Statistics Project, Part 2: Hypothesis Testing

Running Head: Descriptive Statistics 1

Descriptive Statistics 2

Statistics Project, Part 1:

Opening Data in Microsoft® Excel®

and Running Descriptive Statistics

Nasser Y Miranda

University of Phoenix

August 4th, 2018

Gender

The dataset consists of 50 individuals where 22 are males and 28 females. Below is the pie chart graph that graphically represent the gender composition. In terms of percentage, the males 44% are whereas the females are 56%. This is an indication that the data sample used was relatively balanced in terms of gender. Atkinson-Bonasio (2017) asserts that in research, fostering diversity achieved by gender equality assures innovation. She further states that bias and gender disparity should be examined so as to ensure a data-informed approach especially to implementing policies and interventions related to gender inequality.

Variable	Mean	Median	Mode
Gender			2

The above table shows that the mode of the gender is 2. In this case, it implies that the females are frequently occurring in the data when compared to the males which is proved clearly by their percentage.

Age

Variable	Mean	Median	Mode	Standard Deviation	Variance	Range
Age	32.02	31.5	29	4.340083701	18.83633	15

The individuals used in this case age has an average of 32 years where those of 29 years of age are the frequently occurring. The range of the populations is 15 years which shows the difference of years between the youngest individual and the oldest individual in the data set. The age has a high deviation showing the high variance of the data from the mean which is confirmed by the high variance of 18.83633.

Relationship with Direct Supervisor

This variable is data is further labelled into 4 categories namely: 1 = negative relationship, 2 = neutral relationship, 3 = positive relationship, 4 = great relationship.

Variable	Mean	Median	Mode	Standard Deviation	Variance
Supervisor	2.5	3	3	1.015190743	1.030612

The above table indicates that the average relationship for all the 50 individuals with their direct supervisor is 2.5 which is between neutral relationship and positive relationship. Most of the individuals have a positive relationship with their direct supervisor. The mode of 3 shows that majority of the individuals have a positive relationship with their direct supervisor. The relationship categories does not exhibit great variance from what is expected thus the low case of 11 individuals out of 50 who have a negative relationship with their direct supervisor.

Telecommute Schedule

The telecommute schedule variable is categorized as follows: 1= no ability to telecommute, 2 = able to telecommute at least 2 days per week.

Variable	Mean	Median	Mode	Standard Deviation	Variance	Range
Telecommute	1.18	1	1	0.388087934	0.150612

The table above shows that majority of the individuals have no ability to telecommute as opposed to those who those who have the ability to do so at least 2 day every week.

Telecommute Percentage
No ability	82
Able to	18

82% have no ability to telecommute while on the other hand only 18% are able to. This is a clear indication that majority of the individuals have no access to Internet access, email and telephone from their homes. It is therefore not necessary to consider giving them tasks that will need them to be telecommunicating since most of them will not be able to deliver. Jafroodi, Salajeghe & Kiani (2015) in their paper found out that telecommuting is one of the factors that lead to increased productivity and employee satisfaction scores among others is telecommuting.

Relationship with Coworkers

This variable is categorized into the following: 1 = negative relationship, 2 = no relationship, 3 = positive relationship

Variable	Mean		Median	Mode	Standard Deviation	Variance	Range
Coworkers	1.92		2	2	0.665168384	0.442449

The above table shows the relationship these individuals in the dataset had with their fellow coworkers. From the table, the average relationship is closer to being neutral in the sense that most people have no relationship with their coworkers. This is clearly seen in the mode where majority of these individuals who frequently occur in the dataset, 28 to be precise, have no relationship with their coworkers whatsoever. Only 9 out of the 50 have a positive relationship with their coworkers. This calls for the organization to strive and make it their goal to increase the number of individuals who have a positive relationship with their workers. Positive relationships between colleagues are very beneficial to both the individuals and organization in terms of improved teamwork, increased productivity, high rates of employee retention, and so on (Dutton & Ragins, 2017).

Workplace Happiness Rating

This variable is categorized as follows: Scale 0-10, 0 = no happiness, 10 = completely happy

Variable	Mean	Median	Mode	Standard Deviation	Variance	Range
Happiness	7.4	8	8	1.414213562	2	5

From the above table, the average rate of happiness is relatively high showing that most of the individuals are happy in their workplace. The table further indicates that the happiness score frequently occurring is 8 out of 10 which suggests that most of the people are happy. However, it seems like the company has to go an extra mile since there more room for improvement. There is a need to identify the reason why there are still other who are not that much happy in order to know which areas the company needs to work on. One of the most important things companies are striving to have is keeping retaining employees while at the same time keeping them happy and productive (Hsiao, 2015). Loyal employees perform better, meet their deadlines, and most importantly are very supportive and open to new ideas and changes which means a lot to companies.

Workplace Engagement Rating

This variable is categorized into the following: Scale 0-10, 1 = no engagement, 10 = highly engaged

Variable	Mean	Median	Mode	Standard Deviation	Variance	Range
Engagement	7.64	8	8	1.241460628	1.541224	6

The table above shows that the individuals have an average score of 7.64 out of 10 level of engagement in the workplace. Many people are actively engaged since the most frequent occurring score is 8 out of 10. The range is relatively higher indicating that the dataset contains a significant difference between those actively engaged and those not that much engaged. Sorting the workplace engagement rating shows that only a few of the individuals are not engaged much. Companies that gain higher profits have employees who are highly engaged, motivated and valued. The passively engaged can be encouraged to be engaged by being inspired, recognized, being given flexible working hours as well as being given a fair pay structure.

Overall Rating

This variable is categorized into the following: Scale 0-20, 0 = not happy and not engaged, 20 = completely happy and highly engaged.

Variable	Mean	Median	Mode	Standard Deviation	Variance	Range
Overall Rating	15.02	15.5	16	2.428487394	5.897551	11

The table above show that the mean score is 15.02 out of 20 implying that majority of the individuals are happy and highly engaged. This however, shows that there is more the company has to do in order to raise overall employee rating score. The range of 11 shows that the level of happiness and commitment in the department is varying in the sense that there is a high variance between those that are completely happy and highly engaged and those that are not. This calls for diversity in the department which would bring diverse people with regard to culture, religion, talent, background and exposure which bring many benefits through the diverse pool of people brought together. Team work is also enhanced in the sense that people are given tasks according to their areas of strengths.

References

Atkinson-Bonasio, A. (2017). Gender balance in research: new analytical report reveals uneven progress. Retrieved from https://www.elsevier.com/connect/gender-balance-in-research-new-analytical-report-reveals-uneven-progress

Dutton, J. E., & Ragins, B. R. (2017). Positive relationships at work: An introduction and invitation. In Exploring positive relationships at work (pp. 2-24). Psychology Press.

Hsiao, W. J. (2015). Happy Workers Work Happy? The Perspective of Frontline Service Workers. In Industrial Engineering, Management Science and Applications 2015 (pp. 473-476). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Jafroodi, N. R., Salajeghe, S., & Kiani, M. P. (2015). Comparative analysis of the effect of organizational culture characteristics on telecommuting system strategy through inferential statistics and rough set theory.

Supervisor	Telecommute	Coworkers	Happiness	Engagement	Overall Rating	Variable	Mean	Median	Mode	Standard Deviation	Variance	Range
1	1	1	5	4	9	Gender			2		0.254693878
1	1	1	4	5	8	Age	32.02	31.5	29	4.340083701	18.83632653	15
1	1	1	7	5	12	Supervisor	2.5	3	3	1.015190743	1.030612245	3
1	2	1	7	5	12	Telecommute	1.18	1	1	0.388087934	0.150612245
2	1	1	4	6	10	Coworkers	1.92	2	2	0.665168384	0.44244898
1	1	1	5	6	11	Happiness	7.4	8	8	1.414213562	2	5
2	1	1	5	6	11	Engagement	7.64	8	8	1.241460628	1.54122449	6
2	2	1	6	6	12	Overall Rating	15.02	15.5	16	2.428487394	5.89755102	11
2	1	1	6	7	13
3	1	2	7	7	14	Gender Percentage
3	1	2	7	7	14	Male	44
4	1	1	8	7	15	Female	56
1	1	2	8	7	15	Telecommute Percentage
2	1	2	8	7	15	No ability	82
3	1	2	8	7	15	Able to	18
3	1	2	9	7	16
3	1	2	9	7	16
2	1	2	5	8	13
1	1	1	6	8	14
1	1	1	6	8	14
1	1	2	6	8	14
2	1	2	6	8	14
1	1	2	7	8	15
3	1	2	7	8	15
3	1	2	7	8	15
2	2	2	7	8	15
3	2	2	7	8	15
2	1	2	8	8	16
3	1	2	8	8	16
3	1	2	8	8	16
4	1	2	8	8	16
4	1	2	8	8	16
4	2	2	8	8	16
2	1	3	8	8	16
3	2	3	8	8	16
4	1	2	9	8	17
2	2	2	9	8	17
3	1	3	9	8	17
4	1	3	9	8	17
2	1	1	7	9	16
3	1	2	7	9	16
2	1	2	8	9	17
4	1	2	8	9	17
3	1	2	9	9	18
3	1	2	9	9	18
3	1	3	9	9	18
4	1	3	9	9	18
2	2	3	9	9	18
3	2	3	9	9	18
4	1	3	9	10	19

Overall Rating 9.0 8.0 12.0 12.0 10.0 11.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 14.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 16.0 16.0 13.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 16.0 16.0 17.0 17.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 19.0

Gender

Male Female 44.0 56.00000000000001

Telecommute

No ability Able to 82.0 18.0

Overall Rating 9.0 15.0 15.0 8.0 14.0 11.0 12.0 12.0 14.0 14.0 13.0 10.0 15.0 13.0 11.0 18.0 17.0 16.0 15.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 17.0 15.0 16.0 14.0 18.0 15.0 16.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 16.0 15.0 15.0 18.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 17.0 17.0 15.0 17.0 19.0 18.0 16.0

Statistics Project, Part 2: Hypothesis Testing