclosed reasons.
ii) Part 2: Frequency Analysis and Descriptive Statistics for Explanatory Variables
Table 1.
Q2 Frequency Analysis: Employees have enough information to do their job well
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
Strongly Disagree (1)
19991
3.3
3.4
3.4
Disagree (2)
63323
10.6
10.6
14.0
Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
83470
14.0
14.0
28.0
Agree (4)
301786
50.5
50.8
78.8
Strongly Agree (5)
126048
21.1
21.2
100.0
Total
594618
99.4
100.0
Missing
System
3385
.6
Total
598003
100.0
<>Table 2Q2 Descriptive Statistics: Employees have enough information to do their job well
N
Valid
594618
Missing
3385
Mean
3.76
Median
4.00
Mode
4
Std. Deviation
1.011
Skewness
-.901
Std. Error of Skewness
.003
Kurtosis
.363
Std. Error of Kurtosis
.006
Figure 1.
Bar chart for Q2: Employees have enough information to do their job well
Interpretation:
Approximately 72 percent of employees at least agree that they have enough information to do their job well. Most (over 50%) of employees agree, while 22 percent strongly agree, that they have sufficient information to do their jobs well. Only 3 percent believe that they face very severe information challenges that make them completely unable to carry out their jobs effectively.
Table 3.
Q7 Frequency Analysis: When needed, employees are willing to put in the extra effort to get a job done
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
Strongly Disagree
4095
.7
.7
.7
Disagree
4134
.7
.7
1.4
Neither Agree nor Disagree
15333
2.6
2.6
4.0
Agree
188042
31.4
31.6
35.5
Strongly Agree
384185
64.2
64.5
100.0
Total
595789
99.6
100.0
Missing
System
2214
.4
Total
598003
100.0
Table 4.
Q7 Descriptive Statistics: When needed, employees are willing to put in the extra effort to get a job done
N
Valid
595789
Missing
2214
Mean
4.58
Median
5.00
Mode
5
Std. Deviation
.647
Skewness
-2.053
Std. Error of Skewness
.003
Kurtosis
6.497
Std. Error of Kurtosis
.006
Figure 2.
Bar chart for Q7: When needed, employees are willing to put in the extra effort to get a job done
Interpretation:
A majority (64 percent) of employees strongly agree that they put in extra work whenever necessary to get a job done. Approximately 96 percent either agree or strongly agree that they are often willing to put in extra work to get a job done at the workplace. Only less than 1 percent report that they would not go the extra mile when needed to get a job done, while 2 percent are indifferent.
Table 5.
Q20 Frequency Analysis: The people I work with cooperate to get the job done
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
Strongly Disagree
17519
2.9
2.9
2.9
Disagree
44398
7.4
7.4
10.4
Neither Agree nor Disagree
70392
11.8
11.8
22.2
Agree
271198
45.4
45.5
67.7
Strongly Agree
192503
32.2
32.3
100.0
Total
596010
99.7
100.0
Missing
System
1993
.3
Total
598003
100.0
Table 6.
Q20 Descriptive Statistics : The people I work with cooperate to get the job done
N
Valid
596010
Missing
1993
Mean
3.97
Median
4.00
Mode
4
Std. Deviation
1.001
Skewness
-1.083
Std. Error of Skewness
.003
Kurtosis
.847
Std. Error of Kurtosis
.006
Figure 3.
Bar chart for Q20: The people I work with cooperate to get the job done
Interpretation:
Approximately 78 percent of employees either agree or strongly agree that their colleagues at work cooperate to get the job done. 3 percent strongly agree that their colleagues are uncooperative, while 11 percent are indifferent.
Table 7.
Q26 Frequency Analysis: Employees in my work unit share job knowledge with each other.
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
Strongly Disagree
25028
4.2
4.2
4.2
Disagree
38217
6.4
6.4
10.7
Neither Agree nor Disagree
71864
12.0
12.1
22.8
Agree
295718
49.5
49.9
72.7
Strongly Agree
162184
27.1
27.3
100.0
Total
593011
99.2
100.0
Missing
System
4992
.8
Total
598003
100.0
Table 8.
Q26 Descriptive Statistics: Employees in my work unit share job knowledge with each other.
N
Valid
593011
Missing
4992
Mean
3.90
Median
4.00
Mode
4
Std. Deviation
1.011
Skewness
-1.148
Std. Error of Skewness
.003
Kurtosis
1.110
Std. Error of Kurtosis
.006
Figure 4.
Bar Chart for Q26: Employees in my work unit share job knowledge with each other
Interpretation
77 percent of employees either agree or strongly agree that employees in their unit share job knowledge with each other for the benefit of the organization. Only 6 percent disagree and 4 percent strongly disagree with this statement. The skewness value of -1.148 indicates that the data is slightly negatively or left-skewed, implying that as shown in the graph, a greater number of values are concentrated on the right side of the graph, representing a non-normal distribution. At the same time, the positive kurtosis value of 1.11 points to a leptokurtic distribution, indicating that the distribution of responses is more peaked than that of a normal distribution.
Table 9.
Q28 Frequency Analysis: How would you rate the overall quality of work done by your work unit?
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
Very Poor
4778
.8
.8
.8
Poor
11406
1.9
1.9
2.7
Fair
71467
12.0
12.0
14.7
Good
241339
40.4
40.6
55.3
Very Good
265880
44.5
44.7
100.0
Total
594870
99.5
100.0
Missing
System
3133
.5
Total
598003
100.0
Table 10.
Q28 Descriptive Statistics: How would you rate the overall quality of work done by your work unit?
N
Valid
594870
Missing
3133
Mean
4.26
Median
4.00
Mode
5
Std. Deviation
.804
Skewness
-1.106
Std. Error of Skewness
.003
Kurtosis
1.445
Std. Error of Kurtosis
.006
Figure 5.
Bar Chart for Q28: How would you rate the overall quality of work done by your work unit?
Interpretation
40 percent of employees rate the quality of work done by their units as good, but the majority of employees (44.7 percent) rate it as very good. 12 percent rate the quality of their work as fair, and only 0.8 percent believe that the work output of their units is very poor. The skewness measure of -1.106 is less than the -1 standard for normality, indicating that the distribution of responses is slightly left-skewed and more responses lie on the right side of the graph (the good and very good options). At the same time, the kurtosis value of 1.445 points to a leptokurtic distribution, indicating that the distribution of responses is more peaked than that of a...
…more peaked than that of a normal distribution.Table 15.
Q36 Frequency Analysis: My organization has prepared employees for potential security threats.
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
Strongly Disagree
16287
2.7
2.8
2.8
Disagree
28964
4.8
5.0
7.8
Neither Agree nor Disagree
72048
12.0
12.4
20.2
Agree
317174
53.0
54.6
74.8
Strongly Agree
146292
24.5
25.2
100.0
Total
580765
97.1
100.0
Missing
System
17238
2.9
Total
598003
100.0
Table 16.
Q36 Descriptive Statistics: My organization has prepared employees for potential security threats.
N
Valid
580765
Missing
17238
Mean
3.94
Median
4.00
Mode
4
Std. Deviation
.908
Skewness
-1.188
Std. Error of Skewness
.003
Kurtosis
1.750
Std. Error of Kurtosis
.006
Figure 8.
Bar Chart for Q36: My organization has prepared employees for potential security threats.
Interpretation
Over 50 percent of employees agree that their organization have prepared employees for potential security threats, while 25 percent strongly agree. 7.8 percent either disagree or strongly disagree that their organizations have effectively prepared their employees for potential security threats, while 12 percent are indifferent. Responses are slightly left skewed from the skewness value of -1.188, while the value of kurtosis of 1.75 indicates that distribution is peaked or leptokurtic.
Table 17.
Q42: Frequency Analysis: My supervisor supports my need to balance work and other life issues.
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
Strongly Disagree
23749
4.0
4.1
4.1
Disagree
24478
4.1
4.2
8.3
Neither Agree nor Disagree
51349
8.6
8.8
17.1
Agree
215576
36.0
37.0
54.1
Strongly Agree
267715
44.8
45.9
100.0
Total
582867
97.5
100.0
Missing
System
15136
2.5
Total
598003
100.0
Table 18.
Q42 Descriptive Statistics: My supervisor supports my need to balance work and other life issues.
N
Valid
582867
Missing
15136
Mean
4.16
Median
4.00
Mode
5
Std. Deviation
1.027
Skewness
-1.469
Std. Error of Skewness
.003
Kurtosis
1.850
Std. Error of Kurtosis
.006
Figure 9.
Bar Chart for Q42: My supervisor supports my need to balance work and other life issues.
Interpretation
45 percent of employees strongly agree that their supervisors respect the need for proper work-life balance. 37 percent merely agree that their supervisors respect work-life balance issues. 8 percent of employees either disagree or strongly disagree, and believe that their supervisors do not pay attention to work-life balance issues, while another 8 percent are indifferent about the subject matter. The negative value of skewness in excess of the -1 standard for normality points to a non-normal distribution that is left skewed. This is further supported by the fact that the mode is higher than the mean and median, a feature of a negatively-skewed distribution. The value of kurtosis of 1.85 also point to non-normality, with a positive value of kurtosis indicating that distribution is peaked or leptokurtic.
Table 19.
Q43: Frequency Analysis: My supervisor provides me with opportunities to demonstrate my leadership skills.
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
Strongly Disagree
33829
5.7
5.8
5.8
Disagree
45878
7.7
7.9
13.7
Neither Agree nor Disagree
87675
14.7
15.0
28.7
Agree
209205
35.0
35.9
64.6
Strongly Agree
206020
34.5
35.4
100.0
Total
582607
97.4
100.0
Missing
System
15396
2.6
Total
598003
100.0
Table 20.
Q43 Descriptive Statistics: My supervisor provides me with opportunities to demonstrate my leadership skills.
N
Valid
582607
Missing
15396
Mean
3.87
Median
4.00
Mode
4
Std. Deviation
1.151
Skewness
-.971
Std. Error of Skewness
.003
Kurtosis
.174
Std. Error of Kurtosis
.006
Figure 10.
Bar Chart for Q43: My supervisor provides me with opportunities to demonstrate my leadership skills.
Interpretation
35 percent of employees strongly agree that their supervisors provide ample opportunity for them to demonstrate their leadership skills, while another 35 percent only merely agree with this statement. 7.9 percent of employees disagree with this statement, while 5.8 percent strongly disagree, indicating that their employers either rarely or never allow them to practice their leadership skills. 15 percent of employees are indifferent about their supervisors behavior in allowing them to practice leadership. On the normality of the distribution, if the value for skewness is between -1 and 1, then the distribution is within the range of normality (Hair et al., 2022). In this case, the skewness value is -0.97, indicating that the data is nearly symmetrical. The value of kurtosis is .174, which is less than 1, indicating a mesokurtic distribution (synonymous with a normal distribution). Thus, this variable…
References
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural modeling (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Employee Privacy Torts Issues relating to employee privacy have been at the forefront of businesses for many years. This has been fuelled by the dynamic workplace which changes constantly and also by employees and employers being more litigation-conscious. Technology has also spurred on employee privacy issues with e-mail and the internet being related to heightened concerns about vulnerability of employers to litigation. Many employers have thus exacerbated their concerns relating to
Employee Training and Career Development The role of training in an organization's development For organizations to ensure their employees are equipped with the right knowledge, abilities and skills to perform their assigned tasks, training and development assumes a critical role towards the success and growth of the business. When providing appropriate training, organizations ensure that their employees own the right skills for the business and these skills must be continually updated based
It is an observational learning technique. It is used to diversify training and helps in change of attitude. It also helps in interpersonal skills. Outdoor training involves challenges which teach employees to work together as a team. It usually involves some major physical and emotional challenge and employees are observed on how they react to these difficulties. This type of training is beneficial as it shows the importance of working
Employee Relations Financial Crisis Managing Employee Relations in the Event of a Financial Crisis A Look into Management can Effectively Navigate through Adverse Conditions Austerity Protests (Dowling, 2012) Employee relations can often be a difficult aspect of maintaining the overall health of an organization. In general, employee relations often refer to the act of fostering productivity, motivation, and employee morale in an organizations human resources pool. However, there are some circumstances in which it
Employee relations belong to employer-employee relationships that give satisfactory productivity, motivation, and self-confidence. Employee relations are involved with preventing and resolving problems related to individuals that occur or change work situations. Supervisors are given advice on how to correct poor performance and employee misconduct (Gennard, 2005). On the other hand, employees are given information on how to promote a better understanding of the company's goals and policies. For this paper
Employee theft is noted by Mishra and Prassad (2006) to be a major component of private and public retail shrinkage.There is a consensus that theft in the workplace constitutes a serious offense and is a cause of serious problem (Weber, Kurke & Pentico, 2003).Employees have been noted to steal time, money, merchandise as well as other forms of company property like information in exchange for cash and other forms of
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now