Member’s Name ID

INTRODUCTION

Perceived fairness of employee rewards is often at the root of why employees

leave organizations. The idea of fairness determines if an employee will make an
extra effort to reach organizational goals or even the objectives of his/her own
job. For these reason, it’s vital for organizations to ensure that their employee
rewards are rooted in principles of fairness. The aim of this research study is to
investigate the relationship among Performance Appraisal, Compensation,
Affective Commitment and Employee Based Brand Equity. The main objective of
the study is determining fairness perception of employees about Performance
Appraisal & Compensation Impact over affective commitment & Employee based
Brand equity.
 OBJECTIVES
The main objective of the study is determining fairness perception of
employees about Performance Appraisal & Compensation Impact over
affective commitment & Employee based Brand equity.

There are many sub objectives are as follows:

To find out affective commitment.

To find out compensation.
To find out Performance Appraisal.
To find out employee based brand equity
 SCOPE

We collect all our data from 10 different food

companies located in Chittagong which were
Ispahani, Finlays, Mostafa, Fulkoli, Banoful,
MistiMela, Madhubhan, Meridian, Fu-Wong & Pran
Group.
 METHODOLOGY
 Selection of Basic Research Design
There are four types of basic research design as –Survey, Experience, Observation,
Secondary data. But here we were follow survey by the questionnaire and secondary data
analysis. In our research we were follow pre coded, close ended and structured
questionnaire. We were use 7 points Rensis Likert scale & also 5 points scale in the
questionnaire. In our questionnaire there had two parts.
First part was personal information of customer, and the second part was our research
objective.
We collect the primary data from food company by seven days and secondary data from
web side of company, annual report, international and national journal. We were following
the descriptive research by using mean, medium, and factor & regression analysis. We
were formulating different research types of question which fulfilling our research
objective. We were tried to prepare our questionnaire by using simple word not ambiguous
word.
 METHODOLOGY
 Selection and Sample

We were follow non-probability judge mental method for sampling, and we were six group
members. We were collect 36 responses from the respondent.

 Data Gathering
We were collecting the data from the field. We were the students of “Business Research
Method” so; we were collecting the data of quantitative information for having experience
& for course perspective. We were needed 15 days for collection of data by direct
personal interview method.

 Data Analysis & Evaluation

We were use standard edition and use Pre coded procedure. We were categorizing the
data in gender, marital status, and age. After collection of primary data; we were input the
data to SPSS software and analyzing the data by Factor Analysis, Mean, Median, and
Mode.
 LIMITATIONS

We faced some problem during field working:

 Faces some problems to provide explanation about the

questionnaire to the Officers where we went for survey.
 Faces non co-operation from many companies because of
their time shortage.
 Faces complaint about the questionnaire from officers that the
questionnaire was lengthy and time consuming.
 Faces great deal of transportation problem because of the
shortage to available vehicle.
Research Design
HYPOTHESIS
H1: There are strong relationship between Fairness Perception Employees and Performance
Appraisal.

H2: There are strong relationships between Fairness Perception Employees and
Compensation.

H3: There are strong relationships between Performance Appraisal and Affective
Commitment.

H4: There are strong relationships between Compensation and Affective Commitment.

H5: There are strong relationships between Performance Appraisal and Employee
Based Brand Equity.

H6: There are strong relationships between Compensation and Employee Based
Brand Equity.
 COMPANY AT A GLANCE
 Well Group at a Glance
  Well Group at a Glance

• Policy
At Well Group, quality, price and service work together. Their purpose is to
produce high quality products at competitive prices, and to provide customer
service that is unmatched in the industry.

• Vision
Well Group aims to have a wide market network, connecting with developed and
developing markets alike, adding strengthened values to run Their business with
excellence, adapt to the innovations in the industry, stay in pace with change and
creating new standards. They aspire to contribute broadly to the society and to
grow as a leading industrial group.
  FINLAY Group at a Glance

• Their Mission
To Bring the Best from Bush to Cup, everything they produce is infused with passion and pride. Every single step
of the process is packed with care and commitment, because what they do and how they do it pours through
people's daily lives. Their values are the lifeblood of their organization, guiding each member of their global team
and inspiring the way they work.
  Ispahani Group at a Glance

• Mission
Dedicated to raise the standard and quality of snack food products that are available to consumers in
Bangladesh and the constant pursuit of excellence in meeting the consumer demands
• Vision
To be the leader in manufacturing the very best products which ensure consumers’ peace of mind
• Core Values
1. Innovation
2. Openness
3. Hygiene standard
4. Stringent Quality
 Mostafa Group At A Glance
  Mostafa Group At A Glance

• Mission
1. They yearn to develop an enterprise for -
2. Accelerating industrialization in public sector
3. Delivering quality and affordable price
4. Contributing in foreign remittance reserve
5. Reducing import dependencies
6. Generating employments and reducing poverty
7. Building manpower at per global standard
8. Positioning MGI as a standard for competitors
9. Discharging social responsibilities

• Vision
Mostafa Group of Industries has come a long way since the war wrecked Bangladesh.
Helping the thousands of distressed people of the country has always been the biggest
motivator for the founder. He understood one simple thing and that is industrialization -
which is the biggest leap to uplift the lives of millions in our country and to uplift the total
national economy.
 Fulkoli at a Glance
  Fulkoli at a Glance

They emphasis to the followings:

1. Highly qualified raw materials.

2. BSTI Subsequently ISO: standard food safety managing system in outdoor and
indoor.
3. Produce healthy sound food by latest technology with skilled workers.
4. Standard quality and quantity uses in delivery and marketing level
5. Local economy and remittance add by reducing unemployment problems.
6. Social sensibilities and welfare gives to the society.
7. Creates an upgraded innovative on food production in the Bangladesh.
8. Teaches self dependent in food sector.
9. All classes of persons get quality food by cheap rate and easy way.
 Meridian Foods Ltd at a Glance
  Meridian Foods Ltd at a Glance

• Mission
They are working hard to ensure healthy products for a perfect healthy life of customer
through innovation processes. They are devoted to investing in their people, Their
Company and the communities where they operate to help position the company for long-
term, sustainable growth.

• Vision
Their vision is to become a global leader in every business of their selves through product
diversification, innovation and customer’s satisfaction. They also endive their to attain a
high level of productivity in all their operations through effective and efficient use of
resources, adaptation of appropriate technology and alignment with core competencies
DEMOGRAPHICAL DISCUSSION
Gender
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Percent

Male 35 97.2 97.2 97.2

Valid Female 1 2.8 2.8 100.0

Total 36 100.0 100.0

Marital Status

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Married 33 91.7 91.7 91.7
Valid Single 3 8.3 8.3 100.0
Total 36 100.0 100.0
DEMOGRAPHICAL DISCUSSION
Age
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Percent
20 years to less than 30
6 16.7 16.7 16.7
years
30 years to less than 40
14 38.9 38.9 55.6
years
40 years to less than 50
Valid 13 36.1 36.1 91.7
years
50 years to less than 60
2 5.6 5.6 97.2
years
60 years or above 1 2.8 2.8 100.0
Total 36 100.0 100.0
 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Average of compensation 36 3.75 6.88 5.9444 .69977
Average of Compensation1
36 2.57 4.86 3.6071 .72873
Average of Compensation2
36 2.50 5.00 3.9653 .70496
Average of Compensation3
36 2.78 4.89 4.0772 .53966
Average of Performance Appraisal
36 2.29 5.00 3.7937 .77681
Average of Evaluated Performance
36 2.75 5.00 4.1319 .58702
Average of Performance Evaluation Procedure
36 2.67 5.00 4.1173 .63687

Average of Employee Based Brand Equity

36 4.55 7.00 6.1263 .61745
Valid N (listwise) 36
 CO-RELATION
Correlations

Average of Average of
Average Evaluated Average of Average of
Average of affective Average of Compensation Performance Average of Employee
Compensation Performance Evaluated
commitment Compensation Determination Evaluation Based Brand Equity
Procedure Appraisal Performance
Procedure Procedure

Pearson Correlation 1 .733** .818** .725** .581** .820** .776** .702**

Average of affective
commitment Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
Pearson Correlation .733** 1 .622** .532** .559** .475** .662** .403*
Average Evaluated
Compensation Procedure Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .001 .000 .003 .000 .015
N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
Pearson Correlation .818** .622** 1 .560** .551** .887** .702** .670**
Average of Compensation Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
Pearson Correlation .725** .532** .560** 1 .663** .693** .871** .563**
Average of Compensation
Determination Procedure Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
Pearson Correlation .581** .559** .551** .663** 1 .695** .845** .539**
Average of Performance
Appraisal Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001
N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
Pearson Correlation .820** .475** .887** .693** .695** 1 .815** .782**
Average of Evaluated
Performance Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .003 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
Pearson Correlation .776** .662** .702** .871** .845** .815** 1 .574**
Average of Performance
Evaluation Procedure Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
Pearson Correlation .702** .403* .670** .563** .539** .782** .574** 1
Average of Employee Based
Brand Equity Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .015 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000
N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
 REGRESSION

ANOVAb

Mean
Model Sum of Squares df F Sig.
Square
1 Regression 9.432 7 1.347 9.645 .000a
Residual 3.912 28 .140
Total 13.343 35
a. Predictors: (Constant), Average of Performance Evaluation Procedure, Average of Compensation1, Average of
Compensation2, Average of Performance Appraisal, Average of Compensation3, Average of affective commitment,
Average of Evaluated Performance
b. Dependent Variable: Average of Employee Based Brand Equity

Here we find that F value = 9.645 which is greater than acceptable range. So we accepted F value of
ANOVA table.
 Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients
Model Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 1.924 .599 3.212 .003
Average of affective
.163 .246 .185 .662 .514
commitment
Average Evaluated
Compensation Procedure .194 .198 .228 .979 .336

Average of Compensation -.295 .268 -.337 -1.102 .280

1 Average of Compensation
.402 .269 .351 1.498 .145
Determination Procedure
Average of Performance
.199 .173 .251 1.150 .260
Appraisal
Average of Evaluated
1.268 .435 1.205 2.913 .007
Performance
Average of Performance
Evaluation Procedure -.954 .363 -.984 -2.631 .014

Dependent Variable: Average of Employee Based Brand Equity

As per as rule, when t value is greater than 2 than the range is accepted. According to our
findings we find two ranges that are greater than acceptable range and those are 3.212 and
2.913
FACTOR ANALYSIS
Component 1: Performance of procedure
consistency and justified.
Component 2: Brand equity.
Component 3: Procedures of organizational
environment.
Component 4: Judgmental procedure.
Component 5: Employee Dignity.
Component 6: Positive work environment.
Component 7: Organizational Commitment.
Component 8: Performance Appraisal.
Component 9: Compensation Procedure.
Component 10: Organizational Remarks.
 Component Transformation Matrix
Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 .514 .532 .367 .401 .342 .131 .108 .080 .056 .055
2 -.711 .526 .257 .049 -.228 .250 .047 .140 -.072 .087
3 .324 -.222 .555 -.352 -.504 .366 .075 -.015 -.020 .141
4 .225 .169 -.526 .325 -.533 .223 .346 -.103 -.261 -.086
5 .121 .432 -.260 -.753 .223 .136 .242 -.115 .046 -.149
6 -.131 -.313 -.147 .140 .344 .816 .017 .016 .206 -.126
7 .188 .242 -.242 -.077 -.150 .201 -.866 .111 -.042 .122
8 .082 -.004 -.126 -.042 -.185 -.087 .129 .821 .470 -.151
9 -.029 .139 .015 .111 -.254 -.067 -.076 -.514 .781 -.137
10 .006 .017 .226 .027 -.063 -.016 -.174 -.002 -.214 -.931

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
 CONCLUSION

It is found in our research study that there is significant

relationship between employee performance and the
organization which results found in Anova Table where F value
exists in acceptable range and also identified considerable t
value. Employee affective commitment and performance can
evaluate on the basis of correlation, regression, demographical
discussion and factor analysis where we also found 10
components which evaluate the overall research study.