Sunteți pe pagina 1din 5

1.

Whether increasing salary is a good solution for improving employees’


performance? To which extent employees’ salary predicts their performance?

Answers:

Model Summaryb

Adjusted R Std. Error of the


Model R R Square Square Estimate

1 .622a .387 .386 .9867

a. Predictors: (Constant), SAL


b. Dependent Variable: EMP

 Adjusted R Square = 0.368 => In sample data, salary explains 36.8% of


employees’ performance (other factors explain 63.2% of employees’
performance) => Basically, Adjusted R Square should be larger than 50%
but there is only one predictor in the model, thus, model fits acceptably to
the sample.

ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 275.542 1 275.542 283.046 .000b

Residual 436.122 448 .973

Total 711.664 449

a. Dependent Variable: EMP


b. Predictors: (Constant), SAL

 Sig = 0.000 < 0.05 => the model fits acceptably to the population

Coefficientsa

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 2.027 .189 10.724 .000

SAL .586 .035 .622 16.824 .000

a. Dependent Variable: EMP

 Sig (SAL) = 0.000 < 0.05 => Salary does help to predict employees’
performance. B = 0.686, standardized beta = 0.622 => increasing salary
will improve employees’ performance. Specifically, when increasing
salary 1 unit, employees’ performance will be increased 0.586 unit.
 Mean is almost 0 and STD. Dev is 0.999 (almost equal to 1) => residual
has standard distribution. Thus, the required assumption of regression is
not violated.

2. Whether providing more supports from managers is a good solution for


improving employees’ performance? Identify the extent to which employees’
performance is explained by managers’ support?

Answers:

Model Summaryb

Adjusted R Std. Error of the


Model R R Square Square Estimate

1 .094a .009 .007 1.2547

a. Predictors: (Constant), SUP


b. Dependent Variable: EMP

 Adjusted R Square = 0.007 => In sample data, managers’ support


explains only 0.7% of employees’ performance => Adjusted R Square is
too small indicating the model fit is low.

ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 6.350 1 6.350 4.034 .045b

Residual 705.314 448 1.574

Total 711.664 449

a. Dependent Variable: EMP


b. Predictors: (Constant), SUP

 Sig = 0.000 < 0.05 => the model still fit to the population

Coefficientsa

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 4.734 .196 24.154 .000

SUP .077 .038 .094 2.008 .045

a. Dependent Variable: EMP

 Sig (SUP) = 0.045 < 0.05 => Managers’ support helps to predict
employees’ performance. B = 0.077, standardized beta = 0.094 =>
increasing managers’ support will improve employees’ performance.
Specifically, when increasing managers’ support at 1 unit, employees’
performance will be increased at 0.038 unit.

 Mean is almost 0 and STD. Dev is 0.999 (almost equal to 1) => residual
has standard distribution. Thus, the required assumption of regression is
not violated.

3. Do salary, training, experience, managers’ support, management style and heavy


workload predict employees’ performance? To which extent employees’
performance is explained by all these factors? Among the influencing factors,
which is the most and the least important factor in determining employees’
performance?

Model Summaryb

Adjusted R Std. Error of the


Model R R Square Square Estimate

1 .745a .555 .549 .8457

a. Predictors: (Constant), HWL, TRA, SAL, EXP, SUP, MAS


b. Dependent Variable: EMP
 Adjusted R Square = 0.549 => In sample data, salary, training,
experience, managers’ support, management style and heavy workload
explain 55.5% of employees’ performance. Since adjusted R Square is
larger than 50%,, model fits to the sample.

ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 394.834 6 65.806 92.011 .000b

Residual 316.831 443 .715

Total 711.664 449

a. Dependent Variable: EMP


b. Predictors: (Constant), HWL, TRA, SAL, EXP, SUP, MAS

 Sig = 0.000 < 0.05 => the model still fit to the population

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients Collinearity Statistics

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Tolerance VIF

1 (Constant) 1.442 .201 7.166 .000

SUP -.038 .041 -.047 -.929 .354 .400 2.497

SAL .184 .044 .196 4.208 .000 .464 2.157

TRA .247 .046 .269 5.382 .000 .404 2.478

EXP .164 .059 .177 2.770 .006 .245 4.083

MAS .197 .060 .211 3.296 .001 .245 4.088

HWL -.014 .034 -.021 -.426 .671 .415 2.410


a. Dependent Variable: EMP

 Sig (SUP) = 0.354 > 0.05 => Managers’ support does not help to predict
employees’ performance.
 Sig (SAL) = 0.000 < 0.05 => Salary does help to predict employees’
performance.
 Sig (TRA) = 0.000 < 0.05 => Training does help to predict employees’
performance.
 Sig (EXP) = 0.000 < 0.05 => Experience does help to predict employees’
performance.
 Sig (MAS) = 0.000 < 0.05 => Management style does help to predict
employees’ performance.
 Sig (HWL) = 0.671 > 0.05 => Heavy workload does not not help to
predict employees’ performance.
 VIF (Variance inflation factor) < 10, thus, there is no colinearity => the
estimated coefficients are not biased.
 Salary, training, experience and management style help to predict employees’
performance while management support and heavy workload do not influence
on employees’ performance.
 Salary, training, experience and management style explain 54.9% of
employees’ performance
 Based on standardized beta of salary, training, experience and management
style, the most important factor in determining employees’ performance is
training and the least is experience.


 Mean is almost 0 and STD. Dev is 0.993 (almost equal to 1) => residual
has standard distribution. Thus, the required assumption of regression is
not violated.