Inferential Data Analysis Table No: Particulars Does not lose sight of goals Never Compromises on values Has

an inspiring vision Pragmatic ( willing to lose on immediate issues but not distracted from ultimate objectives) Inspires trust and hope Encourages dissenting opinions among closest advisors Listens to ideas, aspirations and needs of subordinates Creates consistent system of rewards, structure, process and communication Is committed to giving subordinates and opportunity to contribute in the organization Grand Mean Score Descriptive statistics on Transformational Leadership related factors Mean 3.4630 3.5000 3.1481 3.3333 3.4259 3.5370 3.6667 2.9815 3.5185 3.39 Std. Deviation 1.17703 .96642 1.05343 1.06399 1.07461 .94595 1.02791 1.17346 1.14498

Inference: Employee responses were gathered on selected aspects of Transformational leadership using Likert scale composed of 5 points starting from strongly disagree with 1 point to strongly agree with 5 points. Mean and standard deviation of the factors are presented in the table. Factors considered are leader does not lose sight of goals, leader never compromises on values, leader has an aspiring vision, leader is pragmatic, leader inspires trust and hope, leader encourages dissenting opinion among closer advisors, leader listens to ideas, aspirations and needs of subordinates, leader creates consistent system of rewards, structure, process and communication and leader is committed to giving subordinates and opportunity to contribute in the organization. As per the analysis, respondents have given a grand mean score of 3.39 on the leadership related aspects, with a standard deviation of 1, which means employees are in agreement that their leaders are transformational leaders. On two the factors leader encourages dissenting opinion among closer advisors, leader listens to ideas, aspirations and needs of subordinates leaders were rated little better near to agreement. We may infer that the leadership process is in transformation from task oriented to transformational. Table No: Particulars Does not lose sight of goals Never Compromises on values Has an inspiring vision Pragmatic ( willing to lose on immediate issues but not distracted from ultimate objectives) Inspires trust and hope Encourages dissenting opinions among -.007 -.174 .958 .209 Not Rejected Not Rejected Rejected Rejected -.081 .558 Correlation between Centralization and Transformational Leadership Aspects Centralization Sig. (2-tailed) -.237 -.127 -.101 .084 .361 .467 Null Hypothesis Alternative Hypothesis Not Rejected Not Rejected Not Rejected Not Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected

closest advisors Listens to ideas, aspirations and needs of subordinates Creates consistent system of rewards, structure, process and communication Is committed to giving subordinates and opportunity to contribute in the organization .025 .859 Not Rejected Rejected

-.113

.418

Not Rejected

Rejected

.008

.952

Not Rejected

Rejected

H0: Agreement with leader does not lose sight of goals and Centralization is not significantly correlated. H1: Agreement with leader does not lose sight of goals and Centralization is significantly correlated. Result: At 5% level of Significance p value is more than 0.05 hence, Ho cannot be Rejected. Inference: There is no significant correlation between the factors under study.

H0: Agreement with leader never compromises on values and Centralization are not significantly correlated. H1: Agreement with leader never compromises on values and Centralization are significantly correlated. Result: At 5% level of Significance p value is more than 0.05 hence, Ho cannot be Rejected. Inference: There is no significant correlation between the factors under study.

H0: Agreement with leader has an aspiring vision and Centralization are not significantly correlated. H1: Agreement with leader has an aspiring vision and Centralization are significantly correlated. Result: At 5% level of Significance p value is more than 0.05 hence, Ho cannot be Rejected. Inference: There is no significant correlation between the factors under study.

H0: Agreement with leader is pragmatic and Centralization are not significantly correlated. H1: Agreement with leader is pragmatic and Centralization are significantly correlated. Result: At 5% level of Significance p value is more than 0.05 hence, Ho cannot be Rejected. Inference: There is no significant correlation between the factors under study.

H0: Agreement with leader inspires trust and hope and Centralization are not significantly correlated. H1: Agreement with leader inspires trust and hope and Centralization are significantly correlated. Result: At 5% level of Significance p value is more than 0.05 hence, Ho cannot be Rejected. Inference: There is no significant correlation between the factors under study.

H0: Agreement with leader encourages dissenting opinion among closer advisors and Centralization are not significantly correlated. H1: Agreement with leader encourages dissenting opinion among closer advisors and Centralization are significantly correlated. Result: At 5% level of Significance p value is more than 0.05 hence, Ho cannot be Rejected.

Inference: There is no significant correlation between the factors under study.

H0: Agreement with leader listens to ideas and Centralization are not significantly correlated. H1: Agreement with leader listens to ideas and Centralization are significantly correlated. Result: At 5% level of Significance p value is more than 0.05 hence, Ho cannot be Rejected. Inference: There is no significant correlation between the factors under study.

H0: Agreement with aspirations and needs of subordinates and Centralization are not significantly correlated. H1: Agreement with aspirations and needs of subordinates and Centralization are significantly correlated. Result: At 5% level of Significance p value is more than 0.05 hence, Ho cannot be Rejected. Inference: There is no significant correlation between the factors under study.

H0: Agreement with leader creates consistent system of rewards, structure, process and Centralization are not significantly correlated. H1: Agreement with leader creates consistent system of rewards; structure, process and Centralization are significantly correlated. Result: At 5% level of Significance p value is more than 0.05 hence, Ho cannot be Rejected. Inference: There is no significant correlation between the factors under study.

H0: Agreement with communication and leader is committed to giving subordinates and opportunity to contribute in the organization and Centralization are not significantly correlated. H1: Agreement with communication and leader is committed to giving subordinates and opportunity to contribute in the organization and Centralization are significantly correlated. Result: At 5% level of Significance p value is more than 0.05 hence, Ho cannot be Rejected. Inference: There is no significant correlation between the factors under study.

Conclusion: From the responses we can conclude that majority of the employees perceive that their organizations are neither decentralized nor centralized, with a bent towards centralization, and this organizational structure element will surely not support transformational leadership. Due to this very reason, employees have not shown agreement with the factor that they are lead by the transformational leaders. With this discussion we can conclude that Centralization as the organizational structure element will not support transformational leadership.

Table No: Particulars Working Hours

Descriptive statistics of Job satisfaction related factors Mean

3.537037 3.888889

Std. Deviation
1.313399 1.021775

Relationship with co-workers/Superiors

Opportunity to utilize your skills and talents Salary Growth/Opportunities from promotion Variety of Job responsibilities Recognition and Rewards Participation in decision making Motivation from Superiors Grand Mean

2.907407 2.981481 2.722222 3.185185 2.944444 3.055556 3.203704 3.1584

1.277801 1.220744 1.035532 1.214287 1.106016 1.071354 1.122323

Inference: Employee responses were gathered on selected aspects of Job Satisfaction using Likert scale composed of 5 points starting from Very dissatisfied with one point to very satisfied with 5 points. Mean and standard deviation of the factors are presented in the table. Factors considered are working hours, Relationship with co-workers/Superiors, Opportunity to utilize your skills and talents, Salary, Growth/Opportunities for promotion, variety of Job responsibilities, Recognition and rewards, Participation in decision making, Motivation from superiors. As per the analysis, respondents have given a grand mean score of 3.15 on the Job Satisfaction related aspects, with a standard deviation of 1, which means employees are just above satisfaction level pertaining to Job satisfaction. From the aspects studied, Opportunity to utilize your skills and talents. Salary, Growth/ Opportunities for promotion, Recognition and rewards are the important areas seeking attention as satisfaction level is at least not equal to neutral level.

Table no: Particulars Working Hours

Correlation between Centralization and Job satisfaction Centralization -.020 .048 Sig. (2-tailed) .884 .729 .221 .973 .265 .632 .912 Null Hypothesis Not Rejected Not Rejected Not Rejected Not Rejected Not Rejected Not Rejected Not Rejected Alternative Hypothesis Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected

Relationship with co-workers/Superiors

Opportunity to utilize your skills and talents -.169 Salary Growth/Opportunities from promotion Variety of Job responsibilities Recognition and Rewards .005 -.154 .067 .015

Participation in decision making Motivation from Superiors

-.344* -.056

.011 .690

Rejected Not Rejected

Accepted Rejected

H0: Level of satisfaction with respect to working hours and Centralization are not significantly correlated. H1: Level of satisfaction with respect to working hours and Centralization are significantly correlated. Result: At 5% level of Significance p value is more than 0.05 hence, Ho cannot be Rejected. Inference: There is no significant correlation between the factors under study.

H0: Level of satisfaction with respect to Relationship with co-workers/Superiors and Centralization are not significantly correlated. H1: Level of satisfaction with respect to Relationship with co-workers/Superiors and Centralization are significantly correlated. Result: At 5% level of Significance p value is more than 0.05 hence, Ho cannot be Rejected. Inference: There is no significant correlation between the factors under study.

H0: Level of satisfaction with respect to Opportunity to utilize your skills and talents and Centralization are not significantly correlated. H1: Level of satisfaction with respect to Opportunity to utilize your skills and talents and Centralization are significantly correlated. Result: At 5% level of Significance p value is more than 0.05 hence, Ho cannot be Rejected. Inference: There is no significant correlation between the factors under study.

H0: Level of satisfaction with respect to Salary and Centralization are not significantly correlated. H1: Level of satisfaction with respect to Salary and Centralization are significantly correlated. Result: At 5% level of Significance p value is more than 0.05 hence, Ho cannot be Rejected. Inference: There is no significant correlation between the factors under study.

H0: Level of satisfaction with respect to Growth/Opportunities for promotion and Centralization are not significantly correlated. H1: Level of satisfaction with respect to Growth/Opportunities for promotion and Centralization are significantly correlated. Result: At 5% level of Significance p value is more than 0.05 hence, Ho cannot be Rejected. Inference: There is no significant correlation between the factors under study.

H0: Level of satisfaction with respect to variety of Job responsibilities and Centralization are not significantly correlated. H1: Level of satisfaction with respect to variety of Job responsibilities and Centralization are significantly correlated. Result: At 5% level of Significance p value is more than 0.05 hence, Ho cannot be Rejected. Inference: There is no significant correlation between the factors under study.

H0: Level of satisfaction with respect to Recognition and rewards and Centralization are not significantly correlated. H1: Level of satisfaction with respect to Recognition and rewards and Centralization are significantly correlated.

Result: At 5% level of Significance p value is more than 0.05 hence, Ho cannot be Rejected. Inference: There is no significant correlation between the factors under study.

H0: Level of satisfaction with respect to Participation in decision making and Centralization are not significantly correlated. H1: Level of satisfaction with respect to Participation in decision making and Centralization are significantly correlated. Result: At 5% level of Significance p value is less than 0.05 so, Ho is Rejected. H1 is Accepted. Inference: There is significant correlation between the factors under study. The correlation established as per the study is negative correlation (-.344*), which means higher the Centralization lesser the participation in decision making and vice versa.

H0: Level of satisfaction with respect to Motivation from superiors and Centralization are not significantly correlated. H1: Level of satisfaction with respect to Motivation from superiors and Centralization are significantly correlated. Result: At 5% level of Significance p value is more than 0.05 hence, Ho cannot be Rejected. Inference: There is no significant correlation between the factors under study.

Conclusion: From the responses we can conclude that majority of the employees perceive that their organizations are neither decentralized nor centralized, with a bent towards centralization, and this organizational structure element will generally not result in high levels of Job satisfaction in the knowledge economy. Due to this very reason, employees have not shown high level of Job satisfaction. With this discussion we can conclude that Centralization as the organizational structure element will not increase job satisfaction. One of the factors under study participatory decision making and Centralization are negatively correlated, which results is a low level of Job satisfaction. Hence, the organizations need to consider on revising the element of Centralization in order to make their structure more employee friendly.